MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410312969 · doi:10.1190/geo2015-0406.1

Solid viscosity of fluid-saturated porous rock with squirt flows at seismic frequencies

2016· article· en· W2410312969 on OpenAlexaff
Wubing Deng, Igor B. Morozov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoromechanicsBiot numberPorous mediumMechanicsGeologyFluid dynamicsViscosityPorosityVolume viscosityFlow (mathematics)AttenuationPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed a macroscopic model for a two-phase medium (solid porous rock frame plus saturating pore fluid) with squirt flows based on Lagrangian continuum mechanics. The model focuses on improved physics of rock deformation, including explicit differential equations in time domain, causality, linearity, frequency-independent parameters with clear physical meanings, and an absence of mathematical internal or memory variables. The approach shows that all existing squirt-flow models can be viewed as microscopic models of viscosity for solid rock. As in existing models, the pore space is differentiated into compliant and relatively stiff pores. At lower frequencies, the effects of fluid flows within compliant pores are described by bulk and shear solid viscosities of the effective porous frame. Squirt-flow effects are “Biot consistent,” which means that there exists a viscous coupling between the rock frame and the fluid in stiff pores. Biot’s poroelastic effects associated with stiff porosity and global flows are also fully included in the model. Comparisons with several squirt-flow models show good agreement in predicting wave attenuation to approximately 1 kHz frequencies. The squirt-flow viscosity for sandstone is estimated in the range of 106-108 cP, which is close to field observations. Because of its origins in rigorous mechanics, the model can be used to describe any wavelike and transient deformations of heterogeneous porous media or finite bodies encountered in many field and laboratory experiments. The model also leads to new numerical algorithms for wavefield modeling, which are illustrated by 1D finite-difference waveform modeling.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207