Flow and Transport Through Unsaturated Fractured-Porous Rocks

  • Vyacheslav G. Rumynin
Part of the Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media book series (TATP, volume 25)


The models discussed in the previous chapter can potentially be expanded to study hydrological processes in the unsaturated zone presented by fractured formations. The dual porosity models are of primary interest for describing infiltration and solute transport. In these models the matrix acts as a source or sinks for water imbibition and dissolved component diffusion between the adjacent fractures, and it is more often assumed that solutes cannot move globally through matrix by advection. However analysis of flow and transport in partially saturated media may require incorporating a dual porosity–dual permeability modeling concept. In the dual permeability matrix diffusion models, the solute can transport globally through matrix by advection as well as diffusion (Gerke and van Genuchten 1993a; Ho 2001a, b; Mathias et al. 2005; Gerke 2006a, b; Houseworth 2006).


Hydraulic Conductivity Capillary Pressure Fracture Network Porous Matrix Porous Block 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alaoui A, Germann P, Jarvis N et al (2003) Dual-porosity and kinematic wave approaches to assess the degree of preferential flow in an unsaturated soil. Hydrol Sci J 48:455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barenblatt GI, Entov VM, Ryzhik VM (1990) Fluid flow in natural reservoirs. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker JA, Wright TEJ, Fretwell BA (2000) A pulsed-velocity method of solute transport modeling. In: Dassargues A (ed) Tracers and modelling in hydrogeology. IAHS. Wallingford, p 262Google Scholar
  4. Bateman H, Erdelyi A (1954) Tables of integral transforms, vol 1. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bendz D, Singh VP (1999) Solute transport under steady and transient conditions in biodegradated municipal solid waste. Water Resour Res 35:2333–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bendz D, Singh VP, Rosqvist H et al (1998) Kinematic wave model for movement in municipal solid waste. Water Resour Res 11:2963–2970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouyère S, Carabin G, Dassargues A (2005) Influence of injection conditions on field tracer experiments. Ground Water 43:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carminati A, Kaestner A, Lehmann P et al (2008) Unsaturated water flow across soil aggregate contacts. Adv Water Resour 31:1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eaton RR, Dykhuizen RC (1988) Effect of material nonhomogeneities on equivalent conductivities in unsaturated porous media flow. In: Proceedings of the international conference and workshop on the validation of flow and transport models for the unsaturated zone, New Mexico, 22–25 May 1988, pp 72–77Google Scholar
  10. Gerke HH (2006) Review article: preferential flow descriptions for structured soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:382–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerke HH, van Genuchten MT (1993a) A dual-porosity model for simulating the preferential movement of water and solutes in structured porous media. Water Resour Res 29:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerke HH, van Genuchten MT (1993b) Evaluation of a first-order water transfer term for variably-saturated dual-porosity models. Water Resour Res 29:1225–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerke HH, van Genuchten MTh (1996) Macroscopic representation of structural geometry for simulating water and solute movement in dual-porosity media. Adv Water Resour 19:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Germann P (1985) Kinematic wave approach to infiltration and drainage into and from soil macropores. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 28(3):745–749.Google Scholar
  15. Germann P (1990) Preferential flow and the generation of runoff: 1 Boundary layer flow theory. Water Resour Res 26:3055–3063Google Scholar
  16. Germann P, Beven K (1985) Kinematic wave approximation to infiltration into soils with sorbing macropores. Water Resour Res 21:990–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho CK (2001a) A semianalytical solution for steady infiltration in unsaturated fractured rock. Water Resour Res 37:2285–2289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho CK (2001b) Dual Porosity vs. dual permeability models of matrix diffusion in fractured rock. SAND 2000–2336C. In: Proceedings of the 9th international high-level radioactive waste management conference, Las Vegas, 29 April–2 May 2001Google Scholar
  19. Houseworth JE (2006) An analytical model for solute transport in unsaturated flow through a single fracture and porouse matrix. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/2004WR003770Google Scholar
  20. Jarvis N (1994) The MACRO model – Technical description and sample simulations. Monograph, reports and dissertations, 19, Dept Soil Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Soil Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarvis NJ (2007) A review of non-equilibrium water flow and solute transport in soil macropores: principles, controlling factors and consequences for water quality. Eur J Soil Sci 58:523–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvis N, Larsson M (2001) Modeling macropore flow in soils: field validation and use for management purposes. In: Conceptual models of flow and transport in the fractured vadose zone. Panel report of the U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics. National Academy of Sciences. U.S., Washington, DC, pp 189–216Google Scholar
  23. Kosterin AV, Selin VI (2000) Liquid hydrocarbons migration in the unsaturated zone presented by fractured-porous rocks. Problems of nuclear science and technology. Math Model Phys Process 2:53–57 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Kosterin AV, Skvortsov EV (2002) On protective properties of unsaturated zone presented by fractured-porous rocks. In: Modern problems of hydrogeology and hydrogeomechanics. Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg (In Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Larsbo M, Roulier S, Stenemo F et al (2005) An improved dual-permeability model of water and solute transport in the vadose zone. Vadose Zone J 4:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu HH, Bodvarsson GS, Finsterle S (2002) A note on unsaturated flow in two-dimensional fracture networks. Water Resour Res 38:1176–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathias SA (2005) Modeling flow and transport in the chalk unsaturated zone. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Covil and Env. Eng., Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathias SA, Butler AP, McIntyre N (2005) The significance of flow in the matrix of the chalk unsaturated zone. J Hydrol 310:62–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer A, Sandman T, Breidenbach M (2008) Effect of flow regime on physical nonequilibrium transport in unsaturated porous media. Vadose Zone J 7(3):981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neuman ShP (2005) Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks. Hydrogeol J 13:124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peters RR, Klavetter EA (1988) A continuum model for water movement in an unsaturated fractured rock mass. Water Resour Res 24:416–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Philip JR (1955) Numerical solution of equations of the diffusion type with diffusivity concentration-dependent. Trans Faraday Soc 51:885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pruess K (1999) A mechanistic model for water seepage through thick unsaturated zones of fractured rocks of low permeability. Water Resour Res 35:1039–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Šimunek J, van Genuchten MTh (2008) Modeling nonequilibrium flow and transport processes using HYDRUS. Vadose Zone J 7:782–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Šimunek J, Jarvis NJ, van Genuchten MTh et al (2003) Review and comparison of models for describing non-equilibrium and preferential flow and transport in the vadose zone. J Hydrol 272:14–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh VP (2002) Is hydrology kinematics? Hydrol Processes 16:667–716, John Wiley and Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  37. Skvortsov EV (1967) On 1D problem of displacement of oil by water in fractured-porous medium. Reports of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series: Mechanics of Fluid and Gas, vol 5, pp 164–168(In Russian)Google Scholar
  38. Tsang Ch-F, Tsang YW, Birkhölzer J (2000) Dynamic channeling of flow and transport in saturated and unsaturated heterogeneous media. In: Evans DD, Nicholson TJ, Rasmussen TS (eds) Flow and transport through unsaturated fractured rock. vol 2. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 33–44Google Scholar
  39. Uleberg K, Kleppe J (1996) Dual porosity, dual permeability formulation for fractured reservoir simulation. Trondheim RUTH Seminar, StavangerGoogle Scholar
  40. Van den Daele GFA, Barker JA, Connell LD et al (2007) Unsaturated flow and solute transport through the chalk: Tracer test and dual permeability modeling. J Hydrol 342:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang JSY, Narasimhan TN (1985) Hydrologic mechanisms governing fluid flow in a partially saturated, fractured, porous medium. Water Resour Res 21:1861–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang O, Volker RE, Lockington DA (2004) Numerical investigation of seawater intrusion at Gooburrum, Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia. Hydrogeol J 12:674–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological DepartmentThe Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Environmental Geology Saint Petersburg Division Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations