MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025084681 · doi:10.1063/5.0001607

Gravel packing: How does it work?

2020· article· en· W3025084681 on OpenAlexafffund
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi, I.A. Frigaard

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMechanicsBoreholeWork (physics)SlurryPhysicsHydraulic conductivityFlow (mathematics)Fluid mechanicsGeotechnical engineeringCoupling (piping)Petroleum engineeringGeologyThermodynamicsMaterials scienceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil and gas wells undergo completion operations before being able to produce. In the case where the surrounding reservoir is poorly consolidated, a popular method is open hole gravel packing. This proceeds by pumping a sand suspension along the annular region between the borehole wall and a cylindrical screen, sized to allow hydraulic conductivity but to prevent the passage of sand. Kilometers of sand can be successfully placed in horizontal wells, in what is called α–β packing. Although widely used, there is no clear and concise explanation of how these operations work, i.e., How does a steady (and apparently stable) traveling α-wave emerge? We develop such a model and explanation here. We explain how bed height is selected via coupling between the inner and outer annuli and from the combined hydraulic relations of inner and outer annuli. We investigate the effects of important parameters such as the slurry flow rate, mean solid concentration, washpipe diameter, and leak-off rate on gravel packing flows, to give a fluid mechanics framework within which this process can be easily understood.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207