MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508077651 · doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0423

Implicit level set algorithms for modelling hydraulic fracture propagation

2016· review· en· W2508077651 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony Peirce

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiscontinuity (linguistics)Boundary (topology)Nonlinear systemNumerical analysisPartial differential equationFracture (geology)Computer scienceBoundary value problemFinite element methodDisplacement (psychology)Applied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydraulic fractures are tensile cracks that propagate in pre-stressed solid media due to the injection of a viscous fluid. Developing numerical schemes to model the propagation of these fractures is particularly challenging due to the degenerate, hypersingular nature of the coupled integro-partial differential equations. These equations typically involve a singular free boundary whose velocity can only be determined by evaluating a distinguished limit. This review paper describes a class of numerical schemes that have been developed to use the multiscale asymptotic behaviour typically encountered near the fracture boundary as multiple physical processes compete to determine the evolution of the fracture. The fundamental concepts of locating the free boundary using the tip asymptotics and imposing the tip asymptotic behaviour in a weak form are illustrated in two quite different formulations of the governing equations. These formulations are the displacement discontinuity boundary integral method and the extended finite-element method. Practical issues are also discussed, including new models for proppant transport able to capture 'tip screen-out'; efficient numerical schemes to solve the coupled nonlinear equations; and fast methods to solve resulting linear systems. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the performance of the numerical schemes. We conclude the paper with open questions for further research. This article is part of the themed issue 'Energy and the subsurface'.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207