Coupled Fluid Flow to Geomechanics in Fractued Reservoir: Governing Equation, Geomechanics Parameters and Numerical Method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effectiveness of a hydraulic fracturing technology has been primarily attributed to a creation of the geometry in the primary fracture. This concept however has been challenged particularly in low-permeability formations in which the size of a Stimulating Reservoir Volume (SRV) becomes the most important issue. Unlike the primary fracture, the area in the SRV is controlled by the fundamental geomechanics behaviors of the formation and a secondary fracture network propagation with possible different modes, and more importantly by the formation permeability change which is controlled by the induced stresses near the primary fracture. In this paper, the induced stresses near a hydraulic fracture in a pure elastic, poroelastic, dual-porosity media are analyzed and compared in order to characterize the low-permeability, sandstone and fractured formations, respectively. The general formulation for a fractured reservoir by a dual porosity model is developed and pore pressures and stresses near a wellbore and a hydraulic fracture are highlighted for production enhancement as the permeability change near a wellbore or a hydraulic fracture may contribute to such an enhancement significantly. Those key parameters controlling the pressure and stresses change and numerical method used are analyzed and presented.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it