Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

On boundedness and growth of unsteady solutions under the double porosity/permeability model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Unsteady solutions of the transient double porosity/permeability model are Lyapunov stable and grow at most linearly in time, giving a simple norm check for numerical simulators.

desk verdict Keep the growth bound, fix the stability claim: Section 3's Lyapunov functional is assumed, not constructed, and zero is not an equilibrium for the paper's own Case 1. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05771 v2 pith:XW5ZW3UX submitted 2019-08-15 math.NA cs.NA

K. B. Nakshatrala This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 35B3576S0565M6035Q35
keywords doubleporosity/permeabilityLyapunovstabilityboundedsolutionstransientresponseflowthroughporousmedialineargrowthboundaposterioriverificationanisotropicpermeability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes two properties of the transient double porosity/permeability (DPP) model, which describes incompressible flow in a porous medium with two pore networks that exchange mass. First, unsteady solutions are stable in the Lyapunov sense, so small deviations from equilibrium do not amplify without control. Second, under homogeneous boundary conditions the solution norm grows at most linearly in time, with the explicit bound $\|\Upsilon\|_V \le t\, f_{\max} + c$, where $f_{\max}$ is the largest norm of the forcing and $c$ is the norm of the initial data. Because analytical solutions for the DPP model are scarce, especially with anisotropic permeabilities, the linear bound gives a direct, non-intrusive after-the-fact check on numerical simulations: a computed norm that crosses the line $t f_{\max}+c$ indicates a likely defect in the implementation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is dissipativity of the evolution operator $\mathcal{L}$ on the weighted product space $\mathbb{V} = (L^2(\Omega))^{nd}\times(L^2(\Omega))^{nd}$ equipped with the inner product $\langle \Upsilon;\tilde{\Upsilon}\rangle_{\mathbb{V}} = \int_\Omega(\rho_1 v_1\cdot\tilde v_1+\rho_2 v_2\cdot\tilde v_2)\,d\Omega$. The identity that carries the argument is $\langle \Upsilon;\mathcal{L}\rangle_{\mathbb{V}} \le -\langle \frac{\beta}{\mu}(p_1-p_2);(p_1-p_2)\rangle \le 0$, obtained by substituting the momentum equations, integrating by parts, and using the mass-balance equations (2.5)-(2.6). This single inequality does the work: it makes the Lyapunov functional non-increasing along trajectories and converts the growth calculation into an integrable differential inequality. The accompanying defined object is the Lyapunov functional of equation (3.3), whose potential-energy part $\Pi_{\mathrm{ext}}-\Pi_{\mathrm{ext}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ is assumed to satisfy the instantaneous-equality conditions (3.5)-(3.6).

What would settle it

Run the DPP model with the paper's Case 1 body force, $b_1=b_2=(10\sin(\pi x t),5\sin(2\pi x y t))$, and evaluate $\dot V$ from equation (3.7); if $\dot V$ becomes non-negative while $\Upsilon\neq 0$, the general Lyapunov-stability claim fails for time-dependent forcing. Separately, if a converged numerical norm ever exceeds $t f_{\max}+c$, the linear growth bound is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unsteady solutions of the transient DPP model, with time-independent volume fractions and fluid density, positive definite permeabilities, and homogeneous velocity boundary conditions, are Lyapunov stable and satisfy the linear growth estimate $\|\Upsilon(x,t)\|_V \le t\, f_{\max} + c$, equation (4.24), with $f_{\max} = \max_{t\in[0,T]}\|f\|_V$ and $c = \|\Upsilon(x,0)\|_V$. The proof works by showing that the evolution operator $\mathcal{L}$ is dissipative on the weighted space $\mathbb{V}$: the mass-balance coupling between the two pore networks contributes a non-positive term, $-\langle \frac{\beta}{\mu}(p_1-p_2),(p_1-p_2)\rangle$, so that $\langle \Upsilon;\mathcal{L}\rangle_{\mathbb{V}} \le 0$. This dissipativity turns the evolution equation into the differential inequality $\frac{d}{dt}\|\Upsilon\|_V \le \|f\|_V$, whose integration yields the bound. The paper also constructs a Lyapunov functional $V(\Upsilon) = \frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega(\rho_1 v_1\cdot v_1 + \rho_2 v_2\cdot v_2)\,d\Omega + \Pi_{\mathrm{ext}} - \Pi_{\mathrm{ext}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ and shows formally that $dV/dt<0$ for $\Upsilon\neq 0$, provided the external loads are conservative and the equilibrium-potential conditions (3.5)-(3.6) hold.

Load-bearing premise

The Lyapunov-stability claim rests on the assumption that at every instant the external-load potential energy can be equated to the equilibrium potential energy at that same instant, with only the nonequilibrium part changing over time; the paper states this assumption rather than proving it, and time-dependent body forces need not satisfy it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every numerical solution of the transient DPP model, under the stated hypotheses, should keep $\|\Upsilon\|_V$ at or below the line $t f_{\max}+c$; crossing the line is a clear signal of an implementation error.
  • The bound remains valid for anisotropic permeability tensors, so it covers the regime where analytical DPP solutions are scarce and where verification by manufactured solutions is less natural.
  • Bounded forcing functions imply bounded growth in finite time: the solution norm cannot blow up faster than linearly, no matter how complex the pore-network mass transfer is.
  • The paper's finite-element example, using a stable mixed velocity-pressure pair, satisfies the bound, so the estimate is ready to be used as a routine after-the-fact verification procedure.
  • Under the conservative-loading assumptions of Section 3, the same analysis gives Lyapunov stability of the zero equilibrium in the dynamical-systems sense: nearby initial states do not undergo unbounded deviation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The linear-growth half of the paper is not affected by the potential-energy construction: the Section 4 dissipativity proof never invokes it, so a time-dependent body force that violates (3.5)-(3.6) would undermine the stability claim without touching equation (4.24).
  • A direct testable extension is to run the paper's Case 1 forcing, $b_1=b_2=(10\sin(\pi x t),5\sin(2\pi x y t))$, while monitoring the proposed functional $V$; seeing whether $dV/dt$ actually stays negative would separate the two results empirically.
  • The same dissipativity argument should carry over to pore networks with more than two networks, or to nonlinear couplings, as long as each permeability is positive definite and the mass-transfer terms enter as a non-positive quadratic form.
  • For verification practice, the bound is a necessary condition rather than a sufficient one: a compliant norm does not prove correctness, so the check is best combined with manufactured-solution or patch tests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the transient double porosity/permeability (DPP) model for incompressible flow in porous media with two pore networks. It claims two mathematical properties for unsteady solutions under homogeneous velocity boundary conditions: first, that the zero state Υeq = {0,0} is Lyapunov stable; second, that the weighted L2 norm of the velocity pair grows at most linearly with time, with the explicit bound ‖Υ‖V ≤ t·fmax + c given in equation (4.24). The Lyapunov argument in Section 3 is based on a candidate functional V that combines kinetic energy with external-load potentials Πext and Πeq_ext. The growth argument in Section 4 shows that the linear operator L is dissipative under homogeneous boundary conditions, and then integrates the resulting differential inequality. A numerical example with two body-force cases is used to illustrate how the bound can serve as an a posteriori verification tool for numerical implementations.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, the linear growth bound provides a simple, parameter-free, and non-intrusive verification tool for numerical solvers of the transient DPP model, including anisotropic media. The derivation of the growth bound in Section 4 is explicit and appears mathematically sound: the dissipativity computation leading to (4.19) and the subsequent integration to (4.24) are correct under the stated homogeneous boundary conditions, and the numerical comparison in Section 5 is a genuine independent check of the bound because the slope fmax and intercept c are computed directly from problem data rather than fitted. The Lyapunov-stability portion, however, is not established by the manuscript as written. The proof relies on assumptions about the existence and time-behavior of external-load potentials that are neither derived nor satisfied by the paper's own numerical cases. The stability claim therefore needs either a genuine construction of the Lyapunov functional under precise hypotheses or a reformulation to a setting where a fixed equilibrium actually exists.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, equations (3.3)–(3.6)] The Lyapunov functional V in (3.3) is not well-defined for the general transient DPP model. Equations (3.4)–(3.6) assert that a potential energy Πext for the external loadings exists, that Πext equals Πeq_ext at every evaluation instant, and that dΠeq_ext/dt = 0 while dΠext/dt ≠ 0. For a time-dependent or non-conservative body force such as Case 1 in Table 1, no such potential exists; for a time-dependent conservative force, the explicit time dependence contributes to dΠext/dt, so the cancellation of the ρb·v terms used to reach (3.11) is not justified. Moreover, if (3.5) holds at every t0, then Πext and Πeq_ext coincide as functions of time and their derivatives must coincide, contradicting (3.6). The proof needs either a precise construction of V under stated restrictions on the body force and boundary data, or a different stability argument. This issue is load-bearing because it is the only support for the paper's Lyapunov-stability claim.
  2. [Section 3, equations (2.3), (2.4), (3.2)] The equilibrium state Υeq = {0,0} is not a solution of the DPP system for a general body force. Setting v1 = v2 = 0 in (2.3) and (2.4) gives φ1 grad[p1] = ρ1b1 and φ2 grad[p2] = ρ2b2, which is solvable for scalar pressures only if curl(b1) = curl(b2) = 0; this condition fails for the paper's own Case 1, where b = (10 sin(πxt), 5 sin(2πxyt)) has nonzero curl and is time-dependent. For this case, the zero state is not an equilibrium, and Lyapunov stability of that state is not well-posed. The stability theorem must therefore be restricted to autonomous conservative body forces with a genuine fixed equilibrium, or reformulated in terms of a moving equilibrium trajectory.
  3. [Section 5, Table 1 and Figure 4] The numerical example does not validate the Lyapunov-stability claim, and in fact its Case 1 does not satisfy the hypotheses needed for that claim. The example only checks the linear growth bound (4.24), which is the Section 4 result. The abstract and Section 6 present both properties as established for the general transient DPP model, so the manuscript should clearly separate the two results and state the restrictive assumptions under which Lyapunov stability is claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (3.9)] The second pressure term in the Green's-identity step is written as ∫ div[φ1v2]p2 dΩ, but it should be ∫ div[φ2v2]p2 dΩ to match the micro-network equation; the subsequent line (3.10) uses the correct form.
  2. [Equation (4.3)] The second component of the vector L[Υ,p1,p2] has a missing closing parenthesis; it should be (−µφ2²K2⁻¹v2 − φ2 grad[p2])/ρ2.
  3. [Equations (4.15)–(4.19)] The notation ⟨Υ;L⟩V is not precise because L is an operator; the argument should be written as ⟨Υ;L[Υ,p1,p2]⟩V throughout the dissipativity calculation.
  4. [Equation (4.23)] The division by ‖Υ‖V requires the nonzero case; the trivial case ‖Υ‖V = 0 at isolated times should be handled by a continuity argument or stated explicitly.
  5. [Sections 3 and 4, boundary conditions] Section 3 explicitly allows non-homogeneous pressure boundary conditions, while Section 4 assumes homogeneous boundary conditions on the entire boundary; the abstract and Section 6 should make clear which boundary setting applies to each claimed result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the growth bound is derived from the PDE and verified a priori; Section 3's potential-energy assumptions are mathematical gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section 4 proves dissipativity of the operator L directly from the momentum and mass-balance equations, applies Cauchy-Schwarz to obtain d/dt ||Υ||_V ≤ ||f||_V, and integrates to the bound ||Υ||_V ≤ t f_max + c. The constants f_max and c are computed from the prescribed body force and initial condition, not fitted to the numerical solution; the numerical experiment merely checks that the computed norm remains below that a priori line, which is an independent verification rather than a prediction forced by construction. Section 3's Lyapunov argument does rely on an asserted potential-energy construction and on equations (3.5)-(3.6), but this is an unproved assumption or a correctness gap, not a circular step: the claimed derivative inequality is not identical to an input, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is renamed as a result. The self-citations to the DPP model and to uniqueness results supply background and hypotheses; they do not carry the stability or growth conclusion. In particular, the bound (4.24) follows without invoking any of the paper's own previous theorems, so the central growth result is not circular. Section 3's stability claim may be insufficiently supported for non-conservative or time-dependent loads, but that concern is about validity, not about the derivation reducing to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no new fitted parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard existence and smoothness of solutions, homogeneous velocity boundary conditions, time-independent volume fractions and density, and a potential-energy construction for the Lyapunov argument that is not fully justified.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unsteady solutions to the DPP initial-boundary value problem exist and are sufficiently smooth for time differentiation, Green's identity, and the norm evolution identity (4.20).
    No existence, uniqueness, or regularity theorem is proved in the paper; the energy estimates in Sections 3 and 4 assume a classical or sufficiently regular solution exists.
  • ad hoc to paper External loadings are conservative and the equilibrium potential Πeq_ext is constant in time at the evaluation instant, so V in (3.3) is a non-increasing state functional.
    Equations (3.4)-(3.6) define Πext through its time derivative and assert Πext = Πeq_ext and dΠeq_ext/dt = 0, which is not justified for time-dependent or non-conservative loads; Case 1 in Table 1 uses a non-conservative body force.
  • domain assumption Velocity boundary conditions are homogeneous (no-flow) on the boundary where velocities are prescribed, and for the growth bound the entire boundary has homogeneous conditions.
    Stated before equation (3.1) and in Section 4; the results do not extend to non-homogeneous velocity boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption Volume fractions and true density are independent of time: ∂φ_i/∂t = 0 and ∂γ/∂t = 0.
    Equations (2.9)-(2.10) in Section 2, inherited from the DPP model of Nakshatrala et al. 2018.
  • standard math Bulk densities are bounded above and below by finite positive constants, so the norms ||·|| and ||·||_V are equivalent.
    Equations (4.13)-(4.14) in Section 4 used to justify the weighted inner product.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On boundedness and growth of unsteady solutions under the double porosity/permeability model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XW5ZW3UX

@misc{pith2026190805771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On boundedness and growth of unsteady solutions under the double porosity/permeability model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XW5ZW3UX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05771}
}
read the original abstract

There is a recent surge in research activities on modeling the flow of fluids in porous media with complex pore-networks. A prominent mathematical model, which describes the flow of incompressible fluids in porous media with two dominant pore-networks allowing mass transfer across them, is the double porosity/permeability (DPP) model. However, we currently do not have a complete understanding of unsteady solutions under the DPP model. Also, because of the complex nature of the mathematical model, it is not possible to find analytical solutions, and one has to resort to numerical solutions. It is therefore desirable to have a procedure that can serve as a measure to assess the veracity of numerical solutions. In this paper, we establish that unsteady solutions under the transient DPP model are stable in the sense of Lyapunov. We also show that the unsteady solutions grow at most linear with time. These results not only have a theoretical value but also serve as valuable a posteriori measures to verify numerical solutions in the transient setting and under anisotropic medium properties, as analytical solutions are scarce for these scenarios under the DPP model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure illustrates properties of Πext and Πeq ext, given by equations (3.5) and (3.6). We have denoted the one-parameter family of equilibrium states by Π eq ext. Using the Green’s identity and equation (3.4), we get the following: dV dt = − Z Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure shows the mesh used in the numerical simulation. One potential future work could be towards using the tools from functional analysis to get other mathematical properties and devise an array of verification techniques to assess the accuracy of numerical solutions under the transient DPP model. References T. Arbogast. Analysis of the simulation of single phase flow through a naturally fractured reservoir. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows the profiles of rates of volumetric transfer from the micro-pore network to the macro-pore network at time t = 1. The numerical results are stable and do not display any spurious oscillations which are typical of LBB violations. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 time, t 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 || || evolution of the norm bound: 5.5902t + 1.581 Case 1 1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 time, t 2 4 6 8 10 12 || || evolution of t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the evolution of the norm kΥkV with time for the two cases considered in this paper. The corresponding bounds are plotted. The growth of the norm under the numerical simulations respect the theoretical bound derived in the paper. G. I. Barenblatt, I. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arbogast

    T. Arbogast. Analysis of the simulation of single phase flow through a naturally fractured reservoir. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 26 0 (1): 0 12--29, 1989

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Arbogast, J

    T. Arbogast, J. J. Douglas, and U. Hornung. Derivation of the double porosity model of single phase flow via homogenization theory . SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 21: 0 823--836, 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    G. I. Barenblatt, I. P. Zheltov, and I. N. Kochina. Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks [strata] . Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 24: 0 1286--1303, 1960

    work page 1960

  4. [4]

    R. I. Borja and A. Koliji. On the effective stress in unsaturated porous continua with double porosity . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 57: 0 1182--1193, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Brezzi and M

    F. Brezzi and M. Fortin. Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods , volume 15. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Z. Chen, G. Huan, and Y. Ma. Computational Methods for Multiphase Flows in Porous Media, volume 2. SIAM Publishers, Philadelphia, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    J. Choo, J. White, and R. I. Borja. Hydromechanical modeling of unsaturated flow in double porosity media . International Journal of Geomechanics, 16 0 (6): 0 D4016002, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    de Swaan

    A. de Swaan. Analytic solutions for determining naturally fractured reservoir properties by well testing. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 16 0 (03): 0 117--122, 1976

    work page 1976

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    C. L. Dym. Stability Theory and its Applications to Structural Mechanics . Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    J. K. Hale and H. Ko c ak. Dynamics and Bifurcations , volume 3. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Hornung and R

    U. Hornung and R. E. Showalter. Diffusion models for fractured media. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 147 0 (1): 0 69--80, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    S. H. S. Joodat, K. B. Nakshatrala, and R. Ballarini. Modeling flow in porous media with double porosity/permeability: A stabilized mixed formulation, error analysis, and numerical solutions . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 337: 0 632--676, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    M. S. Joshaghani, S. H. S. Joodat, and K. B. Nakshatrala. A stabilized mixed discontinuous Galerkin formulation for double porosity/permeability model . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 352: 0 508--560, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    H. Kazemi. Pressure transient analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs with uniform fracture distribution. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 9 0 (04): 0 451--462, 1969

    1969

  7. [15]

    N. Khalili. Coupling effects in double porosity media with deformable matrix . Geophysical Research Letters, 30: 0 2153, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Lemaire, S

    T. Lemaire, S. Na \" li, and A. R \'e mond. Multiscale analysis of the coupled effects governing the movement of interstitial fluid in cortical bone. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 5 0 (1): 0 39--52, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Luo, B.-Z

    Z.-H. Luo, B.-Z. Guo, and O. Morg \"u l. Stability and Stabilization of Infinite Dimensional Systems with Applications . Springer Science & Business Media, London, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Masud and T

    A. Masud and T. J. R. Hughes. A stabilized mixed finite element method for D arcy flow. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191: 0 4341--4370, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    K. B. Nakshatrala and K. R. Rajagopal. A numerical study of fluids with pressure-dependent viscosity flowing through a rigid porous medium. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 67 0 (3): 0 342--368, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    K. B. Nakshatrala, S. H. S. Joodat, and R. Ballarini. Modeling flow in porous media with double porosity/permeability: Mathematical model, properties, and analytical solutions . Journal of Applied Mechanics, 85 0 (8): 0 081009, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    W. L. Oberkampf and F. G. Blottner. Issues in computational fluid dynamics: Code verification and validation . AIAA Journal, 36: 0 687--695, 1998

    1998

  14. [22]

    Peszy \'n ska, R

    M. Peszy \'n ska, R. Showalter, and S.-Y. Yi. Homogenization of a pseudoparabolic system. Applicable Analysis, 88 0 (9): 0 1265--1282, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    K. R. Rajagopal. On a hierarchy of approximate models for flows of incompressible fluids through porous solids . Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 17: 0 215--252, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    P. J. Roache. Code verification by the method of manufactured solutions . Journal of Fluids Engineering, 124: 0 4--10, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Shabouei and K

    M. Shabouei and K. B. Nakshatrala. Mechanics-based solution verification for porous media models. Communications in Computational Physics, 20 0 (5): 0 1127--1162, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    O. D. L. Strack. Analytical Groundwater Mechanics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    C. A. Truesdell. Method and taste in natural philosophy. In Six Lectures on Modern Natural Philosophy, pages 83--108. Springer, 1966

    1966

  20. [28]

    X. Wang, S. Xu, S. Zhou, W. Xu, M. Leary, P. Choong, M. Qian, M. Brandt, and Y. M. Xie. Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review. Biomaterials, 83: 0 127--141, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    J. E. Warren and P. J. Root. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs . Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 3: 0 245--255, 1963

    1963

  22. [30]

    B. Xu, M. Haghighi, X. Li, and D. Cooke. Development of new type curves for production analysis in naturally fractured shale gas/tight gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 105: 0 107--115, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    J. Yao, H. Sun, D.-Y. Fan, C.-C. Wang, and Z.-X. Sun. Numerical simulation of gas transport mechanisms in tight shale gas reservoirs. Petroleum Science, 10 0 (4): 0 528--537, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.