Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 159 of the 159 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From Fluid Flow to Coupled Processes in Fractured Rock: Recent Advances and New Frontiers

Open access
Viswanathan, H. S., Ajo‐Franklin, J., Birkholzer, J. T., Carey, J. W., Guglielmi, Y., Hyman, J. D., Karra, S., Pyrak‐Nolte, L. J., Rajaram, H., Srinivasan, G., Tartakovsky, D. M.·2022·Reviews of Geophysics

Abstract

Quantitative predictions of natural and induced phenomena in fractured rock is one of the great challenges in the Earth and Energy Sciences with far‐reaching economic and environmental impacts. Fractures occupy a very small volume of a subsurface formation but often dominate fluid flow, solute transport and mechanical deformation behavior. They play a central role in CO 2 sequestration, nuclear waste disposal, hydrogen storage, geothermal energy production, nuclear nonproliferation, and hydrocarbon extraction. These applications require predictions of fracture‐dependent quantities of interest such as CO 2 leakage rate, hydrocarbon production, radionuclide plume migration, and seismicity; to be useful, these predictions must account for uncertainty inherent in subsurface systems. Here, we review recent advances in fractured rock research covering field‐ and laboratory‐scale experimentation, numerical simulations, and uncertainty quantification. We discuss how these have greatly improved the fundamental understanding of fractures and one's ability to predict flow and transport in fractured systems. Dedicated field sites provide quantitative measurements of fracture flow that can be used to identify dominant coupled processes and to validate models. Laboratory‐scale experiments fill critical knowledge gaps by providing direct observations and measurements of fracture geometry and flow under controlled conditions that cannot be obtained in the field. Physics‐based simulation of flow and transport provide a bridge in understanding between controlled simple laboratory experiments and the massively complex field‐scale fracture systems. Finally, we review the use of machine learning‐based emulators to rapidly investigate different fracture property scenarios and accelerate physics‐based models by orders of magnitude to enable uncertainty quantification and near real‐time analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2021rg000744

Cites

159 of 159 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 159 references

Metadata

Authors
Viswanathan, H. S., Ajo‐Franklin, J., Birkholzer, J. T., Carey, J. W., Guglielmi, Y., Hyman, J. D., Karra, S., Pyrak‐Nolte, L. J., Rajaram, H., Srinivasan, G., & Tartakovsky, D. M.
Venue
Reviews of Geophysics
Published
2022-02-22
Volume
60
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0096-1043 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-1209
  • 1944-9208
OpenAlex
W4221001009
Cited by
336
References
159
FWCI
16.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From Fluid Flow to Coupled Processes in Fractured Rock: Recent Advances and New Frontiers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2021rg000744
The paper
Viswanathan, H. S., Ajo‐Franklin, J., Birkholzer, J. T., Carey, J. W., Guglielmi, Y., Hyman, J. D., Karra, S., Pyrak‐Nolte, L. J., Rajaram, H., Srinivasan, G., & Tartakovsky, D. M. (2022). From Fluid Flow to Coupled Processes in Fractured Rock: Recent Advances and New Frontiers. Reviews of Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021rg000744

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.