Laboratory-scale hydraulic pulse testing: influence of air fraction in cavity on estimation of permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When performing transient hydraulic pulse tests on porous materials in the laboratory it is implicitly assumed that the accessible pore space of a porous medium and the pressurised fluid-filled cavity are completely saturated with the permeating fluid. In certain instances the pressurised fluid cavity in a hydraulic pulse test can contain an air fraction introduced through either the experimental procedure or released from the unsaturated regions of the porous medium. The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of an air fraction within the pressurised region, on the estimation of permeability derived from transient hydraulic pulse tests. A series of hydraulic pulse tests conducted on Stanstead Granite was used to estimate the permeability of the rock. It is shown that if the effect of the cavity air fraction is omitted from the analysis of the hydraulic pulse test, the permeability can be underestimated. The paper also presents a discussion of the potential role the air fraction can contribute to discrepancies in the permeabilities estimated from steady-state tests and hydraulic pulse tests.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".