Effects of fracture intersections on seismic dispersion: theoretical predictions versus numerical simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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, CO2 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".