EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE PERMEABILITY IN COMPOSITE CORES: EFFECT OF ORDERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental studies and in particular core flood tests are key elements in understanding the fluid flow in porous media. To minimize capillary end effect and obtain adequate data, it is strongly suggest that core flood experiments he performed using longer core samples or composite cores. Although a number of researchers have studied different fluid flow characteristics in composite cores, more studies are still necessary to fill the knowledge gaps, particularly in areas such as the effects of individual core ordering on absolute and relative permeability values of composite cores. The aim of this study was to find the best arrangement in the composite core system, and therefore a generalized criterion, by comparing absolute and relative permeability data to the average of individual core samples. Unsteady-state, two-phase core flood tests were conducted using three different individual core samples and different arrangements of individuals in composite core, i.e., ascending, descending, and the Huppler's arrangement. Analysis of the results revealed that for both absolute and relative permeability, descending arrangement leads to the most accurate values when compared with the average absolute and relative permeability values of individual core samples. In addition, it is realized that descending arrangement gives a higher recovery factor than the other two arrangements. According to the results of this study, it is greatly recommended to stack the individual core samples in descending order to minimize the errors in experimental determination of absolute and relative permeability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".