MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210554817 · doi:10.3390/mining2010004

Thermoporoelastoplastic Wellbore Breakout Modeling by Finite Element Method

2022· article· en· W4210554817 on OpenAlexaff
Lijing Zhang, Hua Zhang, Kezhen Hu, Zhuoheng Chen, Shunde Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueMining · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakoutWellboreGeologyFinite element methodDrillingStress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drilling a hole into rock results in stress concentration and redistribution close to the hole. When induced stresses exceed the rock strength, wellbore breakouts will happen. Research on wellbore breakout is the fundamental of wellbore stability. A wellbore breakout is a sequence of stress concentrations, rock falling, and stress redistributions, which involve initiation, propagation, and stabilization sequences. Therefore, simulating the process of a breakout is very challenging. Thermoporoelastoplastic models for wellbore breakout analysis are rare due to the high complexity of the problem. In this paper, a fully coupled thermoporoelastoplastic finite element model is built to study the mechanism of wellbore breakouts. The process of wellbore breakouts, the influence of temperature and the comparison between thermoporoelastic and thermoporoelastoplastic models are studied in the paper. For the finite element modeling, the D-P criterion is used to determine whether rock starts to yield or not, and the maximum tensile strain criterion is used to determine whether breakouts have happened.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiningSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207