MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549458174 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12474

Effects of fracture intersections on seismic dispersion: theoretical predictions versus numerical simulations

2016· article· en· W2549458174 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCurtin University of Technology
KeywordsAnisotropyStiffness matrixMechanicsGeologyHydrogeologyFracture (geology)Matrix (chemical analysis)Porous mediumSeismic anisotropySlip (aerodynamics)PoromechanicsLow frequencyPorosityStiffnessGeotechnical engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsThermodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The detection and characterisation of domains of intersecting fractures are important goals in several disciplines of current interest, including exploration and production of unconventional reservoirs, nuclear waste storage, CO 2 sequestration, and groundwater hydrology, among others. The objective of this study is to propose a theoretical framework for quantifying the effects of fracture intersections on the frequency‐dependent elastic properties of fluid‐saturated porous and fractured rocks. Three characteristic frequency regimes for fluid pressure communication are identified. In the low‐frequency limit, fractures are in full pressure communication with the embedding porous matrix and with other fractures. Conversely, in the high‐frequency limit, fractures are hydraulically isolated from the matrix and from other fractures. At intermediate frequencies, fractures are hydraulically isolated from the matrix porosity but can be in hydraulic communication with each other, depending on whether fracture sets are intersecting. For each frequency regime, the effective stiffness coefficients are derived using the linear‐slip theory and anisotropic Gassmann equations. Explicit mathematical expressions for the two characteristic frequencies that separate the three frequency regimes are also determined. Theoretical predictions are then applied to two synthetic 2D samples, each containing two orthogonal fracture sets: one with and another without intersections. The resulting stiffness coefficients, Thomsen‐style anisotropy parameters, and the transition frequencies show good agreement with corresponding numerical simulations. The theoretical results are applicable not only to 2D but also to 3D fracture systems and are amenable to being employed in inversion schemes designed to characterise fracture systems.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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