Hydraulic conceptualization of a single fracture using hydraulic interference tests at a deep underground condition

  • Nak-Youl Ko
  • Sung-Hoon Ji
  • Yong-Kwon Koh
  • Min-Hoon Baik
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated the conceptualization approaches to represent heterogeneous hydraulic property of a single fracture using geostatistics and stochastic method. Interference tests at the single fracture, which was identified at the depth of about 250 m from the ground surface in the Olkiluoto island, Finland, were simulated. The transmissivity data from the test boreholes were geostatistically analyzed, and the analysis results were used to reproduce the transmissivity field of the single fracture by the ordinary krigging and conditional random generation approaches. The groundwater flow models were calibrated by comparing the observed flow rates at the boreholes during the interference tests to the simulated ones. The simulation results show that the discrepancies between the simulated and observed flow rates became larger as the observed flow rates were large, which indicates that the ordinary krigging and conditional random generation approaches for conceptualization of the single fracture were not be able to sufficiently reflect the real hydraulic property. Nevertheless, the observed flow rates were included in the ranges of simulated ones when using the conditional random generation approach, which shows that the conditional random generation approach is applicable although the number of observations is too small to reenact the real hydraulic property of a single fracture.

Keywords

single fracture geostatistical analysis krigging conditional random generation groundwater flow modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brush, D.J. and Thomson, N.R., 2003, Fluid flow in synthetic roughwalled fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations. Water Resources Research, 39. doi:10.1029/2002WR001346Google Scholar
  2. Dijk, P.E. and Berkowitz, B., 1999, Three-dimensional flow measurements in rock fractures. Water Resources Research, 35, 3955–3959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gershenfeld, N., 1999, The Nature of Mathematical Modeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 356 p.Google Scholar
  4. Goovaerts, P., 1997, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York, 496 p.Google Scholar
  5. Harbaugh, A.W. and McDonald, M.G., 1996, User’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the US Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-485, US Geological Survey, Virginia, 56 p.Google Scholar
  6. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2011, Geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste: specific safety guide. IAEA Safety Standards Series, No. SSG-14, IAEA, Vienna, 104 p.Google Scholar
  7. Ji, S.-H., Lee, H.-B., Yeo, I.W., and Lee, K.-K., 2008, Effect of nonlinear flow on DNAPL migration in a rough-walled fracture. Water Resources Research, 44. doi:10.1029/2007WR006712Google Scholar
  8. Konzuk, J.S. and Kueper, B.H., 2004, Evaluation of cubic law based models describing single-phase flow through a rough-walled fracture. Water Resources Research, 40. doi:10.1029/2003WR002356Google Scholar
  9. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2008, Moving forward with geological disposal of radioactive waste–A collective statement by the NEA radioactive waste management committee (RWMC), NEA No. 6433, OECD, France, 21 p.Google Scholar
  10. Olea, R.A., 1999, Geostatistics for Engineers and Earth Scientists. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, 303 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pekkanen, J., 2009a, Difference flow measurements and hydraulic interference test in ONKALO at Olkiluoto drillholes ONK-PP125, ONKPP127 and ONK-PP129. Posiva Working Report 2009-40, Posiva Oy, Finland, 74 p.Google Scholar
  12. Pekkanen, J., 2009b, Difference flow measurements in ONKALO at Olkiluoto drillholes ONK-PP122–ONK-PP124, ONK-PP126, ONKPP128, ONK-PP131, ONK-PP134 and ONK-PP137. Posiva Working Report 2009-04, Posiva Oy, Finland, 114 p.Google Scholar
  13. Pitkänen, P., Ahokas, H., Ylä-Mella, M., Partamies, S., Snellman, M., and Hellä, P., 2007, Quality review of hydrochemical baseline data from the Olkiluoto site. POSIVA 2007-05, Posiva Oy, Finland, 134 p.Google Scholar
  14. Posiva, 2009, Olkiluoto site description 2008. POSIVA 2009-01. Posiva Oy, Finland, 714 p.Google Scholar
  15. Posiva, 2010, Interim summary report of the safety case 2009. POSIVA 2010-02, Posiva Oy, Finland, 174 p.Google Scholar
  16. Renshaw, C.E. Dadakis, J.S., and Brown, S.R., 2000, Measuring fracture apertures: a comparison of methods. Geophysical Research Letter, 27, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB), 2011, Long-term safety for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark: main report of the SR-Site project. SKB TR-11-01, SKB, Sweden, 893 p.Google Scholar
  18. Zheng, C. and Bennett, G.D., 2002, Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling (2nd edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 621 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Korean Geoscience Societies and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nak-Youl Ko
    • 1
  • Sung-Hoon Ji
    • 1
  • Yong-Kwon Koh
    • 1
  • Min-Hoon Baik
    • 1
  1. 1.Radioactive Waste Disposal Research DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations