MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596049287 · doi:10.3390/en11030489

A Comparison of Thermal Models for Temperature Profiles in Gas-Lift Wells

2018· article· en· W2596049287 on OpenAlexaff
Langfeng Mu, Qiushi Zhang, Qi Li, Fanhua Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas liftArtificial liftLift (data mining)Heat transferMechanicsThermodynamicsMass transferAnnulus (botany)ThermalPetroleum engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas lift is a simple, reliable artificial lift method which is frequently used in offshore oil field developments. In order to enhance the efficiency of production by gas lift, it is vital to exactly predict the distribution of temperature-field for fluid within the wellbore. A new mechanistic model is developed for computing flowing fluid temperature profiles in both conduits simultaneously for a continuous-flow gas-lift operation. This model assumes steady heat transfer in the formation, as well as steady heat transfer in the conduits. A micro-units discrete from the wellbore, whose heat transfer process is analyzed and whose heat transfer equation is set up according to the law of conservation of energy. A simplified algebraic solution to our model is conducted to analyze the temperature profile. Sensitivity analysis was conducted with the new model. The results indicate that mass flow rate of oil and the tubing overall heat transfer coefficient are the main factors that influence the temperature distribution inside the tubing and that the mass flow rate of oil is the main factor affecting temperature distribution in the annulus. Finally, the new model was tested in three various wells and compared with other models. The results showed that the new model is more accurate and provides significant references for temperature prediction in gas lift well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207