Aperture Design Optimization of Wire-Wrapped Screens for SAGD Production Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wire-wrapped screens have been established as one of the primary sand control devices in Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) wells due to the high open-to-flow area and superior plugging attributes. However, their design is still a point of interest for thermal operations. Generally, existing approaches rely on one or more particular points of reservoir sands’ particle size distribution (PSD) and rules of thumb inferred from other devices like the slotted liners. This study used Sand Retention Testing (SRT) to analyze the performance of WWS under various testing conditions, which were neglected in the current design criteria. The experimental investigation leads to a set of graphical design criteria that provide an optimum aperture size window. The results show that the sand retention performance of WWS is highly dependent on the flow velocities of the wetting phase. Moreover, the testing showed satisfactory plugging performance of WWS even with narrow aperture sizes, proving a superior performance for low-quality oil sands.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".