Numerical Investigation of the Impacts of Borehole Breakouts on Breakdown Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borehole breakouts appear in drilling and production operations when rock subjected to in situ stress experiences shear failure. However, if a borehole breakout occurs, the boundary of the borehole is no longer circular and the stress distribution around it is different. So, the interpretation of the hydraulic fracturing test results based on the Kirsch solution may not be valid. Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors that may affect the correct interpretation of the breakdown pressure in a hydraulic fracturing test for a borehole that had breakouts. In this paper, two steps are taken to implement this investigation. First, sets of finite element modeling provide sets of data on borehole breakout measures. Second, for a given measure of borehole breakouts, according to the linear relation between the mud pressure and the stress on the borehole wall, the breakdown pressure considering the borehole breakouts is acquired by applying different mud pressure in the model. Results show the difference between the breakdown pressure of a circular borehole and that of borehole that had breakouts could be as large as 82% in some situations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".