MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030848959 · doi:10.2118/110121-pa

Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Borehole Ballooning in Rough Fractures

2009· article· en· W2030848959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Drilling & Completion · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallooningFracture (geology)BoreholeGeologyDrillingDrilling fluidSurface roughnessMechanicsSurface finishFractal dimensionFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringDeformation (meteorology)FractalMaterials scienceMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Borehole ballooning/breathing is a combined mud-loss/-gain event observed during drilling operations in naturally fractured formations. Factors controlling this phenomenon must be well understood to correctly interpret its symptoms observed during drilling to avoid mixing ballooning with other formation flow incidents that might lead to unwarranted well-control procedures. A mathematical model defining the ballooning process was developed and solved numerically using finite-difference approximation. It was shown that fracture roughness and fracture deformation play a significant role in the flow of drilling fluid in and out of a single fracture. In this study, the focus was mainly on the effect of fracture roughness (characterized by the fractal dimension of the fracture surface) and fracture aperture. The main goal of this work was to compare the numerical-model results with laboratory-scale experimental observations. Therefore, experiments were performed to study the mud-loss and -gain events in artificially fractured rock samples. Cylinders of Berea sandstone, Indiana limestone, and granite were used for the experiments (1-in. diameter, 3-in. length). Two different fracture types were used to analyze the effect of fracture-surface roughness on the flow of drilling fluid in and out of the fracture. To create smooth fracture surfaces, cores were cut precisely into two equal pieces using a blade. Alternatively, axial load was applied on the cylindrical rock samples until a longitudinal fracture with a rough surface was generated. The results of experimental observations and numerical-model study on the importance of fracture roughness were provided. Situations where the degree of roughness becomes critical were identified.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it