MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388133365 · doi:10.1002/nag.3636

A FEM for three‐field <i>u</i>–<i>p</i>–η poroelasticity with nonreciprocal interactions

2023· article· en· W4388133365 on OpenAlexafffund
Bruna Caroline Campos, Robert Gracie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoromechanicsBiot numberFinite element methodConsolidation (business)Porous mediumMathematicsFluid dynamicsMechanicsCalculus (dental)EngineeringPorosityPhysicsStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The de la Cruz and Spanos (dCS) theory of poroelasticity is a pore‐scale volume averaged formulation and differs from the widely used Biot (BT) theory. A novel Finite Element Method (FEM) is developed for dCS theory to enable the study of nonreciprocal solid–fluid interactions, which are omitted from BT model. Solid deformations are quasi‐static and pore fluid flow is transient; dynamic effects are neglected. The form of the dCS theory chosen includes BT theory as a special case. The governing equations are written in terms of three fields: solid displacement u, fluid pressure p, and porosity η. Fully implicit time integration and a mixed‐element formulation are employed to ensure stability. The convergence rate of the FEM dCS model is shown to be optimal in a one‐dimensional consolidation problem. Examples of a footing and subsurface injection problems in two dimensions further attest the robustness of the implementation and are shown to reproduce BT model results as a special case. The effect of nonreciprocal solid–fluid interactions is studied in all examples and shows a wide range of importance depending on the properties of the porous media (e.g., permeability) and problem‐specific constraints. The developed FEM provides a tool to enable further comparisons between dCS and BT theories and validation in practical applications.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207