MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407164646 · doi:10.1016/j.gete.2025.100647

Discrete fracture network model benchmarks developed and applied in a DECOVALEX-2023 repository performance assessment study

2025· article· en· W4407164646 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Mariner, Rosie Leone, Emily Stein, Jeffrey D. Hyman, Jan Thiedau, Zhenze Li, Son Nguyen, Yongmin Kim, Jungwoo Kim, Chieh-Chun Chang, Scott Briggs, Mark Gobien, Ondrej Mikláš, Nicholas I. Osuji, Auli Niemi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomechanics for Energy and the Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management OrganizationCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
FundersNational Weather ServiceCenter for African StudiesNuclear Waste Management OrganizationBaltimore Gas and Electric CompanyCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsFracture (geology)Environmental scienceMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents newly developed benchmarks for modeling flow and transport within discrete fracture networks (DFNs) and useful methods for analyzing the results. The new benchmarks are designed to test modeling approaches for use in probabilistic performance assessment models of deep geologic repositories in fractured rock. The benchmarks simulate flow and transport through a 1 km³ block of fractured rock. The first simulates migration of a short pulse of tracer through a simple network of four intersecting fractures. The second adds 1089 stochastically generated fractures. The third changes the pulse to a continuous point source. Evaluation of model performance relies on moment analysis and comparison of the results of different models. The expected nondimensional first moment of the conservative tracer for each benchmark is 1. The benchmarks were simulated by teams from Canada, Czechia, Germany, Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United States as part of a DECOVALEX-2023 study (decovalex.org). The teams used various approaches, including explicit DFN modeling, DFN upscaling to an equivalent continuous porous medium (ECPM), and a combination of both methods. Transport mechanisms are modeled using either the advection-dispersion equation or particle tracking. Results demonstrate strong agreement among the models in breakthrough behavior up to the 75th percentile. Significant deviations in first moments and well-clustered outputs led to the identification of inaccuracies in several models. Such findings exemplify the benefit of exercising these benchmarks and using the presented methods to test DFN flow and transport models. • Discrete fracture network (DFN) benchmarks for flow and transport were defined. • Eight international teams simulated the DFN benchmarks. • Different meshing approaches were tested: DFN and upscaling methods. • Moment analysis provided valuable quantitative comparisons and verification. • Refined meshing at fracture intersections greatly improved DFN model results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomechanics for Energy and the EnvironmentSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207