MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement of Capillary Pressure Curve of DNAPL in a Water-Saturated Sandstone Fracture

2011· article· en· W2109287788 on OpenAlexafffund
W. M. S. B. Weerakone, R.C.K. Wong, Anil K. Mehrotra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCapillary pressureCapillary actionSaturation (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringFracture (geology)Materials scienceGeologyPorous mediumMechanicsMineralogyComposite materialPorosityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a methodology for the measurement of the capillary pressure curve of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) in a water-saturated sandstone induced fracture. Details of specimen preparation, capillary barrier design, and capillary pressure measurement setup, procedure, and results are given. The aperture distribution of the induced fracture was estimated using the X-ray computed tomography (CT) technique. The primary drainage or invasion of DNAPLs in the water-saturated induced fracture was simulated using the invasion percolation (IP) approach. It was found that the invasion process was highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the fracture apertures. The IP model matched the experimentally measured entry pressure very well but deviated from the measured capillary pressure curve at the midrange and high nonwetting phase saturations. The IP model tended to yield an L-shaped function with a fairly flat portion at the midrange saturation and a sharp rise at the high end. The measured capillary pressure curve was observed to follow the well-known Brooks-Corey porous media function. These discrepancies between the measured and predicted results could be attributed to the fact that the IP model did not consider the effects of fracture surface roughness and undulation. For a fracture with small apertures, these two factors could make the fracture behave more as a porous medium than a parallel-plate channel.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207