Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Vadose Zone Journal Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fairley, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Wood, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Unsaturated Flow through a Small Fracture–Matrix Network

Part 2. Uncertainty in Modeling Flow Processes

J. P. Fairleya, R. K. Podgorney*,b and T. R. Woodb

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 ({approx}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.

 





JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Soil Science Society of America