MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306167578 · doi:10.1007/s10704-022-00662-y

A multi-resolution approach to hydraulic fracture simulation

2022· article· en· W4306167578 on OpenAlexaff
André Costa, Matteo Cusini, Tao Jin, Randolph R. Settgast, John E. Dolbow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fracture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Nuclear Security AdministrationOffice of ScienceLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingFracture (geology)Finite element methodRepresentation (politics)Benchmark (surveying)Finite volume methodFracture mechanicsDisplacement fieldField (mathematics)Displacement (psychology)Domain (mathematical analysis)MechanicsGeometryStructural engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceGeologyMathematical analysisEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a multi-resolution approach for constructing model-based simulations of hydraulic fracturing, wherein flow through porous media is coupled with fluid-driven fracture. The approach consists of a hybrid scheme that couples a discrete crack representation in a global domain to a phase-field representation in a local subdomain near the crack tip. The multi-resolution approach addresses issues such as the computational expense of accurate hydraulic fracture simulations and the difficulties associated with reconstructing crack apertures from diffuse fracture representations. In the global domain, a coupled system of equations for displacements and pressures is considered. The crack geometry is assumed to be fixed and the displacement field is enriched with discontinuous functions. Around the crack tips in the local subdomains, phase-field sub-problems are instantiated on the fly to propagate fractures in arbitrary, mesh independent directions. The governing equations and fields in the global and local domains are approximated using a combination of finite-volume and finite element discretizations. The efficacy of the method is illustrated through various benchmark problems in hydraulic fracturing, as well as a new study of fluid-driven crack growth around a stiff inclusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of FractureSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207