MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552672935 · doi:10.1002/nme.5480

Stabilized finite element methods for vertically averaged multiphase flow for carbon sequestration

2016· article· en· W2552672935 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Ladubec, Robert Gracie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFinite element methodUpwind schemeMathematicsNonlinear systemEuler equationsPartial differential equationBackward Euler methodApplied mathematicsGalerkin methodEuler's formulaBoundary value problemMathematical analysisDiscretizationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A computationally efficient numerical model that describes carbon sequestration in deep saline aquifers is presented. The model is based on the multiphase flow and vertically averaged mass balance equations, requiring the solution of two partial differential equations – a pressure equation and a saturation equation. The saturation equation is a nonlinear advective equation for which the application of Galerkin finite element method (FEM) can lead to non‐physical oscillations in the solution. In this article, we extend three stabilized FEM formulations, which were developed for uncoupled systems, to the governing nonlinear coupled PDEs. The methods developed are based on the streamline upwind, the streamline upwind/Petrov–Galerkin and the least squares FEM. Two sequential solution schemes are developed: a single step and a predictor–corrector. The range of Courant numbers yielding smooth and oscillation‐free solutions is investigated for each method. The useful range of Courant numbers found depends upon both the sequential scheme (single step vs predictor–corrector) and also the time integration method used (forward Euler, backward Euler or Crank–Nicolson). For complex problems such as when two plumes meet, only the SU stabilization with an amplified stabilization parameter gives satisfactory results when large time steps are used. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.385 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207