Mechanical and anisotropic properties of the Duvernay Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive understanding of the mechanical properties of shale formations facilitates safer and more efficient hydrocarbon development. We assess the mechanical properties and anisotropic behavior of the Duvernay Formation in Alberta using the results of laboratory tests conducted on formation core samples. The laboratory test results analyzed in this study include unconfined compressive strength, triaxial compression, Brazilian tests, and ultrasonic wave velocity tests on core samples cut at various orientations to the stratigraphic bedding planes. All laboratory test results analyzed in this study were retrieved from publicly available Alberta Energy Regulator-filed core analysis reports. The Thomsen anisotropy parameter findings indicate vertical transverse isotropy in the Duvernay core samples, largely influenced by clay content. Our analysis indicates that the mechanical properties of these Duvernay core samples also reflect this anisotropic behavior. Additionally, we develop a relationship between dynamic and static Young’s moduli and also investigate the differences in Young’s modulus during loading and unloading phases. The findings of this study, particularly the characterization of anisotropic mechanical properties, have practical implications for optimizing drilling operations and guiding hydraulic fracturing design in the Duvernay Formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".