Influence of simple fracture intersections with differing aperture on density‐driven immiscible flow: Wetting versus nonwetting flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted laboratory experiments to evaluate the effects of simple fracture intersections with differing aperture on density‐driven immiscible wetting (water into air) and nonwetting (Trichloroethylene into water) flows, and analyzed them quantitatively. The experimental systems consisting of vertical and horizontal fractures were fabricated with glass for easy visualization. The aperture variation between intersecting fractures and the viscous force of the injected fluid were considered to be critical system parameters. Experimental results show the critical difference between the wetting and nonwetting flows by the intersection and viscous force, and subsequent mathematical analyses explain well our observations: The intersection acts as a capillary barrier (CB) for the wetting and capillary bridge for the nonwetting flows, and the viscous force of flowing fluids reduces the strength of CBs. The results of both laboratory experiments and mathematical analyses suggest that the fracture intersection with differing aperture can be a more significant factor controlling the network‐scale phase structure for the nonwetting than the wetting flows.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".