HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fairley, J. P. Articles by Wood, T. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Fairley, J. P. Articles by Wood, T. R. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Fairley, J. P. Articles by Wood, T. R. Related Collections Fractured Rock Preferential Flow

Unsaturated Flow through a Small Fracture–Matrix Network

Part 2. Uncertainty in Modeling Flow Processes

^a Department of Geological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
^b Geosciences Department, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, MS 2107, Idaho Falls, ID 83415

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Histograms showing the aperture distribution of the vertical and horizontal fractures.

View larger version (60K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Comparison of time-lapse photographs of the experimental observations with selected simulation results, taken (from left to right) 30, 60, 180, 300, and 600 min after the onset of injection at the top boundary. (a) Time-lapse images of one experiment showing typical behavior, (b) the ECM model results, and (c) the "calibrated" discrete fracture model results (mf = 0.8). Note, the blue color in the simulation results indicates the initial liquid saturation of the matrix (7%) while the red indicates 100% saturation.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Cumulative mass discharged from the experiments and selected simulations through time. Note that the plot labeled "DFM (limited Pcap)" is from the calibrated simulation in which the maximum capillary pressure in the limestone matrix was limited and m = 0.8 was assigned to the fractures.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Cumulative mass discharged from the simulations as a function of the van Genuchten m parameter value for the fractures. The base case for these sensitivity simulations was the calibrated discrete fracture model, as shown in Fig. 3 as "DFM (limited Pcap)." The capillary pressure in the matrix was limited to approximately 1.1 x 103 Pa.