MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031617536 · doi:10.1029/2004jb003297

Distinct element modeling of hydraulically fractured Lac du Bonnet granite

2005· article· en· W2031617536 on OpenAlexaff
Adil Al-Busaidi, Jim Hazzard, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHydraulic fracturingFracture mechanicsBreakageShear (geology)Discrete element methodFracture (geology)ComminutionRock mechanicsGeotechnical engineeringSlip (aerodynamics)Acoustic emissionHomogeneousMicroseismSeismologyMineralogyMechanicsComposite materialMaterials sciencePetrologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to better understand the mechanics of fracture development and propagation during hydraulic fracturing. This paper presents some development and applications of discrete particle modeling of this problem. A discontinuum modeling approach idealizes the material as separate particles bonded together at their contact points and utilizes the breakage of individual structural units or bonds to represent damage. The numerical models are correlated with existing hydrofracture laboratory experiments, which are presented in other publications. A simulation of a laboratory‐scale hydrofracture experiment and the acoustic emission (AE) data from the experiment is used to validate the synthetic AEs produced in the hydrofracture model. This technique has been used to examine the mechanics of fracture initiation and time and spatial distributions of AE. The modeling results demonstrate that the mechanism of hydraulically induced fracture in the Lac du Bonnet (LdB) granite core sample is predominantly tensile failure and that the shear cracks recorded in the hydrofracture experiment were due to slip on preexisting fractures. Numerical modeling of hydrofracture on homogeneous and heterogeneous synthetic samples seems to capture much of the behavior observed in the laboratory hydrofracture experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations247
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207