Fluid flow in synthetic rough‐walled fractures: Navier‐Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of three‐dimensional Navier‐Stokes (NS) and Stokes simulations and two‐dimensional local cubic law (LCL) simulations of fluid flow through single rough‐walled fractures are presented. Synthetic rough‐walled fractures were created by combining random fields of aperture and the mean wall topography or midsurface, which quantifies undulation about the fracture plane. A finite volume formulation of the LCL that incorporates geometric corrections for fracture undulation is presented. Simulations of fluid flow through planar fractures with sinusoidal variation in aperture were compared to published results. The rough‐walled fracture simulations demonstrated that the total flow rates predicted by the corrected LCL were within 10% of those predicted by the Stokes equations for all the fractures examined in this work. Differences between the NS and Stokes simulations clearly demonstrated that inertial forces can significantly influence the internal flow field within a fracture and the total flow rate across a fracture. By limiting the total flow rate differences between the NS and Stokes simulations, constraints for three kinematic parameters were determined. For all the fractures presented in this work, the corrected LCL was determined to be an acceptable approximation to the NS equations, provided that the kinematic and geometric constraints were met.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it