MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782554222 · doi:10.2118/189892-ms

Visual Analysis on the Effects of Fracture-Surface Characteristics and Rock Type on Proppant Transport in Vertical Fractures

2018· article· en· W2782554222 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)GeologySurface roughnessSurface finishHydraulic fracturingGeotechnical engineeringFractal dimensionFractalPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The fracture-surface characteristics (such as roughness and fractal dimensions) may greatly affect the proppant transport during hydraulic fracturing operation. Few researches have focused on investigating the proppant transport in vertical fracture with actual surface characteristics. As a continuation of our previous study (Huang et al. 2017), we qualitatively investigatethe migration of proppants in rough and vertical fractures by considering the effects of surface characteristics and rock type on the instantaneous transport and areal spreading of proppant in the fractures. We fractured different types of tight rocks (including limestone, marble, tight sandstone, and granite) with Brazilian test and molded them to manufacture 20×20cm transparent replicas with an aperture of 1 mm. We characterized the surface characteristics of these rock samples with different fractal dimensions. Subsequently, dyed fracturing fluid with or without proppant loading was injected into the rough vertical fracture. In each test, we monitored the inlet pressure continuously while the proppants were being transported in the fracture. The process was videotaped to monitor the proppant distribution in the rough fracture. Different from our previous study (Huang et al. 2017), a higher injection rate is used in this present study. The experimental results obtained in this study further consolidate the many findings reported in our recent study (Huang et al. 2017): in rough and narrow fracture, the surface roughness plays a pivotal role in affecting how proppants settle in the fracture as well as where the proppants settle in the fracture. Roughness of the vertical fractures tends to significantly enhance the vertical placement of proppants in the fracture, leading to a much higher proppant-filling ratio in a rough fracture than in a smooth fracture. Interestingly, in addition to the bridging effect observed in Huang et al. (2017), a previously formed proppants cluster can be broken up under a higher-rate slurry flow. The bridging of proppants and its subsequent breaking up can recursively occur during the high-rate slurry flow, resulting in fluctuations in the proppant filling ratios as well as fluctuations in the pressure profiles recorded in the inlet of the fracture model. The roughness of fracture models not only affects how much area of the fracture is being occupied by the proppants in the fracture, but also affects how tightly the proppants are filling up the fracture. Different types of rock have different surface characteristics, leading to the observed differences with regard to how the proppants migrate, settle down and fill up the fractures. No definite correlation could be established between any of the fractal numbers and the relative coverage of proppants in the fracture. More experiments, however, need to be conducted to reach more concrete conclusions in this regard.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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