MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937119392 · doi:10.2118/195359-ms

A Correlation for Estimating Biot Coefficient

2019· article· en· W2937119392 on OpenAlexafffund
Qi Li, Roberto Aguilera, Héber Cinco Ley

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsBiot numberCorrelation coefficientPorosityGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)ModulusBulk modulusGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceMathematicsMechanicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this paper is to develop an easy to use correlation for estimating Biot coefficient. This is important as Biot coefficient plays an important role in solving many practical petroleum engineering problems, including for example, design of hydraulic fracturing jobs and estimation of in-situ closure stress on proppant. The procedure for developing the proposed empirical correlation uses data from various lithologies including limestone, sandstone, shale, marble and granite. Thus, the correlation has application in conventional and unconventional petroleum reservoirs. Use of the correlation requires knowledge of permeability and porosity, data commonly available in petroleum engineering (on the other hand Biot coefficient data is almost never available). The ratio of permeability and porosity, commonly known as process or delivery speed and pore throat aperture (rp35), are input for estimating Biot coefficient from the correlation proposed in this paper. The correlation is useful in those cases where sophisticated experimental work needed for estimating Biot poroelastic coefficient is not available. Testing against various data sets indicates that the proposed correlation provides reasonable results. In the past, methods with different complexity levels have been used for estimating Biot coefficient. These have included, for example, (1) a method that requires knowledge of bulk modulus of the rock mineral and bulk modulus of the skeleton with no fluids in it, parameters that are not usually available for petroleum reservoirs, (2) a method that is based on knowledge of only porosity, (3) a method that is based on knowledge of only permeability, and (4) an approach that simply assumes that Biot coefficient is equal to 1.0 or some other number. The proposed correlation falls somewhere in the middle. It is not as simple as saying that Biot coefficient is equal to 1, or saying that it depends on only porosity, or only permeability. On the other hand, it is not as complex as requiring sophisticated laboratory work of the type mentioned in item (1) above. The novelty of this work is the development of an original easy to use correlation for estimating Biot coefficient in conventional and unconventional (tight and shale) reservoirs based on knowledge of k/ϕ and rp35. The correlation is developed in such a way that it has also application for estimating Biot coefficient in the case of unconsolidated petroleum reservoirs and oil sands. The overall approach allows integration of geomechanics with flow units, geology, petrophysics, and reservoir engineering.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Western Regional MeetingSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207