New Iterative Coupling between a Reservoir Simulator and a Geomechanics Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interactions of solid mechanics and fluid flow have been studied by numerous researchers for the past several years. Different methods of coupling such as full coupling, iterative coupling, etc., have been used. Nevertheless, the accuracy and the large run time of the coupled solid-mechanics fluid-flow model are outstanding issues that prevent the application of the coupled model in full-field studies. In this work, a novel relationship of porosity as a function of pressure, temperature and mean total stress is developed for iterative coupling of stress and flow. The new formula not only improves the accuracy of the coupling, but also reduces substantially the number of coupling iterations. The latter feature decreases significantly the CPU time. The new approach was implemented in a modular, iteratively coupled system. The rapid convergence provides the equivalent of a fully coupled method that is necessary to investigate complex coupled problems. The main advantage of this type of coupling is that a geomechanics module can be easily coupled with different reservoir simulators. The paper gives some comparisons of results obtained by the new porosity formula with another formulation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".