Inversion for Biot-consistent material properties in subresonant oscillation experiments with fluid-saturated porous rock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT To quantitatively interpret the results of a subresonant laboratory or numerical experiment with wet porous rock, it is insufficient to merely state the measured frequency-dependent viscoelastic moduli and Q-factors. The measured properties are apparent, i.e., dependent on the experimental setup such as the length of the sample and boundary conditions for pore flows. To reveal the true properties of the material, all experimental factors need to be accurately modeled and corrected for. Here, such correction is performed by developing an effective Biot’s model for the material and using it to predict driven oscillations of a cylindrical rock specimen. The model explicitly describes elastic and inertial effects, Biot’s flows, and viscous internal friction within the solid frame and pore fluid, and it approximates squirt and other wave-induced flow effects. The model predicts the dynamic permeability of the specimen, fast (traveling) and slow (diffusive) P- and axial-deformation waves, and it allows accurate modeling of any other ultrasonic or seismic-frequency experiments with the same rock. To illustrate the approach, attenuation and dispersion data from two laboratory and numerical experiments with sandstones are inverted for effective, frequency-dependent moduli of drained sandstone. Several observations from this inversion may be useful for interpreting experiments with porous rock. First, Young’s moduli measured in a short rock cylinder differ from those in a traveling wave within an infinite rod. In particular, for the modeled 8 cm long rock specimen, modulus dispersion and attenuation (1/Q) are approximately 10 times greater than for a traveling wave. Second, P-wave moduli cannot be derived from the measured Young’s and shear moduli by using conventional (visco)elastic relations. Third, because of wavelengths comparable with the size of the specimen, slow waves contribute to its quasistatic and low-frequency behaviors. Similar observations should also apply to seismic waves traveling through approximately 10 cm layering in the field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".