Inflow Control Devices Placement: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Nowadays, it is common to use horizontal wells to improve the oil production rate. The production rate varies along the horizontal well because of either frictional pressure losses (the heel-toe effect) or reservoir heterogeneity. Such a flux variability in zones close to the bottomwater and gas cap leads to water and gas breakthroughs. To mitigate water (or gas) coning, inflow control devices (ICDs) have become a standard practice to control instability and improve uniformity in the inflow profile. These devices help delay the water (or gas) breakthroughs by exerting a greater restriction on high water/oil ratio (or gas/oil ratio) zones. In the design and analysis of ICDs, the only sensible method is to model these tools using the numerical simulation that couples the well and the reservoir. Reservoir and production engineers formulate the ICD characteristics using expensive and time-consuming flow loop testing. In some scenarios, fluid flow simulations using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are used to compare the results with the flow loop. However, owing to convergency issues in CFD and the unavailability of an established framework, the CFD results are not used to formulate the ICDs in the reservoir models. Instead, different types of empirical correlations are used to describe the ICDs, which require many empirical factors, causing inconsistencies in calculations. In this study, we first use CFD to characterize an orifice-based ICD in terms of the Reynolds number. Then, the results are formulated in a correlation that provides a consistent approach from CFD to well/reservoir modeling. Using such a framework, operators can ensure their prototypes are suitable for any specific problem by altering the geometry and simulating several scenarios from CFD to well/reservoir model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".