Poroelastoplastic Borehole Modeling by Tangent Stiffness Matrix Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stability of borehole is a major concern in petroleum and geotechnical engineering. Subsurface fossil fuel and thermal energy extraction, deep geologic carbon/energy storage, and waste disposal require sophisticated borehole modeling. In many instances in deep well drilling, rock exhibits a plastic behavior rather than a pure linear elastic behavior. Rock is a porous material consisting of a compressible solid matrix and number of compressible fluids occupying the pore space, so numerical analysis of complex borehole problems based on nonlinear poromechanics is indispensable. In computer methods for nonlinear poromechanics, it is expected that the tangent stiffness method is more efficient than the constant stiffness method because the number of iterations can be reduced; however, the speculation has not been corroborated, especially when applied in borehole engineering. To investigate the computational efficiency of the two methods, fully coupled poroelastoplastic borehole modeling was implemented by both the tangent stiffness and initial (or constant) stiffness methods. Results showed that the two calculation methods are consistent, and the computational performance of the tangent stiffness method is superior to the initial stiffness method based on borehole modeling, reflected in the significantly reduced number of iterations and total running time required.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".