field measurements incorporate the same types or errors and biases as .... assigned to fractures within fracture zones H,B,G,I, K, M, and A. .... approximations to the smoothed head values fitted by Golder Associates ... deterministcially using the geophysically identified fracture zones (Section 2.2.2). ..... 1.7e-M8 1.14C-M8.
PROJECT 9116 Discrete Fracture Modelling for the Stripa Site Characterization and Validation Drift Inflow Predictions W. Dershowitz P. Wallmann S. Kindred Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington, USA
June 1991
TECHNICAL REPORT An OECD/NEA International project managed by: SWEDISH NUCLEAR FUEL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT CO Division of Research and Development
Mailing address: Box 5864, S-102 48 Stockholm. Telephone: 08-665 28 00
DISCRETE FRACTURE MODELLING FOR THE STRIPA SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND VALIDATION DRIFT INFLOW PREDICTIONS
W. Dershowitz, P. Wallmann, S. Kindred Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington, U.S.A. June, 1991
This report concerns a study which was conducted for the Stripa Project. The conclusions and viewpoints presented in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with those of the client. A list of other reports published in this series is attached at the end of the report. Information on previous reports is available through SKB.
ABSTRACT Groundwater flow through three-dimensional networks of discrete fractures was modeled to predict the flux into a fifty meter long drift, as part of the Site Characterization and Validation Project conducted during Phase 3 of the Stripa Project. Predictions were made on the basis of a site scale discrete fracture conceptual model developed by synthesis of geological, geophysical, and hydroiogical site characterization data. Individual fractures were treated as stochastic features, described by probability distributions of geometric and hydrologic properties. Fractures were divided into three populations: Fractures within fracture zones near the drift, non-fracture zone fractures near the drift, and fractures in fracture zon?s over 20 meters from the drift. Fractures outside fracture zones are not modelled beyond 20 meters from the drift. Both data analysis and flow predictions were produced using the FracMan discrete fracture modelling package. Probabilistic flow predictions were produced in seven formats specified by the Stripa Task Force on Fracture Flow Modelling. Keywords: Site characterization, discrete fractures, fracture flow modeling, joint statistics, model validation, performance assessment.
Ill
SUMMARY This report describes three-dimensional, discrete-fracture flow modeling performed by Golder Associates Inc. for prediction of inflow to the Drift Inflow Experiment, as part of the Site Characterization and Validation Project conducted during Phase 3 of the Stripa Project. The objective of this exercise was to predict the magnitude and pattern of groundwater flow and head response due to construction of a 50 meter drift (the "validation drift") at the location of the simulated drift experiment (SDE) boreholes (Geier et al., 1990). A 200m x 200m x 200m volume of rock around the simulated drift was modeled as a population of discrete fractures. A 40m diameter, 100m long cylinder around the SCV drift was modeled using a population of "conductive fractures" with stochastic properties derived using the methods of Dershowitz et al, (1991). Outside the 40m cylinder, fractures were modelled only within fracture zones identified by Black et al, 1990. The properties of the fractures outside of the 40m zone were derived by calibration of observed cross-hole hydraulic response. The flow into the simulated drift was predicted by generating multiple, Monte Carlo realizations of the fracture population using the FracMan Discrete Fracture Simulation Model (Dershowitz et al, 1991). For each Monte Carlo realization, a finite element mesh was produced and the flow equation was solved by the finite element program MAFIC (Miller, 1990).
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
ABSTRACT
Page No. ii
SUMMARY
iii
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 1.2
1 1
DERIVATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS 2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4 2.6
3
SCOPE PHILOSOPHY OF APPROACH
PHILOSOPHY GEOLOGIC CONCEPT! iAL MODEL 2.2.1 Fracture Zones 2.2.2 Boundary Conditions 2.2.4 Fracture Termination SET ORIENTATION FRACTURE SIZE EFFECTS OF STRESS AND DRIFT CONSTRUCTION 2.6.1 Stress Solutions 2.6.2 Stresj-Trar.amissivity Relationships 2.6.3 Solutions for Other Drift Construction Effects
9 9 11 13 14 18 20 26 45 46 49 55
PREDICTIVE MODELLING
58
3.1 3.2
58 60 60
3.3
CALIBRATION MODELLING RESULTS AND PREDICTIONS 3.2.1 Prediction D-l: Total Rate of Groundwater Flow to Validation Drift 3.2.2 Prediction D-2: Rate of Groundwater Flow to H-Zone, Spatial Distribution 3.2.3 Prediction D-3: Rate of Groundwater Flow to Average Rock, Spatial Distribution 3.2.4 Prediction D-4: Character-sties of Fractures in the Drift 3.2.5 Prediction S-l: Magnitude and Spatial Distribution of Head Changes due to Drift Excavation 3.2.6 ?> ^diction S-2: Magnitude and Spatial Distribution of Head Response due to Opening of borehole T-l "2.7 Frediction S-3: Distribution of Groundwater Inflow to Remaining Sections of D-Boreholes COMPARISON TO MEASUREMENTS
64 69 69 79 79 79 91
4
CONCLUSIONS
94
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
95
6
REFERENCES
96
7
NOTATION
100
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page No. APPENDIX A: SIMULATION INPUT FILES
A.1 FracMan MACROS FOR GENERATION OF STOCHASTIC FRACTURE SETS A.2 MAFIC/EdMesh BOUNDARY CONDITION FILES
A-l A-20
VI
LIST OF FIGURES Page No.
1-1. 1-2. 1-3 1-4 1-5
Outline of Modelling Approach FracMan Discrete Fracture Simulator Mine Openings in the Validation Drift Discrete Fracture Model Validation Drift Model Fracture Zone Conceptual Model
2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. 2-6. 2-7 2-8. 2-9. 2-10. 2-11. 2-12. 2-13. 2-14.
10 12 19 21 22 23 27 28 31 34 36 38 40
2-17. 2-18. 2-19. 2-20 2-21. 2-22. 2-23. 2-24. 2-25.
Forward Modelling Approach Validation Drift Discrete Fracture Conceptual Model War-Zone Geologic Conceptual Model Fracture Orientation Scatterplots: Zone and Non-Zone ISIS Fracture Set Definition Approach Bootstrap Approach for Fracture Orientation Comparison of Measured and Bootstrap Orientation FracSize Derivation of Fracture Size from Trace Length Comparison of Measured and Simulated Trace Lengths OxFilet Derivation of Conductive Fracture Intensity and Transmissivity Alternative Interpretations of Packer Test Results Cross-Fracture and At-Borehole Transmissivity Variation in Fracture Transmissivity with Orientation OxFilet Transmissivity Resulte, Single Fracture, No Channeling Assumption OxFilet Transmissivity Resulte, Rough Fracture Assumption OxFilet Transmissivity Results, Varying Network Depth Assumption, Fracture Zone BEFE Boundary Element Stress Solution Kirsch Plane Strain Stress Solution 3DEC Stress Solution Effect of Shear Stress on Transmissivity Effect of Stress on Flow Rate Stripa Phase 2 Normal Stress-Transmissivity Experiment Hysteresis in Stress-Transmissivity Relationships Crown Fractures Conceptual Model Effect of Capillary Pressures on Total Drift Flux
3-1. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 3-6. 3-7. 3-8.
Large-Scale Cross-Hole Response Calibration of Large-Scale Cross-Hole Response Predicted Distribution of Drift Flux Predicted Distribution of Flux Reduction, Case OM Reduction in Flux Due to Drift Effects Pattern of Inflow to H-Zone Panels Histogram of Total Inflow to H-Zone Histogram Distribution for Inflow to H-Zone Sheets
61 62 65 66 67 68 70 71
2-15. 2-16
2 3 5 6 7
41 42 43 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 56 57
VII
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) 3-9. 3-10. 3-11. 3-12. 3-13. 3-14. 3-15. 3-16. 3-17. 3-18. 3-19. 3-20. 3-21. 3-22. 3-23.
Pattern of Inflow to Non-Zone Panels Histogram Distribution for Total Inflow to Non-Zone Regions Histogram Distribution for Inflow to Non-Zone Panels Pattern of Inflow to Drift including Non-Zone Regions Simulated Fracture Traceplanes in SCV Drift Simulated Stereoplot: All Drift Fractures, H-Zone Fractures, Non-Zone Fractures Simulated Tracelength Distributions: All Drift Fractures, H-Zone Fractures, Non-Zone Fractures Distance-Drawdown Curve for Head Changes Due to Drift Construction Example Hydraulic Responses to SDE Borehole and Drift Construction Distance-Drawdown Curve for Head Changes Due to Opening T-1 Borehole Histogram Distributicn of Head Changes Due to Opening T-1 Borehole Distribution of Flux Among Boreholes D-l to D-6 Histogram Distributions of Flux to Boreholes D-l to D-6, All Realizations Pattern of Flux to Boreholes D-l to D-6 Measured and Predicted Drift Inflow Pattern to Panels
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 92
LIST OF TABLES 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. 2-6. 2-7. 2-8. 2-9. 2-10. 2-11. 2-12. 2-13. 2-14.
Data Sources for Validation Draft Modelling Effective Properties of Fracture Zones Properties of Fractures in Fracture Zones, Coarse Model Region Boundary Condition Coefficients for Outer Boundary Stripa Site Termination Statistics Fracture Sets Based on Geologic Observation Alternative Zone and Non-Zone Fracture Sets Alternative Fracture Radius Distribution Fitted Fracture Radius Distribution OxFilet Cross-Fracture Transmissivity Conductive Fracture Intensity P ^ Reduction in Fracture Intensity by Truncation of Distributions SCV Block Stress Tensor Crown Fracture Assumptions
11 15 16 17 20 24 25 29 32 37 44 45 46 55
3-1. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4.
Validation Drift Inflow Prediction Summary Dataset Validation Drift Model D-Borehole Simulation Results Condensed Comparison of Predictions to Measurements
59 63 84 91
INTRODUCTION
1.1
SCOPE This report describes discrete fracture flow modeling performed by Colder Associates for the Site Characterization and Validation (SCV) Drift Inflow Experiment. The goal of this work was to demonstrate and validate the application of the discrete fracture flow modeling approach by comparing model predictions with measurements of flux to the drift, head response in drift construction, and fracture statistics collected in the drift. The work was also intended to validate the application of the FracMan approach to evaluation of fracture geometric and hydrologic data for development of conceptual hydrogeoiogic models for fractured rock masses. Validation was measured in terms of seven predictive measures established by the Stripa Task Force on Fracture Flow Modelling: D-l: TOTAL RATE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW TO VALIDATION DRIFT D-2: RATE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW TO H-ZONE, SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION D-3: RATE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW TO AVERAGE ROCK, SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION D-4: CHARACTERISTICS OF FRACTURES IN DRIFT S-l: MAGNITUDE AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD CHANGES DUE TO DRIFT EXCAVATION S-2: MAGNITUDE AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD RESPONSE DUE TO OPENING OF BOREHOLE T-l S-3: DISTRIBUTION OF GROUNDWATER INFLOW TO REMAINING SECTIONS OF D-BOREHOLES Predictions made with discrete fracture models are inherently stochastic, as is the behavior of fractured rock. As a result, the comparisons between measurements and prediction emphasize patterns rather than absolute values; the change in flux due to drift construction, rather than the total flux; the spatial distribution of flux rather than the magnitude of flux.
1.2
PHILOSOPHY OF APPROACH The approach used in this study integrates discrete fracture interpretation of fracture data, conceptual model development, geometric modelling, and flew modelling (Figure 1-1). All of these are analyses are implemented using the FracMan discrete feature modelling package (Figure 1-2), an interactive, graphical PC based system developed by Golder Associates Inc. (Dershowitz et al., 1991).
Field Investigation Field Data
Analysis Using FracSys Fracture Properties
Monte Carlo Simulation Using FracMan and MAFIC
Sot-jtvn of Flow and Transport Equation
+ lm«rf«r«nc« T«sl Smuiacon
Calibration to Field Experiments
Inflow Simulation
1
z
I
FradiK» Gaomiry
Analysis Rock Macs Hydraulic Rosponsa
FIGURE 1 - 1
OUTLINE OF MODELING APPROACH PROJEC1NO 9C1IW6
DRAW|NG NO 2593?
DATE 7/26/91
DRAWN BV EA
FracSys Fracture Data Analysis
Mesh Monster
FracWOiks Stochastic Fracture Generation and Sampling
Mesh Generation and Boundary Condition Assignment
•
ilk MeshMaker
EdMesh
Mesh Generation and Boundary Condition Assignment
Mesh Refinement and Editing
I FracView
MAFIC
Display and Analysis of Flow and Transport Results
Finite Element Flow and Particle Tracking Solute Transport Steady State and Transient
FIGURE
1*2
FRACMAN DISCRETE FRACTURE SIMULATOR PROJECT NO 903 1346
DRAWING NO » 7 8 5
DATE 7/19/91
DRAWN BY EA
The Stripa Phase 3 SCV project emphasizes the value of successive predictions based upon gradual improvements in available information with site characterization. Thus the SCV drift inflow prediction builds directly upon information obtained in the simulated drift (SDE), large scale cross-hole interference, and small-scale crosshole interference experiments (Dershowitz et al., 1990; Black et al, 1991). To these authors, these experiments demonstrate dearly that: •
Groundwater flow at the SCV site occurs primarily through fractures, due to the low permeability of unfractured Stripa granite.
•
Large scale hydraulic connections occur primarily through larger fractures within fracture zones of 5-20 meter width and 40 to 200 meter extent.
•
Only a small percentage of fractures (under 1%) control flow and head response.
•
Fracture zones inferred primarily from radar and seismic tomography and reflection profiles by Olsson et al. (1989) and Black et al. (1991) represent over 80% of the large scale flux at the site.
•
Head response across the site, and flow into drifts indicate that a model smaller than a 200 m cube will be insufficient to avoid unrealistic boundary condition influence on local fluxes.
Building upon the existing SCV rock block model developed for the SDE prediction, the SCV drift conceptual model utilizes uses only conductive fractures as derived by the OxFilet approach (Dershowitz et al, 1991). The SCV drift model also uses the same boundary condition assumptions used in tlie SDE model (Figure 1-3). The following revisions were made to the SDE model to better reflect the site knowledge gained since the time of the SDE prediction: •
The detailed model region was increased from a 20 meter diameter to a 40 meter diameter to reduce the effect of boundary conditions (Figure 1-4).
•
Conductive fractures outside of the detailed model region were only modelled inside of fracture zones, reflecting the evidence that cross-site hydraulic connections are primarily in fracture zones.
•
Properties of fractures in fracture zones beyond the detailed model region were derived by calibration to cross-hole and SDE response, rather than by the OxFilet approach. This was possible because of the wealth of cross-hole information available, and was necessary due to computational constraints (Figure 1-5).
Spatially varying, fixed head boundary conditions on six sides of model cube
Drifts, shafts and ore cavities at constant-head (p=0)
Packed-off borehole sections with zero net flow
FIGURE I " 3
MINE OPENINGS IN THE VALIDATION DRIFT DISCRETE FRACTURE MODEL PROJECT NO. 903 1346 OWG. NO. 25702 DATE 7/23/91 DRAWN CB
Detailed model region centered on validation drift and D-boreholes
Coarse model region contains fractures in fracture zones only 200m
FIGURE
1-4
VALIDATION DRIFT MODEL PROJECT NO 903)346 DWG. NO 25703 OATE 7/2*81 DRAWN CB
Zone A
Zone B
Zone H
Zone I
Zone K
ZoneM
FIGURE
1"5
FRACTURE ZONE CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROJECT NO 903 1346 DWG. NO. 25713 DATF 7/22/91 DRAWN CB
A 3 meter skin of reduced conductivity was modelled around the SCV drift and other Stripa Project drifts to account for the reduction in permeability due to stress concentration and other effects. No skin was added to other drifts, because the effects of coarser blasting of other drifts was assumed to balance positive and negative skin effects. Fracture zone locations were modelled deterministically based upon the revised geophysical zones of Black et al. (1991).
DERIVATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS
2.1
PHILOSOPHY In this study, all fracture properties were derived using the techniques of Dershowitz et al. (1991). These techniques were previously demonstrated in applications for the SKB Hard Rock Laboratory (Geier et al, 1990b), the SKB-91 Finnsjön Project (Geier and Axelsson, 1991), and the Stripa Simulated Drift Experiment (Geier et al, 1990a). AH of the techniques used to derive fracture parameters are based upon "forward modelling". In this approach, alternative probabilistic descriptions of fracture parameters are evaluated by comparing sinulated samples or experiments taken from realizations using possible parameter values to experimental measurements (Figure 2-1). This approach has several advantages over conventional "inverse modelling", in which an attempt is made to fit a single, "optimal" value for parameters: •
By deriving simulated field measurements from assumed parameters, rather than deriving "best fit" parameters from observed field measurements, forward modelling can fully account for error, biases, and uncertainties resulting from data collection procedures. To the extent possible, simulated field measurements incorporate the same types or errors and biases as actual field procedures.
•
Forward modelling accepts the concept that several different sets of parameter values and assumptions could account for field observations. This makes it possible to evaluate the implications of different conceptual models, including how consistent they are with field observations.
•
Forward modelling is well adapted for derivation of probabilistic descriptions of parameters, since simulated field measurements are based upon realizations from assumed parameter distributions.
Table 2-1 presents a comparison of fracture data requirements of FracMan discrete fracture modelling, and the data sources used in this study.
1
Assumed Geometric and Hydrologic Properties
I
Simulate Process of Measurement used in Situ
Simulated In Situ Measurements
In Situ Measurements
Compare Simulated and Field Measurements
Adjust assumptions for better match
Good match
Generate additional alternative conceptual models if appropriate
Accept Possible Conceptual Model Geometric and Hydrologic Properties
FIGURE 2 " I
FORWARD MODELLING APPROACH PROJECT NO. 903-1346
DRAWING NO. 25933
DATE 7/23/91
DRAWN BV EA
11
Table 2-1. Data Sources for Validation Draft Modelling Source of Information
Methods of Analysis
Fracture Orientation
Gale et al (1990) Gale and MacLoed (1991)
ISIS, Bootstrap
Fracture Size
Gale et al (1990) Gale and MacLoed (1991)
Frac Size
Fracture Conceptual Model
Uchida (1990)
Dershowitz et al (1989)
Fracture Zone Conceptual Model
Black et al (1991)
Geophysics
Crosshole Hydrologic Response
Black et al (1991)
MAFIC Transient Flow Modelling
Simulated Drift Experiment
Holmes et al (1990)
MAFIC Steady State Flow Modelling
2.2
GEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL The geologic conceptual model utilized in this study recognizes that all significant flow in the SCV rock block is carried through interconnected systems of discrete fractures ("fracture networks"). Since it is impossible to model the approximately 109 fractures in the rock block, a conceptual model was developed which attempted to decrease the number of fractures considered, without loosing the heterogeneity and heterogeneous connections of a fractured rock mass. The geologic conceptual model used is illustrated in Figure 2-2. In this model, the rock is divided into four regions as follows: •
Detailed model region, fracture zone rock
•
Detailed model region, non-fracture zone rock
•
Coarse model region, fracture zone rock
•
Coarse model region, non-fracture zone rock
Coarse, outer model region, stochastic fractures within deterministic fracture zones
Detail :nne. model region, stochastic non-fracture zone fractures
200 m
Detail, inner model region, stochastic fractures within deterministic fracture zones
FIGURE 2 - 2
VALIDATION DRIR DISCRETE FRACTURE CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROJECT NO 9031346 DWG NO. 25705 DATE 7MOT1 DRAWN EA
13 The detailed model regions are defined by a 100 meter long, 40 meter diameter cylinder around the validation drift. In these regions, conductive fractures are modelled, using properties de: Wed by direct evaluation of fracture geometric and hydrologic data. Different properties are defined for fracture zone and non-fracture zone rock by dividing all experimental information on fracture geometry and hydrology into these classifications. In the coarse fracture zone model region, only a very small subset of fractures are modelled, and the fracture properties are defined to match observed cross-hole hydrologic behavior. This was necessary because the statistics obtained for fracture zone rock indicated a very large number of conductive fractures (over 105 )within the six zones defined by radar. In the coarse, non-fracture zone model region, it was intended to include a number of large, connected fractures representing the few, sparse connected, conductive fracture networks observed in hydraulic testing. However, due to time constraints, no fractures were modelled in the coarse, nonfracture zone rock model region. Cross-hole hydraulic experiments indicated that approximately 10% of large scale hydraulic connections occur outside oi fracture zones (Black et al., 1991). The coordinate syst -m utilized for this model is based upon the "Stripa Mine" coordinate system. However, since the FracMan/MAFIC coordinate system is based upon the Z axis increasing with elevation, and the "Stripa Mine" coordinate system is based upon a Z axis increasing with depth, the following conversion is used between model and "Stripa Mine" coordinates: X = -(X m - 454.25) Y = (Ym -1080.9) Z = -(Zm-386.12)
(2-1)
where (X, Y, Z) are FracMan model coordinates, and (Xm, Ym, Zm) are Stripa mine coordinates (Olsson et al, 1989). FracMan model coordinates are (+X = South), (+Y = East), (+Z = Up), with (0, 0, 0) near the center of the SCV rock block.
2.2.1
Fracture Zones Fracture Zone geometries were accepted directly from the combined geophysical and hydrologic zones identified by Black et al. (1991). Olsson et al. utilized an empirical weighting scheme to combine single and cross-hole geophysical (radar and seismic), hydrologic, and geologic (core log) information to define fracture zones. Fracture zone location, thickness, and extent were all incorporated into the conceptual model directly from the Black et al. conceptual model.
14 In the detailed model region, it was possible to derive fracture properties directly from data as described below. In the coarse model region, however, fracture properties were derived by the following procedure: •
Parameters were derived for fractures in the detailed model region.
•
The complete conceptual model was implemented, including mine openings, boundary conditions, and fractures within the detailed regions. Several alternative fracture geometric and hydrologic properties were assigned to fractures within fracture zones H,B,G,I, K, M, and A.
•
Simulations were then carried out to calculate the total inflow to the «.•; boreholes of the simulated drift experiment, and to simulate the cro^ ^ole response of the large-scale cross-hole hydrologic interference expenin*_.~;ts.
•
SDE flux and cross-hole response were then compared to measurement; of Olsson et al. to determine the fracture zone fracture assumptions which provide an adequate approximation to observed large scale response.
Since the primary focus of this experiment is the behavior of the fractures in the detailed model region, the use of this procedure to establish fracture properties for the fracture zones was a reasonable (and necessary) approximation. As in the SDE experiment predictive model, the fractures in the coarse mcdel region provide a method to appropriately propagate fixed head boundary conditions at the edge of the modelled region to the detailed region. The fracture geometry selected consists of a single set of sub-parallel, Baecher model fractures within each fracture zone. The properties of fractures within each zone are assumed to be similar, based upon the evaluation of fracture zone transmissivity carried out by Doe (1990), Table 2-2. Fracture properties in the coarse, fracture zone model region are summarized in Table 2-3. For this model, the mean total flux to the six SDE boreholes has a mean of 2.03 liters/minute and standard deviation of 0.7 liters/minute, which compares favorably with measurements of 1.8 ± 0.4 liters/minute (Holmes et al, 1990).
2.2.2
Boundary Conditions In hydrologic modelling, it is good practice to assign boundary conditions at sufficient distance to ensure the heads or fluxes assigned within the model do not significantly effect the values at the boundaries. When boundary conditions are too close, they distort the region of decreased head around a fixed head hydraulic sink, increasing the flow to the sink.
Source
Source Fracture Zone
Dominant Response Fracture Zone
Flow Dimensions
D3-H C1-2 D6-B W2-1 N4-3 N2-2
H H B Al B Other
H H B B little little
2.25* 2* 2.25* 2* 2* 2*
W2-3
Other
Widespread, 2* H.B.A.N-1, R, l-holes
Effective Zone Transmissivity m2/s
Effective Zone Storativity
3.0E-8 3.7E-8 2.5E-8 5.7E-8 7.0E-8 2.1 E-8 avg.4.0E-8 | std.des.1.8E-8l 2.5E-5
1.6E-5 2.8E-6 1.6E-5 2.1 E-6 1.4E-6 5.9E-9 2.0E-4
* Insufficient areal spread to determine n, 2 assumed * Reanalysis of these tests subsequent to this Janalysisyielded D3-H dimension 1.75 with transmissivity 8.1 >c l O ^ r r w s and storativity 2 7 x 10'76 , and D6-B dimension 1.5 with transmissivity 2. 5 x 10 and storativity 6.2 x 10"5. This reanalysis \vas carried out too late to be incorporated in this study.
TABLE 2 " 2 EFFECTIVE PROPERTIES OF FRACTURE ZONES
(After Doe, 1990) PROJECT NO. 903-1346
DRAWING NO. 2S791
DATE 7/24/91
ORAWN BY EA
16
Table 2-3: Properties of Fractures in Fracture Zones, Coarse Model Region Parameter
Parameters
Distribution
Conceptual Model
Deterministic war zone model, no termination at intersections, homogeneous location 1 m war zone thickness, 10000 war zone intensity
Fracture Size
Constant
10 m radius
Intensity
Constant
Zone A: 9.64 x 10'3, B: 1.21 x 10"2, H: 135 x 10"2, I: 2.83 x 10"3, K: 1.96 x 10 3 , M: 3.18 x 10"3 m 2 /m 3
Transmissivity
LogNormal
Zone (Mean, Std. Dev.) A (5.7 x 10 8 ,1 x 10"8), B (7.0 x 10 8 , 1 x 10 8 ), H (1.04 x 10"7,1 x 10 8 ), I (5.7 x 10"8,1 x 10'8), K (1.0 c 10"8,1 x 10"9), M (3.1 x 10 9 ,1 x 10"9)
Orientation
Fisher distribution around mean pole perpendicular to plane of fracture zone
Fisher Dispersion Parameter K = 25
In this study, sensitivity studies were carried out to ensure that the boundary conditions were assigned sufficiently far away to minimize the effect of boundary conditions on flux to the drift. This was done by comparing fluxes to the simulated drift experiment for models with dimension 100 meters, 200 meters, and 300 meters on a side. In these analyses, hydraulic boundaries in a 100 meter cube increased flux to the simulated drift experiment significantly compared to the 200 meter model. Given the order ot significant increase in computational effort which would be necessitated by a 300 meter or larger model, a 200 meter model size was selected. Hydrologic boundary conditions for the model were assigned using the same assumptions which were used in the simulated drift experiment (Geier et al, 1990). On the six faces of the 200 meter cube model, spatially varying fixed head boundary conditions were set according to the equation, H = Hxx + H y + H ^ + H
(2-2)
17 Table 2-4 gives the coefficients H^ H , H z , and H o for each of the faces of the cube of the outer boundary. The coefficients H,, H y , and H o were estimated from the head measurements of Carlsten et al. (1988) on the 360-m level, by taking linear approximations to the smoothed head values fitted by Golder Associates (1988a) along each side of the modeling region. The H^ coefficient is based upon the assumption of a hydrostatic gradient.
Table 2-4. Boundary Condition Coefficients for Outer Boundary
Ho(m)
Face
H,
H,
East
-0.053
0
1.0
192,4
West
-0.001
0
1.0
1826
North
0
0.074
1.0
190.1
South
0
0.023
1.0
184.9
Top
-0.026
0.049
1.0
187.5
Bottom
-0.026
0.049
1.0
187.5
All drifts within the SCV block are modelled as zero pressure head boundaries, i.e. elevation head equal to elevation. No hydraulic skin was applied to any drifts other than those constructed for the Stripa project because of the les* careful blasting used for these drifts. This boundary condition was implemented By assigning H,, Hy, and HQ to zero, and H 2 to 1.0 in equation 2-2. This boundary condition was also used for the remaining 50 meters of the D boreholes. The validation drift model includes N, W, C, and V boreholes in addition to mine openings and D boreholes. These boreholes were modelled as "group flux" boundary conditions with a fixed flux of 0. This condition corresponds to capped boreholes with zero net flux, acting as linear flow paths, with flow out of some fractures and into others such that the net flux into each borehole is zero.
2.2.3
Fracture Location Conceptual Model Observation of the fractures on the walls of the Stripa mine clearly illustrates that fractures are not distributed uniformly in space, are more connected than would be indicated by random fracture location primarily because of a high proportion of fracture terminations found at intersections with other fractures. A previous study by these authors evaluated the fit of alternative conceptual models to fracture trace maps (Dershowitz et al, 1989). This study indicated that Levy Lee fractal model,
18 nearest neighbor non-stationary Poisson point model, and war zone empirical nonstationary models could all be used to represent the heterogeneity of fracture location. A study of the implication of fracture geometric conceptual mod**! on fracture network connectivity for the SKB Hard Rock Laboratory (Geier et al, 1990) demonstrated the importance of properly modelling fracture termination processes. In that study, modelling of fracture termination at intersections had a greater effect on rock block transmissivity than the difference between geological conceptual models. In the present study, the war zone empirical model was used to model large scale heterogeneity in fracture intensity, while the Bart model (Baecher Algorithm with Revised Termination) was used to model fracture termination and small scale heterogeneity. In the war zone model, fractures are located based upon a population of fracture centers with higher intensity inside regions identified as "war zones" because of the degree of overlap, parallelness, and closeness of major fractures defining the zones (Figure 2-3). In this model, the "war zones" are defined deterministcially using the geophysically identified fracture zones (Section 2.2.2). Within the coarse model region, fractures are located uniformly in space within the "war zones", with intensity 10,000 times that for the coarse model region outside fracture zones, resulting in a small probability for fractures located outside of fracture zones. Within the detailed model region, the Bart model assumption is that the first X percentage of fractures are located uniformly in space, with the remaining 100-X percentage of fractures located from their terminations on previously generated fractures. This results in a strongly heterogeneous fracture pattern, with a high degree of fracture interconnection. 2.2.4
Fracture Termination Fracture termination at intersections was not set in the coarse model region, because the large fractures modeled in that region are intended in part to represent the effect of networks of interconnected smaller fractures. In the detailed model region, for both fracture zone and non-fracture zone rock, the Bart model termination percentage was fixed at 30%, i.e., 30 percent of all fractures teTninate at existing fractures. This is low relative to observed termination statistics, but was set before analysis of SCV site termination statistics was completed. Analysis of termination statistics from the Stripa site is summarized in Table 2-5.
4>w a n 9 l e between fractures
Potential war zone volume Vw
Overlap coefficient \N\_ = 2A w /(Ai + A2) Closeness coefficient W Q = max(0,1 - V W A W " 1 - 5 /VK) Parallelness coefficient Wp = cos 2 4>w War zones are identified when C|_W|_ + C Q W Q + CpWQ > 3 , C c and Cp are empirical weighting factors War zone strength is the fracture intensity inside identified war zones relative to the intensity outside war zones
FIGURE 2 - 3 WAR-ZONE GEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROJiCTf.O 903 13*6
DFW INGNO. 2593-t
CATE 7/2M1
DRAWN BY £ A
20
Table 2-5 Stripa Site Tennination Statistics Number of Fractures
prr,m
P[T,|F]
Pre-Stripa 3 Trace Maps (Dershowitz et al., 1989)
3950
58
Not Calculated
Stripa Phase 3 Trace Maps
Non-Fracture Zone
7493
44.2
61.2
Fracture Zone
3011
74.9
86.1
P[Tj|T] is the probability of termination at a fracture intersection for any given fracture termination. P[Tj | F] is the probability that at least one end of fracture will terminate at a fracture intersection.
2.3
SET ORIENTATION Orientation data for the validation drift model was available from N, W, C, and D boreholes, and f. JTI trace map surveys on drift walls (Gale et al., 1990) (Figure 24). In order to facilitate analysis, an attempt was made to divide fractures into sets. Three approaches were used: •
Sets were defined from contours of orientation (Gale et al., 1991)
•
Sets were defined based upon geological considerations Table 2-6 (Uchida, 1990)
•
Sets were defined using the ISIS module of FracMan FracSys package, utilizing the iterative algorithm shown in Figure 2-5.
All of these approaches produced slightly different sets, as shown in Table 2-7. Unfortunately, none of these sets were able to pass %2 OF Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical significance tests using common orientation distributional forms such as Fisher and Bivariate normal. Given the failure of parametric statistical approaches for describing fracture sets (i.e., based upon fits of distributional forms), a nonparametric approach was implemented using a modified "Bootstrap" statistical technique (Efron, 1972). In the bootstrap approach (Figure 2-6), simulated orientations are obtained directly from the set of orientation measurements. First, the orientation measurements were corrected for sampling orientation bias using the
Fracture Zone Stereoplot: All Data, Terzaghi Correction EQUAL-AREA
PROJECTION
Non-Fracture Zone Stereoplot: All Data, Terzaghi Correction EQUAL-AREA
PROJECTION
FIGURE 2 " 4 FRACTURE ORIENTATION SCATTERPLOTS: ZONE AND NON-ZONE PROJECT NO. 903-1346 DWG. NO. 25782 DATE 7/19/91 DRAWN CB
Select characteristics to be used in defining sets (orientation, length, mineralization, etc.)
1
Enter initial guess for properties of each set
VJI i yi 101 IUI
Q) r
C
DispG
N -t
for eac/7 se#
Repeat for Specified Iterations
»I
1
Assign fractures to each set with a probability based upon similarity of fractures to set characteristics
1
Recalculate set statistics using fractures assigned to sets
I Display Statistics
FIGURE 2 " 5
ISIS FRACTURE SET DEFINITION APPROACH PROJECT NO 9031346 DWG. NO. 2S7B3 DATE 7I1M1 DRAWN CB
Actual Data
/(x)
Simulated Normal/Fisher Dispersion around selected data point
select one value from data based on its frequency
select value to use from simulated distribution
(Xj) Value for Monte Carlo Simulation
FIGURE 2 " 6
BOOTSTRAP APPROACH FOR FRACTURE ORIENTATION PROJECT NC 9031346 DWG. NO. 25706 DATE 7/2W1 DRAWN CB
Set#
1
2
(2)
3
4
5
John Gale's Cluster
A
B
B
C1
C2
A
dip direction dip angle
48.6
105
105
131
297
233
74.8
71.6
71.6
15.7
76.9
82.6
Unclear Sense of Displacement (obscure striation)
Dip-slip
Oblique slip
Oblique slip with ori. of N74E
(Not Studied)
Unclear (obscure striation)
Shape of Trace
Linear
Undulating (wave length = several meters)
Gently curved
Undulating Linear (wave length = several 10's cm)
Linear
Slickenside
Unclear
Clear
Clear
Clear
(Not Studied)
Unclear
Striation
None
Exist Developed
Exist
Developed
(Not Studied)
None
Trace length
5+ m
2 to 40+ m
8+m
20cm 5+m to 10+m (2 to 3+m on average)
3 to 10+m
General Fracture interval
more than 5 to 30 cm (30 cm on 30 cm average)
rarely occured
2 to 20 cm (10cm on average)
2+m
TABLE 2 - 6 FRACTURE SETS BASED ON GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATION
After Uchida, 1990 PROJECT NO. 803-1346
rarely occured
DRAWING NO. » 9 3 5
DATE 7 / I M I
DRAWN BY EA
Orientation Interpretations Non-Fracture Zone Statistics Gale Pole Trend Pole Plunge Trace
Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
Strength
ISIS-4 SETS Pole Trend Pole Plunge Trace
Mean Mean Fisher K Mean Std
Strength
Sen 288.6 26.4 12.7 26 1.83 1.51 51.4%
Set 2 30.1 16.1 21.2 12.6 1.67 0.81 12.9%
Set 3 231.7 8.4 8.1 10.9 1.71 1.18 7.8%
Set 4 323.4 59.6 55.2 14.4 2.57 2.25 10.0%
Sen
Set 2 285.2 65.1 3.3 1.63 1.45 25.2%
Set 3 284.5 3.4 4.7 1.63 1.36 25.2%
Set 4 283.9 3.5 4.4 1.63 1.35 25.2%
Set 2 348.8 18.9 12.4 15.5 0.32 0.18 21.7%
Set 3 280.6 24.5 9.7 25 0.74 0.98 36.2%
Set 4 339.7 19.1 45.9 5.8 0.41 0.19 7.1%
Set 2 257.8 40.4 2.9 1.18 1.24 23.0%
Set 3 95.7 31
Set 4 272.9 7.4 4.2 1.17 1.32 28.0%
235.2 22.5 3.5 1.68 1.38 24.4%
Set 5 199.6 19.8 27.6 15.7 1.06 1.34 8.7%
Set 6 67.6 18.7 41.1 14.8 2.78 3.84 9.1%
H-Fracture Zone Statistics Gale Pole Trend Pole Plunge Trace
Sen 60.2 15.6 18.8 10.6 0.47 0.54 13.3%
Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
Strength
ISIS-4 SETS Pole Trend Pole Plunge Trace Strength
Sen Mean Mean Fisher K Mean Std
167.2 66.6 2.6 1.19 1.37 20.0%
H.6
1.18 1.35 29.0%
Set 5 340 94.4 64.9 10.4 1.1 0.07 21.7%
TABLE 2 - 7
ALTERNATIVE ZONE AND NON-ZONE FRACTURE SETS PROJECT NO 903 1346
DRAWING NO 25722
DATE 7/19/91
DRAWN BY CB
26 modified Terzaghi technique (Dershowitz et al, 1991). Then, for each fracture within the fracture model, a single orientation was selected from the set of corrected measurements. A small dispersion was then added to that orientation using a Fisher orientation with a dispersion parameter K of 20, centered around the selected orientation. The fracture orientation was then selected from that Fisher distribution. This process is repeated for each fracture to be generated. The stereoplots in Figure 2-7 presents a comparison of 100 measured and bootstrap fractures.
2.4
FRACTURE SIZE In the FracMan model, fracture size is described by the "effective fracture radius". Effective fracture radius is the radius of the circular disk fracture with area identical to that of the polygonal fracture modelled by FracMan. Fracture size was derived from the fracture zone and non-fracture zone trace length statistics using the forward modelling approach illustrated in Figure 2-8. In this approach, alternative fracture radius distributions are postulated, and the corresponding fracture trace length distributions are derived numerically by simulating the procedures used to collect fracture trace data. The simulation is quite realistic, since it incorporates not only fracture size and orientation distributions, but also the orientation and mapping window size used for each of the surveys making up the fracture trace length data. Attempts were made to fit lognormal, normal, power law, and exponential radius distributions to trace length data using visual matches of probability density functions (PDF) and cumulative density functions (CDF), and use simulated annealing optimization based upon Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Chi-Squared tests. Statistics for these fits are presented in Table 2-8. None of the solutions passes the X2 test at more than 85% significance level. The distribution providing the best fit was the exponential distribution. Unfortunately, this distribution produces a large number of fractures with very small radius, making it very difficult to simulate in FracMan.
100 Non-zone Fractures
EQUAL-AREA
PROJECTION
[Set 13
N
•
-
Poles
Bootstrap from 100 Non-zone Fractures, Fisher Dispersion, K = 25 EQUAL-AREA PROJECTION N
• - Poles
FIGURE 2 - 7 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND BOOTSTRAP ORIENTATIONS PROJECT NO 903-1346
DRAWING NO. » 7 8 7
DATE 7/19(91
DRAWN BY EA
Assume Distributional Form and Parameters for Fracture Radius f r (r)
N
W Terzaghi-Corrected Orientation Data or Fitted PDF
Select Number of Traces to Simulate and Fraction of fr (r) to Consider
Generate Random Fracture Orientation by Bootstrap Sampling or Simulation from PDF
W
Generate Random Radius r from f, (r)
Survey Geometry for One or More Traceplanes. and Censoring Length X min
Randomly Select Traceplane from Survey (in proportion to trace plane area) and Generate Random Location Relative to Traceplane
^^^
Does Fracture Intersect Traceplane?
NO
Calculate truncated X v Tracelength
Is X >Xmin for Traceplane?
NO
Enough Samples of X?
NO
Tracelength Data from Survey
Calculate statistics to compare simulated and otöerved PDF's f \ (X)
Is Match Acceptable?
NO
Revise
Final Estimate of fr (0 FIGURE 2 - 8
FracSize DERIVATION OF FRACTURE SIZE FROM TRACE LENGTH PROJECT NO 903-'346
DRAWING NO. 25695
DATE 7/2/91
DRAWNBY EA
Table 2-8. Alternative Fracture Radius Distributions Parameters
Distributional Form
Non-Fracture Zone
Lognormal
Exponential
Normal
Power Law
Lognormal Fracture Zone Exponential
Normal
Power Law
| Trace Length Fitted
Data
Mean
1.78
1.96
1.72
Std. Dev.
1.52
1.09
1.45
Mean
1.43
1.85
1.72
Std. Dev.
1.43
1.07
1.45
Mean
1.09
1.81
1.72
Std. Dev.
1.20
0.97
1.45
Minimum
0.991
Mean
1.64
1.72
Exponent
3.94
Std. Dev.
0.76
1.45
Mean
1.19
1.49
1.2
Std. Dev.
1.69
0.80
1.33
Mean
1.02
1.57
1.2
Std. Dev.
1.02
0.77
1.33
Mean
0.54
1.28
1.2
Std. Dev.
0.79
0.54
1.33
Minimum
0.73
Mean
1.46
1.2
Exponent
3.44
Std. Dev.
0.58
1.33
X2 Test (Statistic, Percent Significance)
KolmogorovSmirnov Test (Statistic, Percent Significance)
51.5, 0.623
.277, 10-37
9.31, 90
.22, 10"23
12.2, 72.7
.23, lO' 26
16.9, 38.9
.23,10' 2 6
52.9, 0.31
0.35, 5 x 10-64
38.4, .123
0.39, 2 x 10-76
42.7, 0.03
0.36, 5 x 10-67
49.6, 0.003
0.41, 7 x 10-88
Note: Based upon 100 Fracsize iterations, search based upon X2 statistic. Does not represent optimal fit.
30 In order to facilitate modelling, a visual fit was made to fracture trace length information using coarse histograms of fracture radius, rather than cumulative density functions. This approach introduced error in fitting, since measured traces were divided and compared in bins of 0.2 to 1 meter range. However, it produced fitted fracture length distributions consistent with the empirical distributions of Uchida (1990). Comparisons of fitted and data histogram trace length distributions are presented in Figure 2-9. The values of fracture size used for the detailed model region aie shown in Table 2-9.
2.5
CONDUCTIVE FRACTURE TRANSMISSIVITY AND INTENSITY Although the intensity of mapped and logged fractures at the Stripa site exceeds 7 m2/m / the observed heterogeneity and heterogeneous hydraulic connection indicates a much lower intensity of conductive fractures. In this analysis, as in previous simulations (Geier et al., 1990), analysis is based upon conductive intensity P32,. rather than mapped and logged intensity. Conductive fracture intensity is defined as,
L,ni
(2-3)
32c~~~Tr
where nfc is the number of conductive fractures in volume VR, and A; is fracture area. Fracture transmissivity distributions, fj(Tf) and conductive fracture frequency (Xc) were derived simultaneously using the Oxfilet fixed interval packer test analysis technique (Dershowitz et al., 1991). Conductive fracture frequency is defined as
Ö]
(24)
where E[] is the expected value (mean), nfc is the number of conductive fractures contributing to the packer interval transmissivity distribution, and L p is the packer interval length.
Non-Fracture Zone Fractures (Log normal Radius Distribution, \i = 1.03, a = 0.49) 20%-
16% -
Simulated Trace Length u. = 1.99, c = 1.14 (from histogram pdf) Non Fracture Zone Data . = 1-91.o = 1.14 (from histogram pdf)
12% -•
8%
4%
0%
0
.875
1.75
2.625
3.5
4.375
5.25
6.125
7
Actual Values (in Cell C24) Fracture Zone Fractures (Log normal Radius Distribution, u. = 0.63, a = 0.44) 20%
Simulated Trace Length u.=1.50, o = J_.15 jfrom histogram pdf]
16%
"H Zone Data U=1 .48, o = 1.08 (from histogram pdf) 12%-
.875
1.75
2.625
3.5
4.375
5.25
6.125
FIGURE 2 * 9
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND SIMULATED TRACE LENGTHS PROJECT NO 9031346 DWG NO. ?5707 DATE 7/2W1 DRAWN CB
Table 2-9 Fitted Fracture Radius Distributions Distributional Form NonFracture Zone
Fracture Zone
Parameters
Fitted histogram* pdf
Histogram* data pdf
Data pdf
Mean 1.03 m
Mean 1.99 m
Mean 1.91 m
Mean 1.63 m
Std. Dev. 0.49 m
Std. Dev.
1.14 m
Std. Dev. 1.14 m
Std. Dev. 133 m
Mean 0.63 m
Mean 1.50 m
Mean 1.48 m
Mean 1.17 m
Std. Dev.
Std. Dev.
Std. Dev. 1.08 m
Std. Dev. 1.28 m
Lognormal
Lognormal
Trace Length Data
0.44m
1.15 m
'Histogram pdf statistics are derived by dividing data into bins, then calculating statistics using the center value for each bin, weighted by the pdf probability mass for that bin.
33
Limiting simulation to conductive fractures makes discrete fracture mcdelling possible. Given a site wido fracture frequency of 4.18 (Gale, 1988), the fracture intensity would be approximately 7 m2/m3. For a mean fracture area of 4 m2, this corresponds to 1.4 x 107 fractures to be modelled inthe2Q0mx20Omx2QOm SCV rock block. The use of conductive fracture frequency makes it possible to reduce model size to order of magnitude 1Q4 conductive fractures, while still obtaining a model capable of reproducing observed hydraulic response at a range of scales.
2.5.1
Conductive Fracture Frequency and Transmissivity The OxFilet ("Osnes Extraction from Fixed-Interval-Length Effective Transmissivities", based on Osnes(1988)} approach to derivation of conductive fracture frequency and transmissivity is illustrated in Figure 2-10. The method assumes that the net transmissivity of a test zone is equal to the sum of the transmissivities of the conductive fractUies that intersect the test zone, as seen at the borehole:
j -1
where T; k the apparent transmissivity of the ith packer interval, nfci is the number of conductive fractures in the ith interval, and T^ is the transmissivity of the jth conductive fracture within the ith interval, as seen at the borehole. Within any given interval, the number of conductive fractures, nfci, is assumed to be a random number defined by a Poisson distribution (Benjamin and Cornell, 1970): (Xc Lp )n"'e^'lp' f (n. \= -
(2-0)
where A.fc is the Poisson process intensity (number of conductive fractures per meter of borehole) and L x is the length of packer interval i.
Distribution of Packer Interval Transmissivity
Packer Tests on Fixed-Length Intervals
Packer Interval Transmissivity
f Percentage of Intervals ] I with no measurable flow )
I
Distribution of number of conductive fractures n c for Poisson rate X c ana packer interval length L p
Distribution of packer interval transmissivity = distribution of compound poisson process of sum of fracture transmissivities
Best fit optimization of distribution of fracture transmissivity and conductive fracture frequency Xc to distribution of packer interval transmissivity
FIGURE 2 - 1 0 OXFILET DERIVATION OF CONDUCTIVE FRACTURE INTENSITY AND TRANSMISSIVITY PROJECT NO. 903 1346 DWG. NO. 25697 DATE 7/73/91 OH AWN BY EA
35 In this approach, the mean number of fractures in a given interval is defined by the Poisson distribution rate parameter, Xc, and the distribution of fracture transmissivities T- is described by a lognormal distribution with a mean and standard deviation, |ij T and o,ogT. For any given set of parameters describing the distribution of fracture transmissivity f(Tjj) and conductive fracture frequency Xc, the distribution of packer interval transmissivities f(Tj) were found by Monte Carlo simulation, with the best fit value found by a simulated annealing search routine. Simulated intervals that contain no conductive fractures, or that have values of T; less than T threshc!d , the lowest threshold transmissivity that could be reliably measured in the field, are assigned a transmissivity equal to T threshold . The intensity and transmissivity distributions for the conductive fractures can then be estimated by finding the best match between the observed distribution of packer interval transmissivities f(T;) and the distribution of test zone transmissivities found by simulation for given fracture frequency and single-fracture transmissivity distributions. This match is found both visually and by comparison of Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) and Chi-Squared statistics (x2) . The values of n, \i\ORj and O|ogx t n a t provided the best K-S and x2 statistics are taken to be the best estimates of those parameters. The significant difference between the derivation of fracture transmissivity in this study, and the values used in the simulated drift experiment is the recognition that the transmissivity seen in packer tests ("at borehole transmissivity") is not necessarily the same as the transmissivity used in MAFIC flow and transport simulations. MAFIC simulations require that the fracture transmissivity used be the effective transmissivity through a fracture between the fractures intersecting the fracture ("cross-fracture transmissivity", Tfi). The version of OxFilet used in this study provides three alternative interpretations for the relationship between Tfi and Tjj, the transmissivity seen in the fixed interval packer test (Figure 2-11). •
The packer test influences one fracture at a time, such that the transmissivity seen for each fracture TSj is equal to the cross fracture transmissivity, Tfi .
•
The packer test influences a network with a number of interconnected fractures. In this case, the transmissivity seen by the packer test, T^, is a network transmissivity related to the cross-fracture transmissivity of a number of fractures. Assuming seri?s flow through the m fractures influenced by the packer test, the relationship between T^ and Tfi could be given approximately by,
(2-7)
a) Packer Test Controlled by Single Fracture
b) Packer Test Controlled by Fracture Network
a) Packer Test Controlled by Local Fracture Roughness
FIGURE 2 * 1 1 ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF PACKER TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO 903 1346 DWG. NO. 25696 DATE 7/22/91 DHAWN BY EA
37
For this option, an additional parameter rh, the mean number of fractures per network seen by packer tests must be specified. The distribution of m is assumed to be Poisson. •
The packer test is strongly influenced by the local fracture aperture near the borehole. In this case the transmissivity seen by the packer test is a small scale ("at-borehole") transmissivity, and the cross-fracture transmissivity Tfj must be found using a correlation of the form.
In OxFilet, the proportionality constant Bf is described as a normally distributed random variable with mean and standard deviation provided by the user. As example of the relationship between Tfi and T;: from numerical simulation is shown in Figure 2-12 (Kenrick and Dershowitz, 1991). At the time this study was initiated, the only option developed was the treatment of relationship between "at borehole" and "cross-fracture" transmissivity due to fracture roughness. Values were fit for cross-fracture transmissivity using Bf with mean and standard deviation values of 6 and 3. These values were based roughly upon the numerical experiments of Kenrick and Dershowitz with a reduction in standard deviation to account for the removal of fractures with low cross-fracture transmission from the dataset. These values were checked by comparing measured and predicted values for SDE results. Fitted values are summarized in Table 2-10. Table 2-10 OxFilet Cross-Fracture Transmissivity Fitted Cross Fracture Transmissivity Distribution (Lognormal)
Packer Interval Transmissivity
Measured
Fitted
N-Boreholes, W- C- (NonFracture Zone)
Mean 123x10* Std.Dev. 555 x 10» \ . 0.597
Mean 3.89 x 10"* Std.Dev. 3.66 xlO 7
Mean 3.61x10» Std.Dev. 1.87x10*
x*?a.9,«i3)
N-Boreholes, W-,C(Fracture Zone)
Mean 2.3 x 10"* Std.Dev. 4.18x10-' \ , 2.69
Mean 1.75x10* Std.Dev. 627x10*
Mean 1.14xlO* Std.Dev. 2.69 x 10*
X1 (16.8, 96.6) K-S (0.109,57.4)
Packer Tests
Goodness of Fit (Statistic, Confidence Interval)
K-S (0.056, 93.8)
a) "Cross-Fracture" Transmissivity from one edge to another
"At-Borehole" Transmissivity seen by Packer Test
1E-07
1E-08
gin i
O
1E-09
&
2
1E-1O O
1E-11
1E-11
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
1E-07
•Ai-8orehole" Transmissivity (m2/s) Ratio of Cross-Fracture to At-Borehole Transmissivity Mean: 6.4 Std Dev = 11.2
b) Results of Numerical Simulations for a Range of Theoretical Roughness Profiles
(After Kenrick and Dershowitz, 1991) PROJECT NO. 903 1346 DWG. iVlO. 25696 DATE 7/22/91 ORAWN BV EA
FIGURE 2 - 1 2 CROSS-FRACTURE AND AT-BOREHOLE TRANSMISSIVITY
39
Fracture transmissivity was fit separately for N-, C-, and W- boreholes in an attempt to obtain a correlation between fracture orientation and transmissivity. Since the Nboreholes are approximately perpendicular to the major principal stress, the Wboreholes are approximately parallel to the major principal stress, and the C- boreholes are in between, we expected to obtain a correlation in which the mean fracture transmissivity was highest in N-boreholes, lowest in W-boreholes, and in-between of C-boreholes. As shown in Figure 2-13 , this did not occur. The cross-fracture transmissivity is in fact highest perpendicular to the major principal stress (Wboreholes). As a result, the values for combined N,W, and C boreholes were used, and no distinction was made based upon orientation. OxFilet Simulation results for combined N, W, and C boreholes are shown in Figure 2-14 (Bf = 1) and 2-15 (Bf = Normal (63)) Studies by Doe and Geier (1991) indicate that, in fracture zones, the dimension of flow is generally between 2.7 and 3. This indicates that it is more likely that flow is occurring in well interconnected systems of plate-like fractures, than that it is occurring in linear pipe-like channels. In this case, it is more appropriate to make the assumption that the fracture transmissivity seen at boreholes is the effective transmissivity of a fracture network, as approximated using equation 2-7, rather than being a result of channel-like flow due to the spatial structure of fracture roughness. Reasonable values of network mean depth m produced fit statistics which indicate that the values of cross-fracture transmissivity derived above are also reasonable in fracture zones (Figure 2-16).
2.5.2
Derivation of Conductive Fracture Intensity Fracture intensity measure Xfc is specific to the orientation of boreholes and fractures used to measure it. FracMan simulations utilize conductive fracture intensity P 32c which is independent of sampling schemes. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain a transformation from the borehole orientation specific X(c obtained using OxFilet to P32c.
The transformation from Xlc to P32c was carried out using FracMan simulated sampling. For an assumed value of P ^ , the N,C, and W boreholes were simulated in a 200 meter cube of fractures with the orientation and size distribution derived in sections 2.2 and 2.3. From these boreholes, the total number of fracture intersections with the N,C, and W boreholes was calculated. This provided the necessary ratio for the transformation, KM
•
Fracture Transmissivity Mean
20
40
60
80
Mean Fracture Pole Orientation
Fracture Transmissivity Standard Deviation
20
40
60
Mean Fracture Pole Orientation
N: Non Fracture Zone Z: Fracture Zone A: All Intervals Orientation (0,30,90) corresponds to (N, C and W) boreholes FIGURE 2 - 1 3 VARIATION IN FRACTURE TRANSMISSIVITY WITH ORIENTATION
Note: Solution for single (smooth) fracture PROJECT NO 903-1346
DRAWING NO. »790
DATE 7/25/91
DRAWN BY EA
Fracture Zone UT ILS
OBIENTftTION
SIZE
EXIT
TRftNSHISSIUITV
OXFIL SIMULATION RESULTS Input F i l e : cnw_fz l . f i l S i n g l e Fracture: M=1 r = l . B Hin. TransiMtssiwitu:
le-814
-5.73 (Mean. S U Pev): 1.96 188 3.24 (Intervals, Freq.): Simulation FIL Data t of data , t s 1.7e-M8 1.14C-M8 He an 9.25.-9O8 2.96e-M|
1.E-1S
l.E-5
l.E-15
l.E-5
less Xurtosis X Nonconductive 2.i (Snirnov. x Signff>:8.8691 Print File (Y/N> ?
Non-Fracture Zone UTILS
OBlENTftTIOH
SIZE
THAMSHISSIUITV
EXIT
OXFIL SIMULATION RESULTS Input File : cn«_nf_7.fil Single Fracture; M = I r=1.9 Min. TransiMissivitu: :
le-012
l.E-6
l.E-15
7.3
===> Print File (V/N)
w
l.E-15 Original
l.E-6
Ti Ti
FIGURE 2 - 1 4 OXFILET TRANSMISSIVITY RESULTS, SINGLE FRACTURE, NO CHANNELING ASSUMPTION PROJECT NO 903 1346 DWG NO 25709 DATE 7/22/91 DRAWN CB
Fracture Zone Input File: cnw fe I.fil Frac. Roughness [Normal]: 6 ~ 3 Min. Transmissivity: ie-012 (Mean. Std Dev): 2.36-008 4.18e-O07 (Intervals. Freq.): 50 2.69 Simulation
lOv. -
J
FIL Dat
* of data pts Mean Std Dev Log 10 Mean Log 10 Std Dev Skewness Kurtosis % Nonconductive (Smimov. % Signif): (Chi-Sqr. % Signif):
134 83 1.75e-OO8 1 14e-OO8 6.27e-008 2.69e-008 -8.86 -8.87 1.28 1.09 8.48 4.07 82.7 17.7 5.97 2 4 1 0.109 57.4 16 8 96.6
V E-15 1
E-15
Jilt
i . E-6
r J
i . E-6
.if
—
Non-Fracture Zone Input File: cnw nf 7>il Frac. Roughness [Normal]: 6 ~ 3 Min. Transmissivity: 1e-012 (Mean. Std Dev): 1.23e-O08 5.55e-006 (Intervals. Freq): 50 4.18 Simulation
2 Ox. 1
FIL Dat
# of data pts Mean Std Dev LogiO Mean Log 10 Std Dev Skewness Kurtosis % Nonconductive (Smimov, % Signif): (Chi-Sqr, % Signif):
209 160 3.89e-008 3.61e-009 3.66e-007 1.87e-008 -9.71 -9.76 1.25 1.1 12.2 9.09 158 91.9 4.31 1.88 00561 93.8 21.9 823
l.E-15
l.E-5
l.E-15
l.E-5
FIGURE 2 * 1 5 OXFILET TRANSMISSIVITY RESULTS, ROUGH FRACTURE ASSUMPTION PROJECT NO 903 1346
DRAWING NO. 2^789
DATE 7/23/91
0RAWNBV CB
100 o ro o g> to
o (/> ~ 5 29,
°6 = ". - P2K1 + ^
3
5
7
-^
sin :e.
9
Radial distance/Radius of Hole
Circular hole stresses along x axis (6=0)
I 1
R
1
"Mi
'JD'2
Radial distance/Radius of Hole
FIGURE 2 - 1 8 KIRSCH PLANE STRAIN STRESS SOLUTION PROJF.CTNO 903 1346
DRAWING NO. 25721
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY EA
49 It is important to note that both the McKinnon and Carr boundary element solution, and the Kirsch analytical solution are based on a continuum stress field, which does not account for the discrete movement of rock blocks, particularly in the drift crown. This was evaluated as part of a separate study by Tinucci (1991). In general, the movements of blocks result in an increase in normal stresses on fractures intersecting the drift, within the first 0.5 m from the drift wall, relative to the discontinuum solutions (Figure 2-19). In paricular, while the discontinuum solution predicts a reduction in stress on fractures oriented with poles parallel to the drift axis, the continuum solution predicts an increase in stress on these fractures within the first 0.5 meter from the drift. The continuum solution also predicts a decrease in stress on these fractures due to the "Poisson effect", i.e., the elastic expansion into the drift must be accompanied by an elastic compression parallel to the drift axis, which in a plane strain stress condition yields a reduction in normal stress parallel to the drift axis. The discontinuum (rock block kinematic) solution reflects the wedging of rock blocks into the drift in all directions.
2.6.2
Stress-Transmissivity Relationships An extensive survey of stress transmissivity results was carried out to document the relationship between the change in the stress state on fractures due to drift construction and changes in fracture transmissivity. There are a large number of laboratory studies documenting changes in fracture transmissiviry due to both changes in normal and shear stress. Changes in shear stress produce both increases and decreases in transmissivity, with sensitive dependence upon fracture surface conditions and loading (e.g., Makurt et al, 1990), Figure 2-20. Changes in normal stress generally produce changes in transmissivity according to a relationship of the form,
^ ) ( )
(2-8)
where T and To are the fracture transmissivity before and after the change in normal stress, and o and o 0 are the initial and final normal stress on the fracture surface. These results are summarized in Figure 2-21. Values for the coefficient p vary from 0.2 to 2.0, with a reasonable value of 1.0. The values shown in Figure 2-21 include experiments specific to rock at the Stripa site (Figure 2-22), where p is equal to approximately 1.0 . The experiments themselves indicate significant hysteresis, particularly for initial normal stress greater than 10 MPa (e.g., Figure 2-23). In order to account for this, the primary stress correction utilized a coefficient p of 1.0 for all cases except in cases of reduction in normal stress where both the initial and final normal stresses exceeded 10 MPa. In these cases, a coefficient P of 0.0 was used, i.e., no change in transmissivity with stress. Sensitivity studies were carried out for values of p between 0.2 and 2.0 .
30 Sir Srr soo soo Szz Szz Leeman 3DEC Leeman 3DEC Leeman CJDEC * — — A A
±.
A
25
A
20
-
(O CO
00
A A
A
15
A
A
A •
&
•
%r
10
A A
% —
*
\
*
-
* i
8
i
10
12
i
14
16
Radius (m)
FIGURE 2 " 1 9 3DEC STRESS SOLUTION
(After Tinucci, 1991) PROJECT NO. 903 1346
DRAWING NO. 25699
DATE 7/23/9I
DRAWN BY EA
10-6 „
10-9—i
12.3 MPa 26.5 MPa u
o 10"7 x> o O
(D
o
21.1 MPa
START
20.8 MPa END Fracture normal stress in mega pascals
10' 8 -2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
Shear Deformation (micrometer)
Shear loading effect on joint conduuctivity in joint sample 1, 0.2m core (aperture = 8 x 10"6 to 18 x 10"6 m)
FIGURE 2 " 2 0
EFFECT OF SHEAR STRESS ON TRANSMISSIVITY
(After Makurt et al, 1990) PROJECT NO. 903 1346
DRAWIf.G NO 25940
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY EA
•J
Raven and Gale (1985) A Test 1 B Test 2
D
Viv " ^
A
Vs
ÅrV ^*o
C Test 3 D Test 5 E Pratt etal. (1977) Gale etal. (1987)
Q> PJ
F Test STR2
DC
\
O LL
X \
CO
-9?
H ^w \
\
isio
C
\
1 lo2 Q
H
^V< >7
I Test E35
J \\ 'V ' \ \ \ \
1
H TestSTR7 Pyrak-Nolteetal. (1987)
^V
H
\G \ K
G TestSTR3
F
V \
\
J TestE30 K Test E32 Sundrametal. (1987) L 1st loading
K
M 2nd loading
N^N J
\^
10
0 3rd loading
100
Dimensionless Normal Stress
FIGURE 2 - 2 1
EFFECT OF STRESS ON FLOW RATE PROJECT NO.903 T346
DRAWING WO. 257P8
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN SY EA
10-8 .01-
Transmissivity (m2/s) TO'7 106 10"5
10"4
10-8 .01
10~3
m a. 2
OL
to to
CO CO
£
10 -4
0.1-
0.1-
1
55 "5
Transmisslvity (m2/s) -10-6 t Q-5 10 -7
S
1
m
o 10-
10Loading Fined Exponent 0 124
Cycle 1 2 Loading D O Fined 0.77 Exponent (3 1.20
0.790.52
100
100 (a) Rock Sample STR2
10 -10
Transmissivity (m2/s) 10 -9 i0-8 10 -7
(b) Rock Sample STR3
i 0 -6
10 -5
.01
0.1TO
S!
1
"rö
103 4 Loading Fined 0 74»; 94 Exponent (3 1.091.11
100 (c) Rock Sample STR7
FIGURE 2 ~ 2 2 STRIPA PHASE 2 NORMAL STRESS TRANSMISSIVITY EXPERIMENT
(after Gale, 1987) PROJFCTNO 803 1346
DRAWING MO » 9 4 1
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY EA
Log [normalized flow rate, (Q/AH)(m3/m)] -16.0
-15.0
-14.0
-13.0
-12.0
-11.0
0.0
24.0 -
FIGURE 2 " 2 3
HYSTERESIS IN STRESS-TRANSMISSIVITY RELATIONSHIPS
(After Gale, 1987) PROJECT NO. 903 1346
DRAWING NO. 25700
OATE 7®91
0RAWNBY EA
55 2.6.3
Solutions for Other Drift Construction Effects In addition to stress effects, an attempt was made to model the opening of fractures above the crov/n of the drift due to kinematic rock block movement into the validation drift. The "crown fractures" conceptual model adds a set of fractures parallel to the roof of the drift, to approximate the additional flow conduit formed by block movement. The parameters of these "crown fractures" are summarized in Table 2-14. Figure 2-24 illustrates the crown fractures conceptual model.
Table 2-14. Crown Fracture Assumptions Location
Vithin a lm Radius Cylinder centered 1.7 m above the draft axis
Orientation
Mean Dip Direction Parallel to Drift Axis (Trend = 287.9°, Plunge = 3.3°) Jivariate Normal Orientation Distribution, Trend Standard Deviation 3°, Plunge Standard Deviation 5°
Geologic Conceptual Model
'oisson Rectangle .ength Truncated Normal (mean = 4, Std Dev = 1, Min = O, Max = 100 m) Width Truncated Normal (mean = 1 Std Dev = 0.25, Min = 0, Max = 100 m)
Intensity
200 Fractures
Transmissivity
rruncated Lognormal (mean = 2.3 x 10'7, Std. dev. = 4.18 x 10'7, Min = 10'12, Max = 1)
No attempt was made to model other drift construction effects, beyond the use of an order of magnitude reduction in transmissivity to account for the net effect of all of these factors. However, following submission of the drift inflow prediction, an analysis was made of the possible effect of capillary pressures. This analysis indicated that the effect was negligible, since the only fractures capable of sustaining capillary pressures are those with apertures too small to contribute significant flux (Figure 2-25).
FAULT
UTILS
SAMPLE
FILES
EXIT
Single Frac
Remaining D-boreho!es •Crown Fractures
Validation Drift
Z-
A: ( 107*, - 7 8 K , -99«> B: ( - 9 3 N , 122», 1 0 1 M )
FIGURE 2 - 2 4 CROWN FRACTURES CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROJECT NO. 903 1346 DWG NO. 25704 DATE 7/22/91 DRAWN CB
200 180
70% (59%-80%) Reduction in Flux due to Capillary Pressure
39% (32%-44%) Reduction in Flux due to Capillary Pressure
CL CO
O
Conductive Fracture Transmissivities
-12
-10
-8
-6 2
Mean Fracture Transmissivity (m /s)
Stress Correction OM, No Crown Fractures
FIGURE 2 ~ 2 5 EFFECT OF CAPILLARY PRESSURES ON TOTAL DRIFT FLUX PROJECT NO. »3-1346
DRAWING NO. 25725
DATE 7/2&91
DRAWN BY CB
58
PREDICTIVE MODELLING Predictive modelling used the validation drift discrete fracture conceptual model developed in Chapter 2 (Figures 2-2). The parameters used in simulation are summarized in Table 3-1. Monte Carlo stochastic simulations were carried out for a variety of assumptions to evaluate the uncertainty and variability of possible drift inflows and head responses. The cases considered are as follows: •
No drift effect (should be equivalent to SDE inflows)
•
Drift effect correction based upon McKinnon and Carr (1990) Stresses, p = 1.0
•
Drift effect correction based upon Kirsch Stress, p = 0.2 to 20
•
Drift effect correction based upon order of magnitude skin
•
Drift effect correction based upon order of magnitude skin with "crown fractures".
The first stage of predictive modelling was the calibration of the properties of fracture zone fractures in the outer model region to ensure that the model was able to reproduce observed large scale hydrologic response, and the SDE inflow to the D-boreholes. Following calibration, stochastic simulations were carried out for predictions D-l through S-3 listed in Section 1-1. Stochastic simulation results are presented based upon approximately 200 runs, with 5 to 20 realization for each case. Results are summarized in terms of statistics including mean, standard deviation, and the range of result obtained from simulations. Confidence range, where provided, are approximated by visual inspection of distribution plots.
3.1
CALIBRATION Fracture properties in the inner model region, as well as boundary conditions were derived by forward modelling of data measured on the SCV site. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, properties of fractures in the outer model region were derived by calibration to observed cross-hole hydraulic responses in the "large scale cross-hole experiment", and to fluxes to the SDE experiment (Holmes et al, 1991). Calibration simulations were carried out utilizing the fracture parameters and boundary conditions as described in Chapter 2. No correction was made for drift effects in these simulations, which were carried out based upon pre-drift construction conditions. A variety of fracture size, orientation, and transmissivity assui options were evaluated, subject to the constraint that the total number of fractures within the fracture zones of the outer model region be equal to 2000. The fracture definition used for predictive simulations was selected based upon a
Total of Drift Stats
2-23-91
QDrift
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
0.7692 57.21% 58.03% 87.88%
0.5830 39.39% 39.73% 39.87%
0.0002 5.73% 6.11% 33.55%
2.2653 101.20% 100.39% 129.78%
QDrlftNZ
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
0.0953 57.39% 56.85% *
0.1547 43.81% 44.24% *
0.0000 0.00% 0.00% •
0.5264 107.79% 103.49% *
QDholesSum
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
1.2647
0.9805 n
0.0407
2.8347
QDholei
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
0.0175
0.0224
0.0000
0.0637
H% of Drift
M
M
"
N
n
"
M
"
"
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
82.06% 79.91% 80.05% 58.20%
25.65% 27.74% 27.81% 30.41%
3.09% 3.06% 3.09% 15.95%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 89.30%
B% of DholesSum
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
84.54% **
15.85%
52.67% "
B% of Dholei
mean
Std
min
max
No Stress Stress 1.0 Stress OM Crown OM
99.33%
f«
100.00% II
M
II
"
2.19% m
92.06%
M
M
m
100.00% **
M
M
M
N
||
H
TABLE 3 - 1 (As presented to Srripa Fracture Flow Task Force February, 1991) PROJECT NO. 903 1346
DRAWING NO.
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY EA
VALIDATION DRIFT INFLOW PREDICTION SUMMARY
60 comparison of the dimension of measured and fitted fracture zone transmissivity, cross-hole hydraulic response, and SDE inflow. Figure 3-1 presents an example distance drawdown relationship from large scale cross-hole experiments. In this figure, capital letters are used for responses in particular fracture zones (i.e., H), while small letters are used for responses which are probably related to fracture zones, although they do not coincide with the zone location, (i.e., h). Figure 3-2 presents an example of the hydraulic response seen in calibration simulations carried out with storativity equal to 10'5. Calibration to total flux to the simulated drift experiment produced a mean flux of 2.03 liters/minute, with a standard deviation of 0.7 liters/minute. This compares favorably with the measured flux to the simulated drift experiment, approximately 1.8 liters/minute (with measurement error of ± 0.4 liters/minute (Holmes et al, 1991).
3.2
MODELLING RESULTS AND PREDICTIONS Modelling results are presented in this section, based upon Monte Carlo simulation of the validation drift discrete fracture model. Where possible, figures also provide measured values for comparison. The comparison between measured values and predictions is discussed in Section 3.3. The statistical summary of the predictions presented to the Stripa Fracture Flow Task Force in February, 1991 is presented in Table 3-1. These results present flux normalized to the SDE flux for that fracture geometry, i.e., as a percentage of the flux with no correction for drift effects. Note that the "Stress 1.0" values presented in this table were found to be in error during technical review, and are replaced by correct values from supplemental simulations below. Statistics for "Stress OM" shown in Table 3-2 are incorrectly normalized. Correct values are reported below.
3.2.1
Prediction D-l: Total Rate of Groundwater Flow to Validation Drift The total rate of groundwater flow to the SCV drift was predicted on the basis of a one order of magnitude lower transmissivity skin applied to all portions of fractures within 3 meters of the SCV drift. Statistics for this prediction are as follows: Mean flux to the SCV drift: 0.26 liter/minute •
Maximum Likelihood Estimator: 0.12 liters/minute
•
Standard deviation of flux to the SCV drift: 0.26 liters/minute
•
90% Confidence Bounds: 0.05 to 0.8 liters/minute
•
Range of Simulation Results: 0.00024 to 0.9 liters/minute
100
1
H.C.H H.Q
10
type curve match dimension n = 2.3
I Ha.C
0.1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Normalized Distance t/r2 (s/m2)
Withdrawal Interval C1-2, time = 1 day
FIGURE (From Olsson et al, 1991) PflOJECTNO. 903- 1M6
OHAWINGNO. 267J3
3"1
LARGE-SCALE CROSS-HOLE RESPONSE DATE 7/25/91
OflAWNBY CB
100
•tt-
10
C O T3
0.1
10
100
1,000 2
10,000
2
Normalized Distance t/r (sec/m )
FIGURE 3 " 2
CALIBRATION OF LARGE-SCALE CROSS-HOLE RESPONSE PROJECT MO. »3-1346
DRAWING NO. 25724
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY CB
63 Table 3-2. Validation Drift Model Dataset
Orientation distribution Mean, Std. Dev. pole trend Mean, Std. Dev., pole plunge Fisher Dispersion Parameter for Bootstrap
Non-Fracture Zone Fracture Zone Detailed Model Region Detailed Model Region
Fracture Zone Coarse Model Region
Crown Fractures
Bootstrap N/A
Bootstrap N/A
Bootstrap N/A
Bivariate Normal (287.9«, 3*) (33°, 5")
20
20
20
Fracture Size
Truncated LogNormal
Truncated LogNormal
Constant Radius
Truncated LogNormal
Size Measures
Radius
Radius
Radius
Length
Width
Mean (m) Standard Deviation (m) Minimum (m) Maximum (m)
1.03 0.49 175 25
0.63 0.44 02 25
10 0 N/A N/A
4 1 0.80 N/A
1 05
War Zone Intensity Termination Percentage Intensity (m"')
N/A 30% 2343
10,000 30% .0979
Fracture Transmissivity
Truncated LogNormal
Truncated LogNormal
Constant Radius
Truncated LogNormal
Mean (m'/s) Standard deviation (m'/s) Minimum Trarsmissivity (m3/s) Maximum Transmissivity (m'/s) Storativily
1.23 xlO* 555 x 10* 10* 1.0 1x10*
23x10* 4.18 x lO"7 10* 1.0 1x10*
See Table 2-3 See Table 2-3 10-» 1.0 1x10*
2.3 x VT7 4.18 x 10"' 10* 1.0 1x10*
10,000 0% 2000 Fractures Total
N/A 0% 200 Fractures
Geologic Conceptual Model
BART
BART in Deterministic Warzones
Baecher in Deterministic Warzones
Poisson Rectangle
Location
Inside cylinder of radius 20 m, length 100m centered on drift axis
Within Fracture zones, inside cylinder of radius 20 m, length 100m, centered on drift axis
Within fracture zones, excluding cylinder of radius 19 m, length 100m, centered on drift axis
Inside cylinder of radius lm, length 100m, centered 1.7 m above drift axis
N/A • Not applicable
64
Note that these results, presented as absolute values of flux, cannot be derived directly from the results presented as a percentage of SDE flux in Table 3-1. This is because the SDE flux is different in each simulation, and the expected value of a product (drift flux) is not equal to the product of expected values (SDE flux and percentage of SDE flux). The probability density function for this prediction is presented in Figure 3-3 as absolute values, and and Figure 3-4 as percentage of SDE fluxes for each simulation.
Figure 3-5 presents comparisons of histogram probability density functions for the total drift flux for the case of no stress correction, order of magnitude transmissivity reduction skin (Case "OM"), Kirsch stress correction with p = 1.0 normal stresstransmissivity relationship, and OM with crown fractures. Note that the P = 1.0 stress-transmissivity correction has very little effect on drift inflow. This is in contrast to the initial assumption of this analysis, that stress changes accounted for the majority of drift skin effects.
3.2.2
Prediction D-2: Rate of Groundwater Flow to H-Zone, Spatial Distribution The validation drift discrete fracture conceptual model used in this study incorporates very strong fracture zones. The H, B, and I fractures zone in the inner model region have a conductive intensity 4.5 times that of the non-fracture zone regions, with a "lean transmissivity an order of magnitude greater. In addition, the only connection between the fractures in the inner region and the fixed head boundary condition at the edges of the model is through the fracture zone fractures 25% -^
20% -
.tr W
g
15% -
i
5% -
-
0% -
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
0.6
1
0.7
0.8
1
0.9
Flux (liters/minute)
FIGURE 3 " 3 PREDICTED DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT TLUX PROJECT NO. 903-(346
DRAWING NO. 26802
DATE
DRAWN BV EA
In Situ Measurement 12%
isity Histogram (|XI»)
35% -i
a ^>.
30% •
25%
:
—
: 15% •
Proba
10% 5% •
H—I—I—I—I—I—I-
0% •
H—I—I—I—I—I—K
OM case reduction in flux re'ative to simulation with no drift effect
FIGURE 3 " 4
PREDICTED DISTRIBUTION OF FLUX REDUCTION CASE OM PflOJECTNO. 903 1346
ORAWING NO. »947
TATE 7/26/91
DRAWN BY EA
FIGURE 3 - 5
REDUCTION IN FLUX DUE TO DRIFT EFFECTS PROJECT NO. 903.346
DRAWING NO. 25793
DATE 7/2&91
DRAWN BY EA
•Hydrologic H-ZoneGeometric H-Zone
Geometric H-Zone is location of fracture zone statistics in detailed model region. Hydrologic H-Zone is zone of higher flux as seen in drift.
FIGURE 3 * 6 PATTERN OF INFLOW TO H-ZONE PANELS PROJECT NO. 903 1346
DRAWING NO 257,16
DATE 7/23/91
DRAWN BY EA
69 this pattern varies between realizations of the model, the fundamental pattern did not change for different assumptions of drift skin effects. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 present distributions of H-zone drift inflow and inflow to lm by lm H-zone sheets (from one stochastic realization).
3.2.3
Prediction D-3: Rate of Groundwater Flow to Average Rock, Spatial Distribution The rate of flow from average rock is the complement of the rate of flow to the H zone; the high percentage of flow to the H-zone for prediction D-2 corresponds to a low percentage of flow to average (non H-zone) rock in this prediction. For case OM, the flux mean and standard deviation are 0.0016 l/m and 0.0034 l/m, with a range from 0.0000 to 0.0125 Vm. This represents a mean of 1.69% of the total drift flux, with standard deviation 3.09% and range from 0.0% to 10.43%. Given the very low magnitude of these flows, the crown fracture conceptual model, which provides a conductive conduit for flow away from the H-zone made a significant difference in the statistics. For the case of order of magnitude drift skin with crown fractures, the mean rate of groundwater flow to average rock is 0.12 liters/minute, with a standard deviation of 0.09 liters/minute. This corresponds to 6 to 82% of the total drift inflow with a mean of 36%. Figure 3-9 presents a three dimensional view of the flux distribution for the validation drift from a realization for case OM with crown fractures. This histogram shows that 90% of all panels have no measurable flow, and that three panels carry 75% of total flow to the drift. For case OM, 93-96% of all panels have no measurable flow. Fluxes to average rock, when they occur, are at isolated fractures which happened to find a connection to the H-zone. The distribution of the flux to non-zone regions and non-zone panels for cases OM and Crown Fracture is shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11 (for one stochastic realization). The pattern of Inflow to sheets in the entire drift for cases OM and Crown Fracture are shown in Figure 3-12.
3.2.4
Prediction D-4: Characteristics of Fractures in the Drift The characteristics of fractures in the drift were predicted in terms of the distribution of orientations and trace lengths of fractures mapped in the drift, and by simulated trace maps. These predictions are best compared qualitatively to results from fracture trace mapping carried out after drift construction (Bursey, et al., 1991). Figure 3-13 presents a simulated trace map for the four sides of the drift, while figures 3-14 and 3-15 present simulated stereoplots of orientation and simulated distributions of trace length.
In Situ Measurement 0.097 l/m
0.9
> 'in
Q
n TO
01 0.1
0.2
0.3
liters/minute
FIGURE 3 " 7 HISTOGRAM OF TOTAL INFLOW TO H-ZONE PROJECT NO 903 1346
DRAWING NO. 25726
DATE 7/2M1
DRAWN BY EA
0.5-1 0.450.40.35>
"to
å
!5 re S3
S Q.
0.30.25-
0.2-11 0.150.1 0.0500.005
0.01
0.015 0.02 liters/rninute
0.025
0.03
0.035
FIGURF 3 " 8
HISTOGRAM DISTRIBUTION FOR INFLOW TO H-ZONE SHEETS PROJECT NO 903 1346
DRAWING NO 25794
DATE 7/22/91
DRAWN BY EA
Result for one realization of Case OM with crown fractures. Cases without crown fractures do not show significant flux to non-zone panels. (Figure 3-11)
FIGURE 3 " 9
PATTERN OF INFLOW TO NON-ZONE PANELS PROJECT NO 903 1346 DWG NO. 25717 DATE 7/22/91 DRAWN CB
In Situ Measurement 0.0016 l/m
70% •
Probetbilit y Dens ity(pd
60% • 50% • 40%
•
30% • 20% • 10% •
|Js&|
I
0% •
to
C\J
o
ö
o
c
o
s
1
1-
o
ö
^ » VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direcfion(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 « < t i t l e > > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) -2189,-68.78,-4.45 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 317,42 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 200 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < 10 1 0> WZ Thickness 1 < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. 1 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 GO! < < > > Fracture Properties
< 10 1 0> TransmissivHy le-008
Storativity 0.0001
Frac Thickness 0.0001
GO!
GENERATE
2 Fracture Set 1
FRACTURE OPTIONS
Deterministic War Zone Intens: # of Fracs Region: CYL (ext) Orientations: Pole Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-t2 Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,665,42 Cylinder Radius 19 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES Size (eqv. radius) 10t [constant] Dir of FJong(tr,pI) 0,0
[constant] Aspect Ratio I
[constant] iVZ Intensity 10000
lulv 29.1991
< - l l 0 0> Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 447 GO! < < < t h l e > > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 57e-008 < - l l 0 0> Uncorrelated < - l l 0 0> LogNormal < 10 1 0> Stand* d deviation le-008 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 < - l l 0 0> Uncorrelated < - l l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 < - l l 0 0> Uncorrelated < - l l 0 0> [constant] GO! FILES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data e:^>abs\extfza##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 2 > EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
EXTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE B
903-1346
A-2 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any5-digjt#): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION
< 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) Ofifl < 10 2 0> Direct»on(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 « < t i t l e > » GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
< - l l 0 0> MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) -11.19,-32.7,-2.15 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 310,47 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 200 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl)
Ofl < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < 10 1 0> WZ Thickness 1 < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. 1 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 GO! Fracture Properties < 10 1 0> Transmissivity le-008
< 10 1 0> Storativity
lulv 29,1991
0.0001 < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS
Orientations: Pole 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-4.2 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,665,4.2 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 19 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! < < < t i t l e > > > GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 310,47 Fisher < 10 1 0> Dispersion 25 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 10 [constant] < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 10000 Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 559 GO!
903-1346
A-3 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
Transmissivity 7.0X108 oil 0 0> Uncorrelated olO 0 0> o i l 0 0> LogNormal Standard deviation le-008 olO 0 0> < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 o i l 0 0> Uncorrelated olO 0 0> oil 0 0> [constant] olO 0 0> olO 0 0> < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 o i l 0 0> Uncorrelated olO 0 0> o i l 0 0> [constant] olO 0 0> olO 0 0> ol2 0 0> GO! FILES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data e:\babs\extfab##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 2 EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
EXTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE H 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any 5-digit #): 40255 UTILS
Iulv 29,1991
Change View 3 « < t i t l e » > VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 < < > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
903-1346
A-4 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS < - l l 0 0> Deterministic War Zone < - l l 0 0> Intens: # of Fracs Region: CYL (ext) < - l l 0 0> Orientations: Pole < 10 3 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-12 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,665,42 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 19 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! < < < t h l e > > > GENERATE FRACTURES
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) 7.14,23.79,1.45 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 265,14 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 200 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,p!) 0,0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < 10 1 0> WZ Thickness 1 < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. 1 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 GO! < < > > Fracture Properties Transmissivity le-008 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001
< 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 265,14 Bsher < 10 1 0> Dispersion 25 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 10 [constant] < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr>pl) 0,0 < - l l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 10000 < - l l 0 0> Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 625 GO! < < < t i t l e > » FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 1.04e-007
J
luly 29,1991 0
Uncorrelated LogNormal
0> Standard deviation
1.01e-008 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 Unconrelated [constant] Frac Thickness 0.0001 Uncorrelated [constant] GO! HLES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data e:\fcabsVxt fzh##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 2 } EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
EXTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE 1 { 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any 5-digit #): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z)
A-5
903-1346
0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 « < t i t l e > » GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 1 0 3 0> Location (x,y,z) -1057,-30.8,-2.03 < 10 2 0> Pole(tr,pl) 266,27 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 200 < 10 2 0> Dir of Hong(tr,pl) 0,0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio i i
< 10 1 0> WZ Thickness
1
< 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. i
< 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 1 0 1 0> Termination % 0 GO! Fracture Properties < 1 0 1 0> Transmissivity le-008 < 1 0 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 Frac Thickness 0.0001 GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS Deterministic War Zone < - l l 0 0> Intens: # of Fracs
lulv 29.1991
903-1346
A-6
Region: CYL (ext) Orientations: Pole < 10 3 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-42 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,665,42 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 19 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! < < < H t l e > > > GENERATE FRACTURES
[constant] < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 < - l l 0 0> [constant]
Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data e:\t>abs\extfzi##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 2 } EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
< 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < - l l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 10000 Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 131 GO! < < > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 5.7e-008 Uncorrelated LogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation le-008 o l O 0 0> < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001
0 0 0 0 0 1
Frac Thickness 0.0001 0> Uncorrelated 0> 0> [constant] 0> 0> GO! 0>
EXTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE K { 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any 5-digit #): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < < t i t l e > > > VIEWING REGION
< 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0/) < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE
lulv 29, 1991 Single Frac 2 < < > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
903-1346
A-7 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) -25,20,16 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 215,25 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 50 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < 10 1 0> WZ Thickness 1 < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. 1 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 GO! < < > > Fracture Properties < 10 1 0> Transmissivity < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 FRACTURE OPTIONS < 10 3 0>
Deterministic War Zone lntens: # of Fracs Region. CYL (ext) Orientations: Pole Region Min (x,y,z)
< 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) i l .6,66.5,4.2 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 19
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 215,25 Fisher < 10 1 0> Dispersion 25 < 10 1 C> Size (eqv. radius) 10 o i l 0 0> [constant] < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 10000 < - l l 0 0> Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 91 GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity l.Oe-008 Uncorrelated LogNormal Standard deviation 1.01e-O09 < 1 0 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 Uncorrelated [constant] < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 Uncorrelated
lulv 29,1991
[constant] GO! HLE5 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data e:\babs\ext fek##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 2 } EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
EXTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE M
903-1346
A-8 < - l l 0 0> MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL < - l l 0 0> ORIENTATIONS: Pole Location (x,y,z) 4,-113,26 < 10 2 0> Pole(tr,pl) 210,3 -clO 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 100 Dir of Hong(tr,pl) 0,0 Aspect Ri-tio
WZ Thickness 1
< 1 1 0> DeBne WZ Grp No. 1A
< 1 1 0> # of Sides g: D
< 10 1 0> Termination % u
GO! < < > > Fracture Properties Transmissivity
le4)08
Storativity 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any 5-digit # ) : 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2, 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345^0 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 < < > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
0.0001
Frac Thickness 0.0001
GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS
-rA't't 1 f
< 9.N> < - l l 0 0> < - l l 0 0> < 10 3 0>
Deterministic War Zone Intens: # of Fracs Region: CYL (ext) Orientations: Pole Region Min {
< 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,66.5,42
< 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 19 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 < 1 2 0 0> GO! < < < t i t l e > > > GENERATE FRACTURES
July 29,1991 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr.pl) 2103 o i l 0 0> Fisher < 10 1 0> Dispersion 25 < 10 1 0> Sat (eqv. radius) 10 o i l 0 0> [constant] 010 0 0> < 10 2 0> DirofFJong(tr (constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 o i l 0 0> [constant] olO 0 0> < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 10000 010 0 0> 011 0 0> Select Zone Group = = > olO 0 0> < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 0 1 0> # of fractures 147 olO 0 0> 0 1 2 0 0> GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
1 0> Transmissivity 3.1e-009 0 0 > Uncorrelated 0 0> 0 0> LogNorma) 1 0> Standard deviation < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 o i l 0 0> Uncorrelated olO 0 0> (constant] olO 0 0> 010 0 0> < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 011 0 0> Uncorrelated olO 0 0> [constant] 0 0> 0 0> 0 0> GO! FILES t x>rt File
A-9
903-1346
File Option 2 3D data DELETE FRACTURES 2 } EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
INTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE B { 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any ^digit #): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 Center (x,y,i) Oflfl < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 « < t H l e > » GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
< - l l 0 0> MODEL- WAR ZONE MODEL o i l 0 0> ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,yj) .H.19,-32.7,.115 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 310/J7 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 200
lulv 29.1991 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio WZ Thickness / < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. i
< 1 1 0> # of Sides D
Termination % 0 GO! Fracture Properties Transmissivity 0.0001 Storativity 0.0001 < I 0 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 GO! GENERATE
2 Fracture Set 1
FRACTURE OPTIONS o i l 0 0> Deterministic War Zone Intens: Area/Vol Region: CYL (int) Orientations: Pole Region Min (x,y,z) -2I.56,-«6.46,-424 Region Max (x,y,z) 2136,66.46,4.24 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267
903-1346
A-10
TLogNormil < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) Oft [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 o i l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 1000 Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.03154 [constant] o i l 0 0> GO! bootstrap d:\fman227\fzpeter0.ors < « t H l e > » FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 1 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 1 0 1 0> Transmissivity 2Je-008 Lncorrelated TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 4.18e-007 < 1 0 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 Uncorrelated [constant] Frac Thickness 0.0001 Uncorrelated [constant]
lulv 29.1991
GO! Transmissivity < 3N> < 10 1 0> Lower Bound le-008 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 1 GO! FILES 5 Export Hie 4 Hie Option 2 3D data •d:\fman227\temp.bab* DELETE FRACTURES 2 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any5-digit#): 40255 UT1LS 1 Chang? View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION
< 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! FILES 5 Import File 3 File Option 2 3D data d:\fman22Atemp.bab GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS
903-1346
A-ll
< - l l 0 0 > Region: CYL (int) Orientations: Pole < 10 3 0 > Region Min (x,y,z) -2156,-66.46,-424 < 10 3 0 > Region Max (x,y,z) 2156,6646,4.24 < 10 1 0 > Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides
6 GO! « < t i t l e > » GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0 > Pole (tr,pl) 270.4^.7 < - l l 0 0> Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir ef EIong(tr,pI) 0,0 (constant] < 10 1 0> Asp* t Ratio 1 < 1 1 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> Termination % 100 < 10 1 0> Frac AreaA'ol 0.01352 [constant] GO! bootstrap d:\frnan227\fzpeter0.ors FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 1 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 9.N>
< 9S> BART Baecher (Rev. Term.) Intens: Area/Vol
< 10 1 0> TransTiissivity 2.3C-008 Uncorrelated
lulv 29.1991 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 4.18e-007 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 UncorTelated [constant] < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 Uncorrelated [constant] GO! Transmissivity < 10 1 0> Lower Bound le-008 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 1 GO! FILES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data c:\bab5\intfzb##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 0 EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
INTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE H
{ 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any5-digjt#): 40255 UT1LS
903-1346
A-12
Change View 3 < « t i t l e > » VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z)
Oflfl < 10 2 0 > Diraction(tr Scale
aoi GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 < < < « k > > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL o i l 0 0> ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) 7.1,23.8,1.5 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 265,14 < 10 1 0> Si» (eqv. radius) 200 < 10 2 0> Dir of Hong(tr,pl) 0.0 < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < 10 1 0> WZ Thickness 7 < 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. 1 < 1 1 0> # of Sides f. 0
< 10 1
Termination % 0 •12 0 0> GO! < < > > Fracture Properties < O.T> < 4.N> < 10 1 0> Transmissivity 0.0001 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 < -12 0 0> GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1
Tulv 29.1991
< < < l i t l e > > > rSACTURE OPTIONS
Orientations: Pole 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -2136,-66.46,-124 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.56,66.46,4-24 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides
6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 270.4J.7 < - l l 0 0> Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 < - l l 0 C> (constant] < 10 1 0> WZ Intensity 1000
Select Zone Group « > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.02233 [constant] GO! bootstrap d :\fman227\fzpcter0.ors FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound
903-1346
A-13
< 10 1 0 > U^per Bound 25 CO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0 > Transmissivity Z3e40S Uncorreiated < - l l 0 0 > TLogNormal < 10 1 0 > Standard deviation 4.18e-O07 < 10 1 0 > StorativHy 0.0001 Uncorreiated [constant] < 10 1 0 > Frac Thickness 0.0001
Uncorreiated [constant] GO! Transmissivity < 10 1 0 > Lo««er Bound le-008 < 10 1 0 > Upper Bound 1 GO! FILES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data >d:\fman227\temp.bab* DELETE FRACTURES 2 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 > VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < II 1 0> Scale 0.01 o l i 0 0> GO! HLES 5 Import File 3 File Option 2 3D data d:\fman22Atemp.bab GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 FRACTURE OPTIONS BART Baecher (Rev. Term.) Intens: Area/Vol Region: CYL (int) Orientations: Pole < 10 3 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -2156,-66.46,-4.24 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 2156,66.46,424 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! < < > > GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 270.4,8.7 Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0
903-1346
A-14
[constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] < 10 1 0> Termination % 100 < 10 1 0> FTK Area/Vol 0.009569
< - l l 0 0> [constant] •c-12 0 0> GO! bootstrap d:\fman227\fapcter0.ors < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 1 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! < < > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 2Je-008 o i l 0 0> Uncorrelated < - l l 0 0> TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 4.18e-OO7 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 o i l 0 0> Uncorrelated o l O 0 0> < - l l 0 0> [constant] 0 1 0 0 0> < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 0 1 1 0 0> Uncorrelated [constant] GO! Transmissivity < 3.N> < 3.S> < 10 1 0> Lower Bound le-008 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound I GO!
lulv 29.1991 FILES 5 Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data c:\t»bs\»ntfzh##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 0 } EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
INTERIOR FRACTURE ZONE I { 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any5-digit#): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION < 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Single Frac 2 < < < t i t l e > > > GENERATE SINGLE FRACTURE
903-1346
A-15
266,27
Size (eqv. radius) 200
Dir of Hlong(tr,pl) 0,0
Aspect Ratio i
X
WZ Thickness 4
< 1 1 0> Define WZ Grp No. i
< 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 0> Termination %
> Fracture Properties Transmissivity 0.0001
Storativity 0.0001
< 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001
< 12 0 0>
GO!
GENERATE
2 Fracture Set 1
FRACTURE OPTIONS ^•1111
I
Region Min (x,y,z) -2156,-66.46,-124 < l 0 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 2156^6.46,424 < l 0 I 0> Cylinder Radius
20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES
MODEL: WAR ZONE MODEL o i l 0 0> ORIENTATIONS: Pole < 10 3 0> Location (x,y,z) -1057,-30.8,-2.03 < 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl)
Dispersion
lulv 29.1991
20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] WZ Intensity 1000 Select Zone Group = = > < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.0014 [constant] GO! bootstrap d:\fman227\fzpeter0.ors FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 1 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 2.3e-O08 Uncorrelated TLogNormal < 1 0 1 0> Standard deviation 4.18e-007 < 10 1 0> Storativity O.OOO1 Uncorrelated [constant] Frac Thickness 0.0001 Uncorrelated
A-16
903-1346
[constant]
GO! Transmissivity < 10 1 0> Lower Bound le-008 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 1 GO! FILES c
Export File 4 File Option 2 3D data •d:\fman227\Jemp.bab» DELETE FRACTURES 2 EXIT 6 Re-init 1 (any5-digit#): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < < t i t l e » > VIEWING REGION
< 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! FILES 5 Import File 3 File Option 2 3D data d:\fman227\temp.bab GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE OPTIONS
lulv 29.1991
0>
BART Baecher (Rev. Term.) Intens: Area/Vol Region: CYL (int) Orientations: Pole Region Min (x,y,z)
-2156,-66.46,-124
< 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 2156,66.46,4.24 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6
GO! GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 270.4,8.7 Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20
< 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 0.6267 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4402 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 [constant] < 10 1 0> Termination % 100 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.006
[constant] GO! bootstrap d:\fman227\fzpeter0.ors FRACTURE RADIUS < 3.N> < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 1 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! < < > > FRACTURE PROPERTIES
903-1346
A-17
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 2Je-0C8 < - l l 0 0> UncorreUted TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 4.18e-007 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 < - l l 0 0> Uncorrelated < - l l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 < - l l 0 0> Uncorrelated [constant] GO! < < < t i t l e > > > Transmissivity < 3.N> Lower Bound le-O08 Upper Bound
1
GO!
FILES
5 Export Hie 4 Hie Option 2 3D data c:\babs\»ntfzi##.bab DELETE FRACTURES 0 EXIT 6 Re-init 2 HALT 999
INTERIOR NON-FRACTURE ZONE FRACTURES { 15 EXIT 6 Re-init 1
lulv 29.1991
(any 5-digit #): 40255 UTILS 1 Change View 3 < < > > VIEWING REGION
< 10 3 0> Center (x,y,z) 0,0,0 < 10 2 0> Direction(tr,pl) 345,30 < 11 1 0> Scale 0.01 GO! GENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 FRACTURE OPTIONS
A-18
903-1346
1 (constant] < 10 1 0> Termination % 0 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.164 [constant] GO! bootstrap d:\6nan227\rstpeter.ors < < < t h l e > > > FRACTURE RADIUS < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 125 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 9.N> Orientations: Pole 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-42 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6,665,4.2 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 GO! GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 1.23e-OO8 Uncorrelated LogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 555e-O06 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001 Uncorrelated (constant] < 10 1 0> Frac Thickness 0.0001
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr.pl) 273.7,19.8 Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 1.0322 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4878 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 |constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio
Uncorrelated o i l 0 0> [constant] GO! CENERATE 2 Fracture Set 1 FRACTURE OPTIONS < 9.S> BART Baecher (Rev. Term.) Intens: Area/Vol
Tulv 29,1991
Region: CYL (int) < - l l O 0> Orientations: Pole < 10 3 0> Region Min (x,y,z) -21.6,-665,-12 < 10 3 0> Region Max (x,y,z) 21.6^65,12 < 10 1 0> Cylinder Radius 20 < 1 1 0> # of Sides 6 CO! < < < t i t l e > > > GENERATE FRACTURES
< 10 2 0> Pole (tr,pl) 273.7,19.8 Bootstrap < 10 1 0> Dispersion 20 < 10 1 0> Size (eqv. radius) 1.0322 TLogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 0.4878 < 10 2 0> Dir of Elong(tr,pl) 0,0 [constant] < 10 1 0> Aspect Ratio 1 o i l 0 0> [constant] < 10 1 0> Termination % 100 < 10 1 0> Frac Area/Vol 0.0703 [constant] GO! bootstrap d:\rrnan227\rstpeter.ors < < < t i t l e > > > FRACTURE RADIUS < 3.N> < 3.S> < 10 1 0> Lower Bound 125 < 10 1 0> Upper Bound 25 GO! FRACTURE PROPERTIES
< 10 1 0> Transmissivity 1.23e-008 Uncorrelated
903-1346
A-19
< - l l 0 0> LogNormal < 10 1 0> Standard deviation 5S5e-006 < 10 1 0> Storativity 0.0001
0> Frac Thickness 0.0001 0> Uncorrelated 0> 0> [constant] 0> 0> 0> GO!
