MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793984285 · doi:10.1071/aseg2018abp055

Drained pore modulus determination using digital rock technology

2018· article· en· W2793984285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shakil Ahmed, Tobias M. Müller, Mahyar Madadi, Victor M. Calo

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoromechanicsGeomechanicsGeologyPore water pressureCompactionBulk modulusModulusGeotechnical engineeringDeformation (meteorology)Representative elementary volumeVolume (thermodynamics)MineralogyMaterials sciencePorosityPorous mediumComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geomechanics helps us understand the life-cycle of a hydrocarbon reservoir and, in turn, impacts geophysical monitoring programs. A common geomechanical problem is to predict reservoir compaction or zones of abnormal pore pressure. These predictions mostly use simple empirical relations, but recently, the use of rock deformation models based on static poroelasticity are becoming the norm. These models require accurate values for the poroelastic parameters. We present a digital rock workflow to determine these poroelastic parameters which are difficult to extract from well-log or laboratory measurements. The drained pore modulus is determinant in the compaction problem. This modulus represents the ratio of pore volume change to confining pressure when the fluid pressure is constant. In laboratory experiments, bulk volume changes are accurately measured by sensors attached to the outer surface of the rock sample. In contrast, pore volume changes are notoriously difficult to measure because these changes need to quantify the pore boundary deformation. Hence, accurate measures of the drained pore modulus are challenging. We simulate static deformation experiments at the pore-scale utilizing digital rock images. We model an Ottawa F-42 sand pack obtained from X-ray micro-tomographic images. We stack two-dimensional micro-CT images to generate a three-dimensional F-42 sand pack sample. We extract a sub-volume from this sample for numerical simulation. We first segment the cropped sample consists of grains and pore spaces and then use the segmentation to generate a volumetric mesh. We compute the elastic, linear momentum balance in the structural domain (grains) and solve the system using the commercial software package ABAQUS. The network of grains (solid phase) is assumed elastic, isotropic, and homogeneous. We calculate the change in pore volume using a new post-processing algorithm, which allows us to compute the local changes in pore volume due to the applied load. This process yields an accurate drained pore modulus. We then use an alternative estimate of the drained pore modulus. We exploit its relation to the drained bulk modulus and the solid phase bulk modulus (i.e., Biot’s coefficient) using the digital rock workflow. Finally, we compare the drained pore modulus values obtained from these two independent analyses and find reasonable agreement.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207