Validity Standards for Digital Rock Imaging and Analysis
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, ISSN: 1876-1119, Vol: 1257 LNEE, Page: 169-183
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
In digital rock study of pore distribution and seepage mechanism using Micro-/Nano-CT, FIB-SEM, and so on, the samples are generally tiny with very limited scanning area, whose representativeness has been questioned. Microscale researches have been done on large number of samples with different lithology, different mineral composition, and different permeability. However, there is still no specific technical standards to refer to as which kind of scanning method to choose, how high the resolution to use, how big the sample to cut, and whether the targeted porous medium component is representative. This study used different methods to scan shale, sandstone, and carbonate rock samples, and the validity of scanning methods, resolution, sample size and targeted component is analyzed. Results show that, the resolution should be determined according to the major distribution range of pores. Porous medium components with diameters less than 10 voxels cannot be effectively described in shape or in actual size. In terms of sample size, the length of the sample cube should be no less than 500 voxels to ensure a valid sample space, regardless of the scanning method and the rock lithology. Within a defined sample space, only the distribution of porous medium component with the diameter smaller than 1/5 cube length demonstrates certain regularity. These validity criteria should be applicable to digital rock analysis of other reservoir rock samples with similar lithology.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85203605541&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7146-2_16; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-97-7146-2_16; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7146-2_16; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-97-7146-2_16
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know