Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Role of Geomechanically Grown Fractures On Dispersive Transport in Heterogeneous Geological Formations
Role of Geomechanically Grown Fractures On Dispersive Transport in Heterogeneous Geological Formations
S. K. Matthai
Department of Mineral Resources and Petroleum Engineering, Montan University, Austria
(Received 22 May 2011; published 4 November 2011)
A second order in space accurate implicit scheme for time-dependent advection-dispersion equations and a
discrete fracture propagation model are employed to model solute transport in porous media. We study the impact
of the fractures on mass transport and dispersion. To model flow and transport, pressure and transport equations are
integrated using a finite-element, node-centered finite-volume approach. Fracture geometries are incrementally
developed from a random distributions of material flaws using an adoptive geomechanical finite-element model
that also produces fracture aperture distributions. This quasistatic propagation assumes a linear elastic rock
matrix, and crack propagation is governed by a subcritical crack growth failure criterion. Fracture propagation,
intersection, and closure are handled geometrically. The flow and transport simulations are separately conducted
for a range of fracture densities that are generated by the geomechanical finite-element model. These computations
show that the most influential parameters for solute transport in fractured porous media are as follows: fracture
density and fracture-matrix flux ratio that is influenced by matrix permeability. Using an equivalent fracture
aperture size, computed on the basis of equivalent permeability of the system, we also obtain an acceptable
prediction of the macrodispersion of poorly interconnected fracture networks. The results hold for fractures at
relatively low density.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.056301
I. INTRODUCTION
*
Present address: Also at Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, United Kingdom; h.m.nick@uu.nl
1539-3755/2011/84(5)/056301(9)
056301-1
II. METHODOLOGY
This section first presents a brief review of the finiteelement-based deformation kernel, and includes a description
of the failure and propagation criteria and a summary of the
assumptions of the method. Then we give an overview of
the equations for flow and transport in porous media. This
is followed by a description of the numerical schemes for
flow and transport as well as the setup of the numerical
model.
A. Mechanical model
(1)
0
E
1
0
(2)
De =
,
(1 + )(1 2)
0
0
1 2
T
0
x
= 0 y
(3)
.
056301-2
NT Ndx t
NT Deff Ndx ct+ t
=
NT Ndx ct .
(9)
(5)
c
+ (uc Deff c) = 0,
t
Mct+ t dV + t (n u)ct+ t dS =
Mct dV ,
V
(10)
where n represents the normal vector to the outward-facing
surface element. To make the transport scheme second-order
accurate in space, we calculate estimates of the gradient of
the transported variable for each control volume facet. Then
we apply the minmod slope limiter to suppress spurious
oscillations that occur when the gradient of the transported
variable is overestimated. This guarantees that the transport
scheme becomes total variation diminishing (TVD) [28].
The hybrid finite elementfinite volume method is
implemented in Complex Systems Platform (CSMP++)
[3638] and is capable of considering fractures represented
by lower-dimensional elements. This approach, however, is
only applicable when the fractures have a higher permeability
than the rock matrix. We use the system algebraic multigrid
method (SAMG) to solve the ensuing FEM linear algebraic
equations [39].
(7)
k
NT N dx = 0.
(8)
The superscript T refers to the transpose of the element
interpolation function vector or matrix of spatial derivatives
and N and N represent its interpolation function vector
and matrix of spatial derivatives obtained from each element,
respectively. The transport equation is solved using a fractional
step method in which the diffusion term of the ADE is
C. Fracture aperture
(11)
056301-3
fn+1
1m
fn-1
fn
centerline nodes
afi
ai
2m
centerline
ni
ni+1
aperture at
centerline node
ai+1
Model area
permeability of the model [41] using the mechanical simulation results, i.e., considering fractures with variable aperture
sizes. Then, by using an iterative method we determine a
single valued equivalent aperture (aequiv ) that yields the same
equivalent permeability.
D. Analysis strategy
4m
The mechanical model uses dynamic adoptive mesh refinement; see Paluszny and Matthai [15]. In order to select
an adequate mesh size for the flow and transport simulations,
we conduct calculations on five triangular element meshes
(Meshes 15), where Mesh 1 is the coarsest and Mesh 5
is the finest (Table I). Using a finer element size either
uniformly or in a spatially adoptive fashion are possible ways
to increase the quality of the solution. The numerical solution
of these simulations on one realization shows convergence by
2
increasing
the level of refinement. The L error norms, cj
i=Ni
i
i 2
cr =
i=1 (cj cr ) , for different mesh refinements, j ,
are calculated by taking the solution of Mesh 5 as the reference
solution, cr . Here, cji denotes the output concentration at
different time, and Ni is the number of time steps. These
errors and the error reduction, cj cj +1, are presented in
Table I. Considering computational time and reduced errors
measured for Mesh 4, we choose a mesh size of 1 cm for the
rock matrix and 0.25 cm for the fractures. The results show
that regions requiring more refinement are regions with the
highest velocity gradients.
056301-4
Ei
Number of realizations, i
normalized concentration
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
30
40
30
40
i1
Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4
Mesh 5
em (cm)
1
1
0.5
1
0.25
ef (cm)
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
Nodes
18 470
29 679
73 881
52 917
291 242
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
10
cj cj +1
2
1.9 10
9.3 103
9.9 103
6.6 103
cj cr
0.01000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0
1.5 10
1.0 102
9.6 103
6.6 103
20
Time(hr)
(13)
to determine the number of realizations needed for averaging. E i shows the convergence of the ensemble breakthrough
curves (Fig. 4). Here i denotes the breakthrough average
Mesh
0.01000
normalized concentration
E = c c
i
normalized concentration
Time(hr)
10
20
Time(hr)
056301-5
normalized concentration
0.100
0.010
K =
m 1
0m
D
K =
m 8
mD
K =
m 6
mD
Km=8mD
0.001
Km=10mD
Km=6mD
0.000
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Distance(m)
movement in the matrix and corresponding higher fracturematrix flux ratio leads to more anomalous behavior. For each
matrix permeability value the average breakthrough curves of
seven realizations are averaged (Fig. 7). It is clear that smaller
matrix permeability values cause a stronger localization of
flow in fractures. This can also be seen in Figs. 8 and 9 for a
wider range of matrix permeability with continuous injection
of the tracer through the left boundary. The dispersive behavior
of such systems is, however, controlled by matrix permeability
as fractures are not well connected. The average flow velocity
decreases by increasing the matrix permeability, as the far-field
pressure gradient is constant. This suggests that increasing
the average velocity reduces the dispersive behavior of the
system. The observation of Odling et al. [45] on dispersion in
a microfractured granite confirms this, as they concluded that
the fluid velocity is considerably influential on the dispersive
properties of a fractured rock. They attributed the long tail
of breakthrough curves to hydrodynamic retardation, which is
significantly altered by flow velocity.
0.001
0.0001
=4
D
m
=6
K m 8mD
=
K m 0mD
=1
Km
normalized concentration
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
mD
50
60
70
Time(hr)
056301-6
0.00100
m
=4
Km
0.00010
D (m)
Km (mD)
aavg (105 m)
aequiv (105 m)
K m=
D
10m
normalized concentration
0.001
10
27.8
8.66
0.001
4
27.8
7.88
0.0001
10
7.96
3.98
0.0001
4
7.96
3.90
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.00100
K m=
0.00010
D
10m
normalized concentration
Time(hr)
=4
m
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
50
60
70
0.00100
K m=
0.00010
=4
mD
D
10m
normalized concentration
Time(hr)
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
Time(hr)
0.00100
0.00010
D
10m
K m=
mD
=10
(a) K m
(b)
normalized concentration
(b
(a
)K
m
)K
=4
m
D
m
D
m
=4
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time(hr)
056301-7
normalized concentration
0.00100
k =10 mD
a equiv
a avg
0.00010
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
normalized concentration
Time(hr)
0.00100
k =4 mD
aequiv
aavg
IV. CONCLUSIONS
0.00010
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time(hr)
056301-8
056301-9