Poro-Mechanical Coupling for Flow Diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accounting for poro-mechanical effects in full-field reservoir simulation studies and uncertainty quantification workflows using complex reservoir models is challenging, mainly because of the high computational cost. We hence introduce an alternative approach that couples hydrodynamics through existing flow diagnostics simulations with poro-mechanics to screen the impact of coupled poro-mechanical processes on reservoir performance without significantly increasing computational overheads. In flow diagnostics, time-of-flight distributions and influence regions can be used to characterise the flow field in the reservoir, which depends on the distribution of petrophysical properties that are altered due to production-induced changes in pore pressure and effective stress. These extended flow diagnostics calculations hence enable us to quickly screen how the dynamics in the reservoirs (e.g. reservoir connectivity, displacement efficiency, and well allocation factors) are affected by the complex interactions between poro-mechanics and hydrodynamics. Our poro-mechanically informed flow diagnostics account for steady-state and single-phase flow conditions based on the poro-elastic theory and assume that the reservoir does not contain fractures. Fluid flow and rock deformation calculations are coupled sequentially. The equations are discretised using a finite-volume method with two-point flux-approximation and the virtual element method, respectively. The solution of the coupled system considers stress-dependent permeabilities. Due to the steady-state nature of the calculations and the effective proposed coupling strategy, these calculations remain computationally efficient while providing first-order approximations of the interplay between poro-mechanics and hydrodynamics, as we demonstrate through a series of case studies. The extended flow diagnostic approach hence provides an efficient complement to traditional reservoir simulation and uncertainty quantification workflows and enable us to assess a broader range of reservoir uncertainties.
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".