Observations of hydraulic fracturing in soils through field testing and numerical simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is a potential cause of leakage of earth dams or loss of fluid in drilling and field permeability testing. The effect of hydraulic fracturing on soil grouting is also a major concern. Although hydraulic fracturing has been adopted for decades by the petroleum industry for oil recovery in rock formations, studies on fracturing in soils are relatively few and inconclusive. The aim of this study is to provide further insight into the mechanism of hydrofracturing in soils through a field grouting trial and numerical simulation. We observe hydraulic fracturing in soils during this field trial as predicted by generally accepted groutability requirements. The hydraulic fractures are found vertically developed up to the ground surface. Numerical simulations show the hydraulic fracturing is easier to be initiated in anisotropic stress conditions, where the minor principal stress is the key factor. Numerical simulations also demonstrate significant compressions and shears during injection, suggesting the mechanism of fracturing in soils would be a shearing type. Based on this study, we propose a punching and splitting mode for the hydrofracturing in soils. The equation associated with estimating fracturing pressure is verified, and the results are found to be in good agreement with the cases examined.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".