MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2787965823

Post-Fracturing Experiment Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in a Deep Mine Using a Fully Coupled 3D Network-Flow and Quasi-static Discrete Element Model

2017· paratext· en· W2787965823 on OpenAlexaff
Jianfeng Zhou, Hai Huang, Earl D. Mattson, T. Doe, Curtis M. Oldenburg, Patrick Dobson, H. F. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2017
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingFlow (mathematics)Fracture (geology)Computer scienceDiscrete element methodGeologyFinite element methodGeotechnical engineeringComputer simulationPetroleum engineeringEngineeringSimulationStructural engineeringMechanicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aimed at supporting the hydraulic fracturing experiments in a vertical borehole in the Poorman phyllite at approximately 1500 m depth at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF), we perform post-hydraulic fracturing experiment simulations and compare the simulated borehole pressure changes and flow rates with actual measurements using a newly developed fully coupled three-dimensional (3D) network flow and quasi-static discrete element model (DEM). The quasi-static DEM model, which is constructed by Delaunay tessellation of the rock volume, considers rock fabric heterogeneities by using the “disordered” DEM mesh and adding random perturbations to the stiffness and tensile/shear strengths of individual DEM elements and the elastic beam between them. A conjugate 3D flow network based on DEM lattice is constructed to calculate the fluid flow in both the fracture and porous matrix. One distinctive advantage of the DEM model is that fracturing is naturally described by the breakage of elastic beams between DEM elements. It is also extremely convenient to introduce mechanical anisotropy into the model by simply assigning orientation-dependent tensile/shear strengths to the elastic beams.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)→Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→