Advertisement

Environmental Geology

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 1361–1370 | Cite as

Multiple-point statistical prediction on fracture networks at Yucca Mountain

  • Xiaoyan Liu
  • Chengyuan Zhang
  • Quansheng Liu
  • Jens Birkholzer
Special Issue

Abstract

In many underground nuclear waste repository systems, such as Yucca Mountain project, water flow rate and amount of water seepage into the waste emplacement drifts are mainly determined by hydrological properties of fracture network in the surrounding rock mass. Natural fracture network system is not easy to describe, especially with respect to its connectivity which is critically important for simulating the water flow field. In this paper, we introduced a new method for fracture network description and prediction, termed multi-point-statistics (MPS). The process of Multi-point Statistical method is to record multiple-point statistics concerning the connectivity patterns of fracture network from a known fracture map, and to reproduce multiple-scale training fracture patterns in a stochastic manner, implicitly and directly. It is applied to fracture data to study flow field behavior at Yucca Mountain waste repository system. First, MPS method is used to create fracture network with original fracture training image from Yucca Mountain dataset. After we adopt a harmonic and arithmetic average method to upscale the permeability to a coarse grid, THM simulation is carried out to study near-field water flow in surrounding rock of waste emplacement drifts. Our study shows that connectivity or pattern of fracture network can be grasped and reconstructed by Multi-Point-Statistical method. In theory, it will lead to better prediction of fracture system characteristics and flow behavior. Meanwhile, we can obtain variance from flow field, which gives us a way to quantify uncertainty of models even in complicated coupled THM simulation. It indicates that Multi-Point Statistics is a potential method to characterize and reconstruct natural fracture network in a fractured rock mass with advantages of quantifying connectivity of fracture system and its simulation uncertainty simultaneously.

Keywords

Multiple-point-statistics Fracture network Seepage Nuclear waste repository Yucca Mountain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Chinese academy of science (CAS) under the project of kzcx2-yw-116 and National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the project 40520130315 and 50574087.

References

  1. Arpat GB (2005) Sequential simulation with patterns. PhD, Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Baghbanan A, Jing L (2007) Hydraulic properties of fractured rock masses with correlated fracture length and aperture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:704–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr D, Birkholzer J (2005) Description for DECOVALEX-THMC task D: long-term permeability-porosity changes in EDZ and near fieldGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkholzer JT, Tsang YW (1997) Pretest analysis of the thermal-hydrological conditions of the ESF drift scale test at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain Project Milestone Report SP9322M4, Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory Report LBNL-41044, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkholzer J, Li GM, Tsang CF, Tsang YW (1999) Modeling studies and analysis of seepage into drifts at Yucca Mountain. J Contam Hydrol 38:349–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caers J (2000) Adding local accuracy to direct sequential simulation. Math Geol 32:815–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chilès J-P, Marsily G (1993) Flow and contaminant transport in fractured rock. In: Jacob B, Chin-Fu T, Ghislain M (eds) ISBN 0-12-083980-6Google Scholar
  8. Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB: Geostatistical software library and user’s guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, 368 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardin E, Westermann GN (2000) Fracture geometry analysis for the stratigraphic units of the repository host horizon. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Analysis/Model Revision RecordGoogle Scholar
  10. Holden L, Hauge R, Skare O, Skorstad A (1998) Modeling of fluvial reservoirs with object models. Math Geol 24:473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Journel AG (1997) Deterministic geostatistics: a new visit. In: Baffi E, Shofield N (eds) Geostatistics Wollongong, vol 1. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 174–187Google Scholar
  12. Kim HM, Inoue J, Horii H (2004) Flow analysis of jointed rock masses based on excavation-induced transmissivity change of rough joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:959–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu QS, Zhang CY, Liu XY (2006) A practical method for coupled THM simulations of the Yucca Mountain and FEBEX case samples for task D of the DECOVALEX-THMC Project. Proc. GEOPROC2006 international symposium: 2nd international conference on coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical processes in geosystems and engineering, HoHai University, Nanjing, China, May 22–25, 2006, 220–225, HoHai UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Macè L, Souche L, Mallet J-L (2004) 3D fracture modeling integrating geomechanics and geologic data. AAPG international conference: October 24–27, 2004Google Scholar
  15. Odling NE, Harris SD, Knipe RJ (2004) Permeability scaling properties of fault damage zones in siliclastic rocks. J Struct Geol 26:1727–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pickup GE, Ringrose PS, Corbett PWM, Jensen JL, Sorbie KS (1995) Geology, geometry and effective flow. Pet Geosci 1:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schafmeister MT, Marsily G (1993) Regionalization of some hydrogeological processes and parameters by means of geostatistical methods-current status and requirements. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Geostatistics for the next century. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 383s–392sGoogle Scholar
  18. Serra J (1982) Image analysis and mathematical morphology. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Srivastava M (1995) An overviewof stochastic methods for reservoir characterization. In: Yarus J, Chambers R (eds) Stochastic modeling and geostatistics: principles, methods, and case studies, vol 3. AAPG Computer Applications in Geology, Tulsa, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  20. Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Math Geol 34:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tsang C-F, Neretnieks I (1998) Flow channeling in heterogeneous fractured rocks. Rev Geophys 36:275–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tsang C-F, Doughty C (2003) A partical-tracking approach to simulating transport in a complex fracture. Water Resour Res 39:1174–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viseur (1999) Stochastic boolean simulation of fluvial deposits: a new approach combining accuracy with efficiency. In: SPE ATCE proceedings, volume October, Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang JSY, Trautz RC, Cook PJ, Finsterle S, James AL, Birkholzer J (1999) Field tests and model analyses of seepage into drift. J Contam Hydrol 38:323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wen R, Martinius A, Nass A, Ringrose P (1998) Three-dimensional simulation of small-scale heterogeneity in tidal deposits—a process-based stochastic simulation method. In: IAMG 1998 proceedings. International Association for Mathematical GeologyGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang TF, Switzer P, Journel AG (2006) Filter-based classification of training image patterns for spatial simulation. Math Geol 38:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoyan Liu
    • 1
  • Chengyuan Zhang
    • 1
  • Quansheng Liu
    • 1
  • Jens Birkholzer
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics (IRSM)Chinese Academy of SciencesWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Earth Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations