Sand Prediction by Different Criteria and a Validation by a Perforated Test in a Sandstone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sand production in a perforated sample is determined by the onset of a significant discrepancy between strains in two orthogonal directions. The onset is also analyzed by three different sanding models, i.e., shear failure, cohesive tensile failure, and the effective plastic strain (EPS) models, respectively. Comparing these results, we conclude that the results with the shear failure criterion provide the most conservative prediction, and the EPS can provide the closest results to the testing one, given adequate plastic yielding and sanding parameters. Comparing with the cylindrical cases (open hole), both the plastic radius and critical strains calculated for the perforated cavity (cased hole) cases are calculated. A critical equivalent plastic displacement (EPD) is proposed as only one additional parameter is required on top of those from a typical elastoplastic model and such a criterion allows us to determine the sanding onset directly, those using stress, strength or strain whereas can only be indicated or interpreted indirectly, yet difficult to measure in practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".