MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032677464 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0025.1

Numerical modeling of seismicity induced by fluid injection in naturally fractured reservoirs

2011· article· en· W2032677464 on OpenAlexaff
Xueping Zhao, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismGeologyHydraulic fracturingInduced seismicityFracture (geology)GeomechanicsGeotechnical engineeringFluid dynamicsStress fieldDeformation (meteorology)SeismologyMechanicsFinite element methodEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The interaction between hydraulic and natural fractures is of great interest for the energy resource industry because natural fractures can significantly influence the overall geometry and effectiveness of hydraulic fractures. Microseismic monitoring provides a unique tool to monitor the evolution of fracturing around the treated rock reservoir, and seismic source mechanisms can yield information about the nature of deformation. We performed a numerical modeling study using a 2D distinct-element particle flow code (PFC2D) to simulate realistic conditions and increase understanding of fracturing mechanisms in naturally fractured reservoirs, through comparisons with results of the geometry of hydraulic fractures and seismic source information (locations, magnitudes, and mechanisms) from both laboratory experiments and field observations. A suite of numerical models with fully dynamic and hydromechanical coupling was used to examine the interaction between natural and induced fractures, the effect of orientation of a preexisting fracture, the influence of differential stress, and the relationship between the fluid front, fracture tip, and induced seismicity. The numerical results qualitatively agree with the laboratory and field observations, and suggest possible mechanics for new fracture development and their interaction with a natural fracture (e.g., a tectonic fault). Therefore, the tested model could help in investigating the potential extent of induced fracturing in naturally fractured reservoirs, and in interpreting microseismic monitoring results to assess the effectiveness of a hydraulic fracturing project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207