MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096770308 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22314

An efficient non‐newtonian fluid‐flow simulator for variable aperture fractures

2015· article· en· W2096770308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph P. Morris, Gocha Chochua, Andrey Bogdan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAperture (computer memory)Newtonian fluidMechanicsViscosityFlow (mathematics)Fracture (geology)Fluid dynamicsMathematicsComputer scienceGeologyPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many natural and industrial applications involve non‐Newtonian fluids w­ith high effective viscosity ratios flowing between surfaces with spatial variations in aperture. In particular, hydraulic fracturing operations often require pumping sequences of non‐Newtonian fluids with yield‐stress into a variable‐aperture fracture that initially contains water. Numerical methods for this class of problem must deal robustly with the high aspect ratio of the flow domain and large contrasts in effective viscosity while maintaining interfaces between immiscible phases. We avoid the computational burden of a fully three‐dimensional approach by introducing an aperture‐averaged analytic solution for flow of a Hershel‐Bulkley fluid between two plates. We discuss the incorporation of this analytic solution within a simulator of flow within a fracture with spatial variations in aperture. We minimize numerical diffusion through use of a hybrid Lagrangian‐Eulerian approach that naturally tracks the multiple fluid phases. We demonstrate effectiveness of the numerical method through comparison with analytic results and one‐dimensional finite difference numerical solutions. Benchmarking of the 2‐D model against a 3‐D model reveals both advantages and shortcomings of a through‐aperture averaged method. The two simulations agree on the bulk behaviour of the phases while the 2‐D model is two orders of magnitude more efficient. Comparison between predictions of the models after water injection behind the pad reveals that the 3‐D model predicts non‐uniformity across the fracture aperture. This suggests that while bulk behaviour may be well captured by the 2‐D model, improved accuracy could be obtained by introducing multiple fluid layers within each cell of the model.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207