Fracturing in low-permeability soils for remediation of contaminated ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a field study on hydraulic fracturing for in situ remediation of contaminated ground. Sand-propped hydraulic fractures were placed from vertical and horizontal wells at a test facility. Field excavations were conducted to expose the fractures and inspect their distribution and geometry. Fractures that were mapped by field excavation were found to be near horizontal, implying that the soil formation is overconsolidated. It was also observed that the sand "proppant" was thicker at locations where the soil layers were relatively weak or contained weak fissures. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was also conducted in an attempt to map the fractures. There was no indication that fractures were being mapped by this geophysical technique. Fracture mapping based on tiltmeter data analyses conformed closely with the actual fracture placement in the vertical well but did not properly predict the actual fracture placement in the horizontal well.Key words: hydraulic fracturing, field test, low-permeability soil, electrical resistivity tomography, tiltmeters, horizontal well, vertical well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".