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 (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Robinson, B. A. Articles by Viswanathan, H. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Robinson, B. A. Articles by Viswanathan, H. S. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Robinson, B. A. Articles by Viswanathan, H. S. Related Collections Field-Scale Studies Dual Porosity/Permeability Models Variably Saturated Fluid Flow

Hydrologic Behavior of Unsaturated, Fractured Tuff

Interpretation and Modeling of a Wellbore Injection Test

^a Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545
^b Environmental Stewardship Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Locations of injection and monitoring wells for the unsaturated zone injection test. From Purtymun et al. (1989).

View larger version (142K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Injection system used in the unsaturated zone injection test. From Purtymun et al. (1989).

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Measured flow conditions during the unsaturated zone injection test (Site 2, Test 1 of Purtymun et al., 1989). (a) Downhole injection pressure versus time. (b) Injection flow rate versus time. (c) Cumulative mass of water injected during the test.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Contours of water content constructed from the neutron log data during and after the injection test. (a) Day 7 after injection; (b) Day 29; (c) Day 55; (d) Day 89 (end of injection phase); (e) Day 327 (post-injection phase). From Purtymun et al. (1989).

View larger version (46K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Discrete fracture model (DFM) simulations. Left: injection into a fracture in the Bandelier tuff, showing the velocities along the length of the fracture and the concentration profile (higher concentrations are represented as white) after two years of injection. Right: DFM for the Basalt, showing preferential flow in the fracture.

View larger version (52K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Numerical grid used in the simulations of the injection test, showing the resolution and the location of the injection interval. (a) Top view. (b) Side view. (c) Perspective view.

View larger version (53K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Two-dimensional cross-sections of water content through the model for various times during the injection test. Times correspond to those at which the cross-sections of Fig. 5 were prepared.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Predicted and measured rates of water migration vertically downward and horizontally, along with locations of upward migration. Symbols, data; lines, model predictions. Curves and points corresponding to the upward migration refer to the right axis.

View larger version (126K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Two-dimensional cross-sections of water content at Day 55, comparing (a) the single continuum model (SCM), (b) SCM with decreased g, and (c) equivalent continuum model.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Two-dimensional cross-sections of water content comparing the equivalent continuum model (ECM) and dual permeability model (DKM) formulations. (a) ECM, Day 7; (b) DKM, Day 7, effective matrix length scale of 0.1 m; (c) DKM, Day 7, effective matrix length scale of 1 m; (d) DKM, after one day of injection, effective matrix length scale of 10 m; (e) fracture water content corresponding to d (color scale is from 0 to 0.1 for this figure only).