Innovative Design of the Solid Expandable Tubular to Patch the Casing: Area Below the Previously Installed Expandable Tubular
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solid expandable tubular was widely used for casing patching and proved to be cost effective, however, when the damaged area of the casing is exactly located below the position previously applied by this technology, conventional expandable tubular may not be the choice to do the job since the tubular could not be positioned smoothly due to the loss of the wellbore size caused by the previously installed tubular. The paper discussed an innovative design of the expandable tubular to meet this challenge. Basically the new design involves putting the expansion tool outside the tubular, as a result the expansion ratio could be maximized and the tubular without launcher could pass through smaller wellbore, specifically the outer diameter of the tubular and the maximum diameter of the expansion tool were the same. The tubular could be put upon the inclined plane of expansion tool as it was delivered into the well, the expansion tool was powered by a piston cylinder and an anchor was used to fix the tubular during the expansion. In the field application, the tubular was equipped with two expansion tools at its two ends, the upper end of the tubular was cut thinner in order to secure the expansion of this part firstly and the expanded tubular do not touch the casing after expansion. After passing through the previously patched area, we used the hydraulic power to expand the upper end of the tubular and then raised the whole set of the tubular upward until it was stopped by the lower end of tubular installed last time, the mechanical plus hydraulic force were applied to finish the whole expansion, the field experiment was a success. This innovative design will further enhance the passing ability, expansion ratio and filed efficiency of the expandable tubular; preparing this technology better performance in the mono-diameter well.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".