Integrated Characterization of Sand Production for Clayey-Silt Hydrate Formations by Coupling Geomechanics and Pressure Gradient-Based Sand Failure Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, a robust and pragmatic technique is developed to characterize the sediment deformation and sand production for clayey-silt sediments in the absence and presence of hydrate by coupling reservoir simulation and geomechanics. Such an integrated model considers the pressure gradient-based (PGB) sand failure criterion, changes in both porosity and permeability, and the three-dimensional (3D) displacement dynamics (i.e., deformation). Within the modified hydrate reservoir simulator, its geological module including displacement dynamics and changes in porosity and permeability due to deformation is solved with the staggered grid finite difference approach. Subsequently, the proposed model is validated by reproducing the experimentally measured profiles for both hydrate-free and hydrate-bearing sediments under various conditions. Excellent agreements between the measured profiles and simulation data have been achieved. It is found that, for the radial consolidation, the unconsolidated clayey-silt sediment is excessively compressed with a slight increase in external pressure (σex<0.50 MPa), and then the compaction rate slows down. Consistent with the gas and water production, the sediment subsidence is also composed of three stages, i.e., before hydrate dissociation (confining stress dominated), during hydrate dissociation (both confining stress and hydrate cementing effect), and after hydrate dissociation (confining stress dominated). The numerical results show that the sediment subsidence plays a critical role in porosity variation compared with sand creeping (i.e., development of wormholes or fluidization channels), while the permeability increment from the sand creeping substantially exceeds the permeability impairment from sediment subsidence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".