MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212650033 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2015.555

Filling box flows in porous media

2015· article· en· W2212650033 on OpenAlexaff
Chunendra K. Sahu, M. R. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeGravity currentLaminar flowOutflowMechanicsGeologySimilarity solutionFlow (mathematics)Porous mediumFront (military)Reynolds numberVolume (thermodynamics)PhysicsBoundary layerGeometryThermodynamicsPorosityGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyTurbulenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report upon a theoretical and experimental investigation of a porous medium ‘filling box’ flow by specifically examining the details of the laminar descending plume and its outflow in a control volume having an impermeable bottom boundary and sidewalls. The plume outflow initially comprises a pair of oppositely directed gravity currents. The gravity currents propagate horizontally until they reach the lateral sidewalls at $y=\pm L$ . The flow then becomes of filling box type, with a vertically ascending ‘first front’ separating discharged plume fluid below from ambient fluid above. The flow details are described analytically by first deriving a new similarity solution for Darcy plumes with $\mathit{Pe}>O(1)$ , where $\mathit{Pe}$ is the Péclet number. From the similarity solution so obtained, we then derive expressions for the plume volume flux and mean reduced gravity as functions of the vertical distance from the source. Regarding the plume outflow, a similarity solution adopted from Huppert & Woods ( J. Fluid Mech. , vol. 292, 1995, pp. 55–69) describes the height and front speed of the gravity currents, whereas a semi-implicit finite difference scheme is used to predict the first front elevation versus time and horizontal distance. As with high-Reynolds-number filling box flows, that studied here is an example of a coupled problem: the gravity current source conditions are prescribed by the plume volume flux and mean reduced gravity. Conversely, discharged plume fluid may be re-entrained into the plume, be it soon or long after reaching the bottom impermeable boundary. To corroborate our model predictions, analogue laboratory experiments are performed with fresh water and salt water as the working fluids. Our experiments consider as independent variables the porous medium bead diameter and the plume source volume flux and reduced gravity. Predictions for the gravity current front position and height compare favourably against analogue measured data. Good agreement is likewise noted when considering either the mean elevation or the profile of the first front. Results from this study may be adopted in modelling geological plumes. For example, our equations can be used to predict the time required for discharged plume fluid to return to the point of injection in the case of aquifers closed on the sides and below by impermeable boundaries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207