WATER THROUGH VARIABLY SATURATED FRACTURED LABORATORY STUDY by

WATER THROUGH VARIABLY SATURATED FRACTURED LABORATORY STUDY by
WATER FLOW THROUGH VARIABLY SATURATED FRACTURED TUFF:
A LABORATORY STUDY
by
William Robert Haldeman
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
WITH A MAJOR IN HYDROLOGY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1988
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of
requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is
deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers
under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special
permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made.
Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of
this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the
major department or the Dean of the Graduate college when in his or her
judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of
scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be
obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
Witrim
46/d6441„--
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
se
Date
///
niel D. Evans, Professor of Hydrology
and Water Resources
7reF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was undertaken at the University of Arizona. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided support for this research under
grant number NRC-04-87-093. I would like to thank Dr. Daniel D. Evans
for his support during every stage of this work. His strong research
and administrative skills, as well as his continual concern for the
welfare of his students, were evident throughout the project. I would
like to thank Dr. T.-C. Jim Yeh and Dr. Lorne G. Wilson for their time,
support, and manuscript review. I would also like to thank Dr. Jaak J.
K. Daemen from the Department of Mining and Geological Engineering for
providing advice about the retrieval of test blocks from the field.
Numerous others in the department also contributed encouragement
and advice about this project. Four in particular stand out. First,
Yueh Chuang, who performed the companion transport study, contributed
valuable advice, comments, and hard work at every stage of the study.
Without his help, the study would have been lacking. Second, Todd
Rasmussen contributed essential questions and advice throughout the
study. His theoretical perspective and understanding of the other
phases of the NRC work being conducted were very helpful.
Additionally, the use and running of his boundary integral model
greatly aided understanding of the flow regime within the test block.
Third, Jim Blanford provided much-needed assistance with the
electronics and instruments. Fourth, Priscilla Sheets drafted many of
the figures used in this document and provided much word processing
advice. I thank all four of you for your help.
To the other students in the laboratory and office, I thank you for
your empathy, support, and friendship. Last, but certainly not least,
I express my gratitude to my wife, Kris, who made life bearable when I
was attempting to do otherwise.
▪
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
vi
ix
1
2
5
ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of Problem
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Saturated Flow Through Porous Media
2.2 Saturated Fracture Flow
2.3 Unsaturated Flow Through Porous Media
2.4 Unsaturated Fracture Flow
2.5 Coupled Matrix/Fracture Flow - Saturated Case . . .
3. SAMPLE LOCATION AND SELECTION
3.1 General Description of the Apache Leap Tuff Site. .
3.1.1 Regional Setting
3.1.2 Geology of the Apache Leap Tuff
3.1.3 Hydrology of the Apache Leap Tuff Site . . .
3.2 Field Work Performed
3.2.1 Rock Number 1
3.2.2 Rock Number 2
2.
9
9
12
15
20
22
25
25
25
27
28
30
30
31
41
41
49
53
53
56
58
4. EXPERIMENT
4.1 Preparation of Rock for Experimentation
4.2 Experiment Setup
4.3 Equipment Testing, Calibration, and Procedures. . . 4.3.1 Porous Ceramic Plates
4.3.2 Head Control
4.3.3 Inflow and Outflow Measurement
4.3.4 Water Potential Measurement in
Fracture and Matrix
4.3.5 Displacement Transducers
4.4 Rock Number 1 Tests
4.4.1 Fracture Imbibition Tests
4.4.2 Three-plate Imbibition Test
4.4.3 Steady State Flow Test
iv
59
62
63
63
65
67
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.5 Rock Number 2 Tests
4.5.1 Three-plate Imbibition Test
4.6 Rock Characterization Tests
4.6.1 Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity. . . 4.6.2 Matrix Moisture Release Curves
4.6.3 Matrix Dry Bulk Density and
Effective Porosity
72
72
4.6.4 Matrix Pore Size Distributions
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Equipment Calibration Results
5.2 Rock Number 1 Tests
5.2.1 Fracture Imbibition Tests
5.2.2 Three-plate Imbibition Test
5.2.3 Steady State Flow Test
5.3 Rock Number 2 Tests 5.3.1 Three-plate Imbibition Test 5.4 Rock Characterization Tests 5.4.1 Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity. . .
5.4.2 Matrix Moisture Release Curves 5.4.3 Matrix Dry Bulk Density and
Effective Porosity 5.4.4 Matrix Pore Size Distributions 6.
68
69
70
70
71
74
74
81
81
83
95
105
105
113
113
115
120
121
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES . . . . 123
APPENDIX A CALIBRATION AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX B DETAILED PROCEDURES SELECTED REFERENCES 133
195
216
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure
1.1
Test block number 1 experimental setup
7
2.1
Schematic of test block containing a single
vertical fracture. Coordinate axes used in
text are shown at the rear of the block.
Also shown is the aperture, e
11
Water held in a film over particle surfaces
and in capillary wedges between particles in
unsaturated geologic media (from Hillel, 1980)
17
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
Schematic diagram of
site relative to the
Letters denote study
Creek road tunnel; B
C = plateau site
the Apache Leap tuff
town of Superior, Arizona.
locations. A = Queen
= watershed study site;
26
Physical characteristics of the Apache Leap
tuff (from Peterson, 1968)
29
Test block number 1, prior to shaping,
undergoing preliminary fracture conductivity
test
32
Test block number 1, after being shaped,
post single-plate infiltration test
Field exposure of partially
from which test block 2 was
is 5.3 cm in diameter. The
to the left of the lens cap
33
welded tuff
cut. Lens cap
vertical trace
is the test fracture . . . .
Densely welded tuff block found along
former route of U.S. 60. Test fracture runs
diagonally from the upper right to the lower
left of
the
block
35
Test block number 1 numbering system.
Fracture intersects faces 1, 2, 3, and 6
vi
36
43
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
Page
4.2
Test block 1 sampling port locations
44
4.3
Test block number 2 fracture sampling
ports, face 4
45
4.4
4.5
Test block number 2 matrix sampling
ports, face 6
46
Test block number 2 experimental setup.
Frame A is held by hooks from frame B
50
4.6
Test solution delivery system
4.7
Porous ceramic plate. Length and
thickness of all plates equals 20.2 cm
and 0.7 cm, respectively. Width of
matrix plates equals 8.6 cm, and width
of plate covering fracture equals 3.0 cm
54
Results of a conductance test performed
on porous ceramic plate number 2. Head
refers to total head drop across the plate
75
5.2
Calibration results of LVDT number 2
80
5.3
Monitoring of fracture aperture change
in test block number 1
85
5.1
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
52
Inflow to plate position 1-A, test
block number 1
87
Average pressure head beneath the plate
located over position 1-A, test block
number 1
88
Inflow to plate position 1-B, test
block number 1
89
Average pressure head beneath the plate
located over position 1-B, test block
number 1
Inflow to plate position 1-C, test
block number 1
90
91
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Figure
Average pressure head beneath the plate
5.9
located over position 1-C, test block
number 1
Page
92
5.10 Simulated results for test block number
1 showing streamlines and pressure head
at the sampling ports
102
5.11 Enlargement of Figure 5.10 showing the
fracture-plate-matrix intersection.
Streamlines of Figure 5.10 are shown as
solid lines and other streamlines of
interest are dashed 5.12 Monitoring of fracture aperture change
in test block number 2 103
106
5.13 Wetting front advancement during test
block number 2 imbibition test. Numbers
indicate days from beginning of test
5.14 Test block number 2 imbibition test summary 108
109
5.15 Philip's infiltration analysis, test
block number 2 111
5.16 Moisture release curves for cores obtained
from rocks surrounding test block number 1 116
5.17 Moisture release curves for cores obtained
from rocks surrounding test block number 1 117
5.18 Moisture release curves for cores obtained
from rocks surrounding test block number 2 118
5.19 Moisture release curves for cores obtained
from rocks surrounding test block number 2 119
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Model Input Summary Page
24
5.1
Plate Conductance Results 76
5.2
LVDT Calibration Summary
79
5.3
Gamma Beam Attenuation Results,
Post Fracture Test 83
Gamma Beam Attenuation Results,
Prior to Whole-rock Test
86
Test Block Number 1 Water Potential
Measurements 97
Saturated Matrix Conductivity and Fracture
Transmissivity, Test Block Number 1 99
5.7
Philip's Parameters, Test Block Number 2 112
5.8
Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 114
5.9
Matrix Dry Bulk Density and Effective
Porosity 121
Summary of Test Blocks 1 and 2 126
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
ix
ABSTRACT
Laboratory techniques were developed that allow concurrent
measurement of unsaturated matrix hydraulic conductivity and fracture
transmissivity of fractured rock blocks. Two blocks of Apache Leap
tuff containing natural fractures were removed from a site near
Superior, Arizona, shaped into rectangular prisms, and instrumented in
the laboratory. Porous ceramic plates provided solution to the top of
the test blocks at regulated pressures. Infiltration tests were
performed on both test blocks. Steady-state flow testing of the
saturated first block allowed the determination of matrix hydraulic
conductivity and fracture transmissivity. Fifteen cm of suction were
applied to the top of the second block throughout an imbibition test.
Analysis of infiltration into that block indicates that fracture flow
at the low compressive stress applied during the test was minimal and
matrix hydraulic conductivity at 15 cm of suction was an order of
magnitude less than the saturated matrix hydraulic conductivity of the
first block.
X
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The build-up of radioactive waste in many developing countries
since World War II has focused considerable attention on the problem of
proper waste disposal. The radioactive materials contained in such
waste have long half-lives, some into the millions of years, making
long-term solutions to the problem necessary. Currently, much highlevel radioactive waste is stored in tanks, storage pools and other
surface exposures near nuclear facilities, and in underground
facilities at various nuclear reservations and laboratories around the
country. Although efforts have been made to safely dispose of
radioactive waste underground since the 1950's, such efforts have been
haphazard and poorly documented (Smith, 1987).
Since the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 in the
United States, efforts to dispose of high-level nuclear waste in a
geologic repository have been intensified. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has mandated that radionuclides must not exceed
threshold concentration levels in the accessible environment within ten
thousand years of disposal. This extended time frame requires that the
proposed waste disposal methods and locations be carefully researched
prior to emplacement of any nuclear material.
1
2
One possible geologic environment that is being considered for
radioactive waste disposal is unsaturated fractured rock. In fact, the
primary site currently being studied, located in southern Nevada, would
permanently seal nuclear waste a few hundred meters below the land
surface and a similar distance above the regional water table. The
repository horizon at this site lies in a fractured Tertiary ash flow
cooling unit, or tuff. It is thought that the location of the
repository in the unsaturated, or vadose, zone at this site would slow
the outward movement of radionuclides in the event of leakage from the
engineered barriers.
1.1 Description of Problem
The hydraulic conductivity of a rock body is greatest when the
body is saturated with water, that is, the rock pores are as full as is
naturally possible with water. According to capillary theory, as a
rock mass desaturates, the largest pores drain first. As more and more
water is drained from the mass, smaller and smaller pores drain. The
drainage of rock pores results, in theory and in practice, in a
decreasing hydraulic conductivity. Depending on the pore size
distribution, the drop off in hydraulic conductivity with decreasing
water content can be several orders of magnitude.
Fractures in a rock body behave in a similar manner. Saturated
fractures have a higher hydraulic conductivity than do unsaturated
fractures. However, as the water potential is lessened, fractures
3
drain according to the distribution of their aperture widths, and the
hydraulic conductivity decreases accordingly. Under saturated
conditions, fractures often act as flow conduits since their apertures
are often considerably larger than the surrounding matrix pores.
A
fracture or fracture system that acts as a conduit under saturated
conditions, however, may act as a barrier when the fractured rock mass
is subjected to negative water potentials, or suction. The degree to
which unsaturated fractures in a rock mass affect water flow through
the media depends upon how the hydraulic conductivity of the fracture
varies with suction or water content. Since groundwater movement is a
possible mode of contaminant transport, a decreased hydraulic
conductivity of a fractured rock body results in decreased groundwater
flow and thus decreased contaminant transport.
However, it is not enough to know in general terms that a given
repository location will be subject to reduced groundwater flow and
radionuclide transport rates due to its location in the vadose zone.
One must characterize flow and transport around the repository for a
variety of possible conditions, including those present at the site
prior to waste emplacement. This assessment is currently feasible for
saturated fractured geologic media. Three possible approaches may be
used to analyze such media. The first is the deterministic continuum
approach where the fractured rock media is viewed as a continuous
porous media with properties that represent averages obtained in a
representative elementary volume (de Marsily, 1986). The second
possible approach is the deterministic non-continuum method. This
4
approach involves individual analysis of each fracture in the region of
interest. A stochastic representation of the fractured media is the
third approach and involves obtaining statistical fracture parameters
from a limited number of samples. These parameters are then used to
simulate various scenarios.
Unfractured rock matrix may be studied using a stochastic
approach by obtaining numerous field samples from the proposed waste
disposal site. Angled boreholes and oriented rock cores can provide
samples for laboratory analysis (Rasmussen and Evans, 1987) from which
three-dimensional parameter distributions may be developed. Results
from such a procedure may be put into a flow and transport model,
yielding field scale and regional scale predictions for various
conditions.
The addition of fractures to unsaturated rock mass complicates
analysis, and currently no methods are available for water flow
characterization. If one could obtain intact samples with undisturbed
rock fractures and develop techniques to measure unsaturated fracture
parameters, a stochastic analysis could also be performed with the
sample fractures. The fracture parameters thus obtained could then be
linked to the matrix parameters through a computer model. Important
fracture parameters and relationships that need to be developed include
the variation of hydraulic conductivity with changing suction and the
relationship between suction and water content.
Another possible fractured rock characterization method would
involve the development of a field test similar to aquifer testing
5
methods that are used to investigate saturated fractured rock. Such a
continuum approach might involve the use of a membrane impeding layer
placed inside of a borehole and held in place by a frame, allowing the
imposition of a negative water potential on the rock matrix/fracture
system surrounding the borehole.
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work
This study focused on the stochastic approach to characterizing
unsaturated fractured rock. The investigation was divided into two
parts: flow and transport. Chuang (1988) presents the transport part
of the study; results of the flow aspect of the project are provided in
this document.
The primary objective of this part of the investigation was to
develop procedures to determine the fracture transmissivity and the
adjacent matrix hydraulic conductivity of blocks of rock in the
laboratory. The intent was to develop procedures that would be
applicable over a range of suctions and would allow concurrent
measurement of fracture transmissivity and matrix hydraulic
conductivity. Generally, the approach included location, removal, and
shaping of two blocks of partially welded tuff, each containing one
test fracture, from the plateau site at the Apache Leap tuff site near
Superior, Arizona. The first of the two blocks used for this study was
chosen both for its convenient size and its ease of removal. It was
used to develop testing methods while subsequent test blocks were being
6
located. At a later date, the second test block was carefully chosen
and cut, along with two other blocks, from a larger sample. These two
rectangular test blocks, less than
0.1 m 3 in size, were set up in the
laboratory such that the test fracture lay in the vertical plane and
were instrumented with custom-made porous ceramic plates, linear
variable displacement transformers (displacement transducers or
and a
LVDTs),
microtensiometer. The experimental setup for test block number 1
is shown in Figure
1.1. Steady-state flow tests were performed at
nearly saturated conditions to allow relatively rapid development and
testing of procedures and equipment.
A second objective of this part of the flow and transport
investigation was to perform infiltration and percolation tests on each
block being studied. Water was applied to the top face of each block
through the porous ceramic plates. Monitoring of the water intake
rates and wetting front advancement was performed throughout the
imbibition tests. Various plate configurations, and thus water source
locations, were used during these tests.
A third objective included laboratory characterization of rock
cores obtained from rock surrounding the test blocks. This allowed
comparison of the test block matrix with other rock cores recovered
from the Apache Leap tuff site. The saturated hydraulic conductivity,
dry bulk density, effective porosity, and pore size distribution were
determined for each
unfractured core. Additionally, matrix moisture
release curves were prepared.
7
EVAPORATION i
CANOPY
FRAME B
POROUS
CERAMIC PLATE
PLEXIGLASS
P
,.:.T..e. -
I
0
0
0
0
TEST BLOCK I
Iv.
"4,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I 4..A. ..
Jf
.,:..
.....
...-
0
0
0
FRACTURE
.....
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
t1
T
,r.
r
II,
L.
0
f
,
••
„
....
0
eh-
..%
0
..
0
0
4,.
....
0
0
0
:..,.
,.....
' '''
'4
14
.1--
4r
-0.
. , •:i
0
0
.1.1.6
..--:::
' :.-.W
....
ALL THREADED
ROD
-
...
:...
WOOD BLOCK
;
...i
s
LVDT
Le..,
e.'
...1'.
. ,
0
0
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PLEXIGLASS
Tygon tubing
i// enters under
TABLE TOP
Figure 1.1
canopy
Test block number 1 experimental setup.
8
Chapter two provides a theoretical background for study of
unsaturated fracture flow and includes a description of a modeled case
study. Chapter three presents a review of the process used to recover
the fractured rock blocks for analysis. A description of the
experimental set up and procedures is included in chapter four, which
is then followed by a review and discussion of the results in chapter
five. Finally, chapter six provides a brief summary of the major
results and lists recommendations for future work. Appendix A
tabulates the test data, and Appendix
B
details the major procedures.
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Flow through saturated porous media has been extensively studied,
and much has been written about the flow equations behind it. A brief
review of saturated flow in porous media will be provided here as a
basis for a discussion of unsaturated fracture flow. Much work has
also been done investigating flow through saturated fractures and
unsaturated porous media, and background material regarding these areas
will also be provided. Finally, both discussions of unsaturated
fracture flow and a modeled idealized case of the experimental case
will be presented.
2.1 Saturated Flow Through Porous Media
Darcy's law provides the fundamental basis for analyzing steady
groundwater flow through saturated porous media. It is an empirically
derived relationship that views flow on a macroscopic or multipore
level and is valid only for laminar flow above a threshold gradient
(Freeze and Cherry, 1979). It can be written in the form:
q = Q/A = -K(del Ht)
(2.1)
where q = flux or specific discharge of water, m/s;
Q = volumetric flow, m 3 /s;
A = cross-sectional area of flow, m 2 ;
K = hydraulic conductivity, m/s;
9
10
del = vector differential operator, 1/m;
Ht = total hydraulic head, m.
Hydraulic conductivity is a function of both the media through which
flow takes place and the fluid which flows. It can be stated as:
K = kpg/1.1
(2.2)
where k = intrinsic permeability, m2
p = fluid density, kg/m 3 ;
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s 2 ;
= dynamic viscosity, kg/ms.
;
Intrinsic permeability depends only on the properties of the
media. Since dilute aqueous solutions will be principally used in this
study, hydraulic conductivity will be used instead of intrinsic
permeability.
Darcy's law will be applied in a number of instances in this
study. It will be used to calculate the average pressure head at the
bottom, or rock-facing, side of each porous plate. Darcy's law will
also be used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the matrix and
the transmissivity of the fracture during saturated flow tests.
2.2 Saturated Fracture Flow
The simplest method for viewing laminar water flow through a
fracture is to assume that the fracture walls are planar and a constant
distance, e, apart (Figure 2.1).
il
Figure
2.1
Schematic of test block containing a single
vertical fracture. Coordinate axes used in text
are shown at the rear of the block. Also shown is
the aperture, e.
12
From the Navier-Stokes equations, one can derive what is known as the
cubic law, here shown for one-dimensional, vertical fracture flow:
Qf = (dpge 3 )(dHt/dz)/(1211)
where
(2.3)
Q =
volumetric flow through the fracture, m 3 /s;
d = depth along the x-axis of the fracture, m;
e = aperture of the fracture along the y-axis, m;
z = vertical direction, positive downward.
.
The cubic law is only valid for a homogeneous, incompressible fluid
under isothermal conditions. For the special case where the pressure
gradient is zero, equation 2.3 simplifies to:
Qf = (dpge 3 )/(120
(2.4)
Comparing equations 2.1 and 2.3 it can be seen that:
Qf =
and
where
(de)(pge 2 )(dHt/dz)/(120
Qf = Af(Kf)(dHt/dz)
(2.5)
Af = de = fracture area, m 2 ;
Kf = (pge 2 )/(1211) = fracture hydraulic conductivity, m/s.
Note that fracture intrinsic permeability equals:
kf
e2/12, m2 .
(2.6)
If one knows the fracture aperture and imposed pressure gradients,
equations 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 allow the prediction of expected flow
through a given fracture. Similarly, measuring fracture flow under
known gradients, one can calculate the fracture aperture.
As straightforward as the cubic law is for estimating aperture or
flow rate from known parameters, natural rock fractures rarely have
smooth, planar surfaces. More often, natural fractures have rough,
wavey surfaces and appear curved or irregular in the field.
Additionally, most fractures occur buried beneath sediments and rock
13
and are thus subject to compressive stresses. According to Gale, et
al. (1985), a number of researchers have proceeded to test the validity
of the cubic law under a variety of conditions, from simulated to
natural fractures. Lomize (1951) and later Louis (1969) used parallel
glass plates to validate the cubic law for open smooth fractures. They
also simulated rough parallel fractures and developed an empirical flow
equation including a roughness coefficient. Other studies performed on
natural or induced fractures (Sharp, 1970; Iwai, 1976) also indicate
the applicability of the cubic law for open fractures.
Laboratory investigations of gas and water flow through rock
fractures subjected to compressive stress that are normal to the
fracture indicate that application of the cubic law may be limited.
Engelder and Scholtz (1981) and Gale (1982) found that for compressive
stresses above 10 MPa, the flow results differed from those predicted
by the cubic law. Studies performed on a natural granodiorite fracture
(Schrauf, 1984; Schrauf and Evans, 1986) also found significant
deviations from the cubic law. They suggest that shear movement may
significantly alter flow paths through a fracture as compressive stress
increases. To fit the experimental data, they propose a pipe model of
flow.
In summary, it appears that for essentially open fractures at low
compressive stresses, the cubic law holds. At higher compressive
stresses and higher resulting contact area, tortuosity increases
(Tsang, 1984), and the cubic law is no longer valid.
14
Such results lead Tsang and Tsang (1987) to view fractures as
tortuous channels rather than planes. They characterize the channel
aperture density distribution, the effective channel length and width,
and the aperture spatial correlation. They then statistically generate
aperture systems through which flow and transport may be studied.
Another way to approach fracture flow study is to incorporate
effective aperture into the term representing fracture hydraulic
conductivity. First, fracture flow is expressed as flow per unit
length along the x axis (depth) , qf. Using equation 2.5:
qf = Qf/d = eKf(dHt/dz), m 2 /s.
(2.7)
Then, since the aperture of a given test fracture is not often known
and may vary considerably throughout a fracture, transmissivity,
Tf,
rather than fracture hyraulic conductivity is discussed:
If
=
eKf, m 2 /s,
(2.8)
and
qf = Tf(dHt/dz).
(2.9)
Equation 2.9 allows the characterization of a fracture by
transmissivity obtained from the volumetric flow rate and the imposed
total head gradient. This dispenses with the need to characterize a
fracture by the effective aperture, which is often not known and which
may not equal the aperture determined by tracer tests or volume balance
calculations (Smith, et al., 1987; Schrauf and Evans, 1986). If
desired, an intrinsic transmissivity term could also be determined.
15
2.3
Unsaturated Flow Through Porous Media
The nature of flow through unsaturated porous media depends to a
great degree on the water content of the media through which flow takes
place. Water content in turn depends upon the water potential of the
porous media. The media water potential contains gravitational,
pressure (suction), osmotic, and temperature components. Since the
experiments performed in this study are all carried out in nearly
isothermal conditions, the temperature component of total moisture
potential will be ignored. Likewise, osmotic potential will not be
considered due to the absence of a membrane or diffusion barrier in the
experiments conducted during this study.
As in saturated flow, gravitational and suction potentials may be
expressed as energy per unit weight, or head, in meters. The
gravitational potential at any given point in a saturated porous
medium, when measured in energy per unit weight, equals the elevation
of the point relative to an arbitrary reference height.
Suction, or
matric, potential results from both capillary and
adsorptive forces in the media matrix. Capillary forces represent the
dominant component of
matric potential in relatively wet environments
and can be expressed by:
P = 27cosa/r
where
P = suction, kgm/s 2 or Pa;
7 = water-air surface tension, kg/s 2 ;
a = liquid-matrix contact angle, usually taken as zero
for water and soil or rock;
r = radius of capillary tube, m.
(2.10)
16
Expressing pressure in meters of water, h c , yields:
h c = 27cosa/(pgr).
(2.11)
The term h c represents the height water will rise in a capillary tube
or cylindrical pore of radius, r. The term P indicates the pressure at
which a given pore size will drain. As equations 2.10 and 2.11
indicate, larger pores drain at smaller suctions. For example, at
20°C, 7= 0.0727 kg/s 2 and pg = 9790 k gi(m2s2). Assuming that a = 0, a
pore of 100 pm radius would drain at 0.15 m of suction, and a pore of
10 prn radius would drain at a suction of 1.5 m.
Geologic media also exhibit adsorptive forces which form
hydration envelopes, or a film of water, over the particles in the
media (Figure 2.2). The volume of water in a porous medium held to
particle surfaces by adsorptive forces tends to be rather small
compared to the volume of water held by capillary forces, especially at
low suction. However, at higher suction, when many pores in the medium
have drained, film flow of water may be quite substantial relative to
flow through water-filled pores.
17
Figure 2.2
Water held in a film over particle surfaces and in
capillary wedges between particles in unsaturated
geologic media (from Hillel, 1980).
18
The prediction of pore size drainage using the capillary equation
is complicated by irregularly shaped pores and branching pore networks.
Any neck or branch that leads to a smaller pore size will increase the
drainage suction for a given pore or system of pores. Therefore, it is
necessary to know the effective pore size distribution of a porous
medium, that is, the distribution of pores that yield water under a
range of applied suctions. Two methods are available for producing
such a distribution. The first consists of a moisture release curve.
A moisture release curve constitutes a plot of suction versus water
content. Experimentally, water content is measured after equilibrium
has been reached for various amounts of suction. Ideally, one should
prepare two curves for each medium, one desorption curve and one
sorption curve. Typically, the two curves will not be the same; this
phenomenon is called hysteresis. It is thought that hysteresis may be
due to factors such as the "ink-bottle" effect (necking of the pores),
entrapped air, the wetting contact angle differing from the drying
contact angle, and swelling or shrinking of the medium. The second
method consists of mercury intrusion
porosimetry, which produces a pore
size distribution by forcing mercury into the rock pores under
pressure. A non-wetting fluid, such as mercury, under pressure
simulates a wetting fluid, such as water, under suction.
By implementing hydraulic conductivity as a function of suction,
111, Darcy's law may be applied to unsaturated porous media:
q = Q/A = -K(Wdel Ht)
where
K(tP) = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, m/s.
(2.12)
19
As moisture characteristic curves are developed to characterize the
effective pore size distribution, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
curves may also be developed, plotting K(10 versus either suction or
water content. Since K(J) may be hysteretic, typically the
relationship is used for either continuously decreasing or continuously
increasing suction. Hydraulic conductivity decreases with increasing
suction, and depending on the effective pore size distribution, may
decrease rapidly with only slight increases in suction.
Downward infiltration and percolation into an initially
unsaturated porous medium has received much study in the field of soil
science. In general, both the suction gradient and the gravity
gradient affect the rate at which water is imbibed into the medium.
The suction gradient influences infiltration rate early in the
infiltration process. As the water content of the medium increases,
the average suction gradient decreases, and the gravity gradient plays
a more important role. Philip (1969) presents a solution to Richards'
equation for vertical infiltration into a porous medium, which is
presented here in an approximate form:
1(t) = st1/2 + At
(2.13)
where 1(t) = cumulative infiltration, m;
t = time, s;
s = sorptivity, m/(s1/2);
A = infiltration rate at large time, m/s.
Equation 2.13 can also be written in terms of infiltration rate:
i(t) = 1/2(st-1/2) + A
(2.14)
where i(t) = infiltration rate, m/s.
20
From equation 2.14, it can be seen that at small times, infiltration
rate varies according to t-1/2. At large times, infiltration rate
approaches A. Since the gravity gradient drives infiltration and
percolation at large times, the parameter A approximates the hydraulic
conductivity of the medium corresponding to the applied suction head.
If I/t is plotted against t -1 / 2 , one can obtain an estimate of
hydraulic conductivity from the intercept of the straight-line portion
of the curve.
2.4 Unsaturated Fracture Flow
Flow through unsaturated rock fractures is subject to the water
content, and thus water potential, of the system in a manner similar to
the matrix surrounding it. Both capillary and adsorptive forces in a
rock fracture work to hold water in a fracture as suction is applied to
the system. Equation 2.11 is modified for drainage from smooth planar
fractures such that:
h c = 27cosa/(pge) (2.13)
with all variables previously defined. Equation 2.13 shows that as
suction is increased, the largest diameter fractures in a rock body
will drain before smaller fractures drain. However, natural fractures
are rarely smooth and planar. More likely, natural fractures consist
of variably rough fractures that are locally cemented and only
approximately planar on a laboratory scale. As with unfractured
geologic media, the development of the moisture characteristic curve is
21
necessary to adequately predict moisture content of an unsaturated
fracture. To the author's knowledge, this procedure has never been
accomplished for a fracture.
Assuming that the flow is laminar, Darcy's law may also be
applied to unsaturated rock fractures. Modifying equations 2.3 and 2.9
for unsaturated flow yields:
TO) = eKO)
(2.14)
and
qf = TO)(dHt/dz)
(2.15)
where KO) = unsaturated fracture hydraulic conductivity, m/s;
TO) = unsaturated fracture transmissivity, m 2 /s.
Since both KO) and TO) depend upon the suction present in the
system, one can see the necessity of developing
Kf or Tf versus 11
relationships for individual fractures or fracture systems of interest.
Without such relationships, prediction of fracture flow under given
imposed suctions would be difficult.
Because of the difficulty in measuring fracture transmissivity
versus suction relationships, little experimental work has been done
with unsaturated fractures. The closest related work that has been
accomplished has been that of soil physicists working with soil
macropores. Wang and Narasimhan (1985) in their modeling study of
fluid flow through partially saturated, fractured porous media
summarize the current thinking on the subject, much of it based upon
soil physics work. Saturated flow through a low-conductivity porous
medium that is highly fractured will most likely take place
predominantly through the fractures. As suction in the medium
22
increases, only those locations within the fractures where the aperture
is smaller than the drainage aperture for the suction present will
remain saturated. As the fracture dries out, the transmissivity of the
fracture decreases, leading to decreased flow in the fracture.
Depending upon the effective aperture of the fracture and the change in
suction in the medium, this decrease can be abrupt. Often, the
effective pore size distribution of the matrix is considerably smaller
than the effective aperture of fractures in the system. Over much of
the suction range that a fractured rock body may experience, the
hydraulic conductivity of the matrix may be higher than the effective
hydraulic conductivity of the fracture. As Wang and Narasimhan (1985)
point out, desaturation of the fracture reduces the area of the
fracture across which flow may take place to points of contact or
necks. Thus, at higher suctions, the tortuosity of flow through an
unsaturated fractured rock body is increased.
2.5 Coupled Matrix/Fracture Flow - Saturated Case
To provide a means of understanding the nature of flow through
fractured rock, the test set up used to analyze block number 1 was
modeled using a two-dimensional boundary integral model. A numerical
model of the first test block aids the study of flow through a coupled
matrix/fracture system in at least three ways. First, it allows the
estimation of pressure head gradients, inflow rates, and streamline
locations for the applied pressure heads at the top of the block.
23
Second, parameters such as the matrix hydraulic conductivity and the
fracture transmissivity can be varied so that different scenarios can
be evaluated. Third, it improves the interpretation of laboratory
data. This steady-state model was developed by Rasmussen (1988) and
assumes that the hydraulic conductivity within a flow domain is
constant in space and time. The model functions by discretizing the
boundary surrounding the area of interest. Laplace's equation is
solved along the boundary using a weighted residual function. Since
the focus of this study is on the development of laboratory procedures,
the reader is referred to Rasmussen and Evans (1988) for a detailed
discussion of the model and its theoretical background. This section
will outline the input parameters used in the modeling.
Since the test block was roughly symmetrical about the test
fracture, half of the block was modeled. Four domains were used to
characterize the block. Looking at a vertical face containing the
fracture trace, the first domain contained the rock matrix to the left
of the test fracture, and the second contained the left half of the
test fracture. During laboratory testing of the block, three porous
ceramic plates were used to supply prepared test solution to the matrix
and fracture. Two plates covered the matrix, and one covered the
fracture. Therefore, two domains were modeled to represent the porous
plates; the third domain included the porous plate covering the matrix,
and the fourth contained left half of the plate covering the test
fracture. Domains 1, 3, and 4 were two dimensional; domain 2 was
effectively modeled in one dimension, since properties were considered
24
constant across the fracture aperture. All boundaries were linear, and
contact between the porous ceramic plates and the matrix or fracture
domains was considered perfect.
Table 2.1 summarizes the relevant domain dimensions and
parameters. The hydraulic conductivities of the matrix and the porous
plates were obtained from laboratory test data. The fracture
transmissivity to be used in the final model was determined iteratively
by running the model and matching the output (inflow rate and pressure
head) with data obtained in testing block number 1. Although the final
fracture transmissivity used in the model generated output that matched
the laboratory data the best, the inflow rates and pressure heads
created by the model varied somewhat from those measured in the
laboratory. Results of the modeling are presented in section 5.2.3.
Table 2.1
Domain
1
Y (cm)
10.20
2
Z (cm)
Model
Input Summary
Hydraulic Conductivity(mis)
50.0
5 X 10 -8
50.0
T = 5 X 10-9 m2's
3
8.60
0.7
2 X 10 -9
4
1.51
0.7
5 X 10-9
CHAPTER THREE
SAMPLE LOCATION AND SELECTION
Laboratory test blocks of partially welded and densely welded
tuff were obtained from the Apache Leap test site, near Superior,
Arizona. The Department of Hydrology and Water Resources at the
University of Arizona, in conjunction with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, operates the Apache Leap test site for the purpose of
conducting hydrologic testing of partially welded tuff that is similar
to that located at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Following is a
brief summary of the field site, the Apache Leap tuff, and the methods
used to procure laboratory test blocks from the site. A brief
discussion of selection and removal of a block of densely welded tuff
is included in this section.
3.1 General Description of the Apache Leap Tuff Site
3.1.1 Regional Setting
The Apache Leap tuff site is located at the western edge of the
Pinal mountains of south-central Arizona, a few kilometers northeast of
the town of Superior (Figure 3.1). Steep mountains and deeply incised
canyons characterize the local terrain. Three separate study locations
25
26
_
TON TO NATIONAL
FOREST
MINE SHAFT
QUEEN CREEK
ROAD TUNNEL
-
B
Magma
Mine Rd
, • C:
APACHE
LEAP
TUFF SITE
Figure
3.1
Schematic diagram of the Apache Leap tuff site
relative to the town of Superior, Arizona. Letters
denote study locations. A = Queen Creek road
tunnel; B = watershed study site; C = plateau
site.
27
compose the test site. The first, at the former Queen Creek road
tunnel in Queen Creek Canyon on U.S. Route 60, lies at an elevation of
about 1036 meters (3400 feet). It consists of both a weather station
and a series of boreholes drilled in the abandoned tunnel. The second
and third study locations are found along the Magma Mine Road
overlooking Oak Flat, roughly at an elevation of 1262 meters (4140
feet). Two small watersheds compose the second study location; the
third consists of an array of angled boreholes drilled on a small
plateau.
3.1.2 Geology of the Apache Leap Tuff
Rock at the Apache Leap tuff site consists of ash-flow tuff. A
pyroclastic deposit, ash-flow tuff results from the deposition,
compaction, and consolidation of a mobile, high-density suspension of
hot glass shards, pumice, rock fragments, and crystals. These airborne
suspensions can travel more than 100 km/hr and can be deposited on land
or water. Once deposited, an ash-flow tuff begins to compact.
Flattening of pumice fragments, a decrease in porosity, and deformation
and welding of glass shards result from compaction of the hot mass.
The degree of welding depends upon the ash-flow temperature at
deposition and the rate of heat loss to the surrounding environment.
Numerous ash-flows may be deposited on top of one another. If such
deposition is closely spaced in time, the compaction and cooling of one
unit may affect the compaction and cooling of units above and below it.
Peterson (1961, 1968) studied the ash-flow tuff deposited east of
28
Superior, Arizona. He found a sequence of welded tuffs that apparently
cooled simultaneously. Welding of the tuff varies from nonwelded to
densely welded (Figure 3.2), and maximum thickness of the sequence is
600 meters. Fracturing of the ash-flow tuff is roughly orthogonal; one
set lies subhorizontally, and the other two lie at angles between 60
degrees and 90 degrees in the vertical plane. Based on chemical
composition, the tuff is classified as a porphyritic, quartz latite of
middle Miocene age (about 20 million years old). From laboratory
studies (Peterson, 1961; Rasmussen and Evans, 1987), the matrix
porosity of the partially welded rock is between 17 percent and 20
percent. The matrix porosity of the densely welded tuff is estimated
to be 9 percent.
The Apache Leap test site lies in various parts of the sequence.
The Queen Creek road tunnel study location lies in densely welded tuff.
The watershed study location and the plateau site lie near the top of
the sequence in a partially welded to nonwelded zone.
3.1.3 Hydrology of the Apache Leap Tuff Site
Weber (1986) performed a reconnaissance study of the hydrology of
the region surrounding the Apache Leap tuff site. In comparing
rainfall records of the town of Superior (elevation 910 meters) with
those obtained at the Magma Copper Company shaft number 9 (elevation
1270 meters), he found discernable orographic effects over a ten year
period of comparison. The average annual precipitation in the town of
Superior was 538.8 mm (21.2 inches), and the average annual
29
ZONES OF WELDING
ZONES OF
FIELD
CRYSTALLIZATION UNITS
Upper nonwelded
White
0
.0
Upper
portly welded
Gray
4
Densely welded
Figure 3.2
Brown
Lower
portly welded
Vit rophyre
lower nonwelded
Bosol
tuf
Physical characteristics of the Apache Leap tuff
(from Peterson, 1968).
30
precipitation at the mine shaft was 639.6 mm (25.2 inches). Orographic
effects were most significant during the winter and summer months, when
rainfall is the highest in the area.
The region surrounding the study site is drained by ephemeral
streams, the most prominent of which is Queen Creek. Small stock ponds
along the Magma Mine road collect runoff and remain full into the
summer months. Although the town of Superior obtains its water from
wells near Florence Junction to the west, a significant amount of
groundwater was pumped from shafts at the Magma Mine prior to its
closure in 1986. Pumping from the mine shafts, the deepest of which
was located at an elevation of -183 meters (-600 feet) relative to Mean
Sea Level, averaged 450 gallons per minute. Despite the fact that
Weber (1986) had a difficult time obtaining useful groundwater quality
data, the data which he obtained indicated that the groundwater in the
area is highest in calcium, bicarbonate, and sulfate ions.
3.2 Field Work Performed
3.2.1 Rock Number 1
Rock number 1 was found along the access road to the plateau at
the Apache Leap tuff site. Presumably, the block had been loosened
during construction of the road to the site. It appeared to be an
appropriate size for initial experimentation; a relatively planar
fracture bisected the sample, and the fracture appeared both conductive
31
to water and well-cemented enough to withstand transportation to the
laboratory. Using a backhoe, the rock was hoisted into the back of a
pickup truck and transported back to the laboratory.
Very roughly a rectangular prism, the first rock's maximum field
dimensions were 79 cm by 79 cm by 36 cm (Figure 3.3). The main
fracture lay in the largest plane and measured about 70 cm by 53 cm.
However, due to the irregular and sloping nature of the rock near the
fracture edges, the longest usable portion of the fracture, allowing
the block to be shaped into a rectangular prism, was 50 cm. After
preliminary flow and transport tests, an outline of the optimal,
finished block was drawn on the surface of the rock. Four 9.53-mm
(3/8-inch) diameter rock bolts were installed using a hand-held rotary
hammer drill.
A local concrete coring company shaped the block to dimensions of
20.3 cm by 20.3 cm by 49.4 cm (Figure 3.4), after which the porous
plates were ordered. After shaping, the fracture lay roughly parallel
to the block sides and measured about 50 cm by 21 cm. It was noted
that, for rock fragments cut off of the test block during the shaping
process, about 5 percent of the fracture surface was cemented.
3.2.2 Rock Number 2
After location, removal, transportation, and shaping of the first
test block, further criteria were developed for selection of additional
test blocks. It was determined that two additional test blocks were
desired, a partially welded test block that would be about 1 m 3 in size
32
Figure 3.3
Test block number 1, prior to shaping, undergoing
preliminary fracture conductivity test.
33
Figure 3.4
Test block number 1, after being shaped, post
single-plate infiltration test.
34
and a densely welded block. Rocks in the desired size range were
examined for quality of fracturing, ease of excavation, and simplicity
of removal from the site. Desirable fractures were straight,
continuous throughout the sample, and relatively free of clay, organic
matter, and extensive cementation. It was also desired that the sample
arrive in the laboratory as undisturbed as possible. Therefore, blocks
were located in the field such that a minimum of work was needed to
excavate and remove the sample.
Two other observations were made before selecting the final rock
samples. First, the fracture along the center of the sample ideally
was to be the only fracture in the rock. Practically, this was not
possible. It was desirable, however, that the amount of subsidiary
fracturing in the matrix of the sample be minimal. Second, the
fracture being investigated needed to be conductive to water introduced
at low positive pressure heads. Therefore, prior to removal, the field
sample was investigated in a simple manner to determine if water moved
through the fracture.
Two blocks were found that fit the above criteria. The first was
a 1.2 m high by 1.0 m wide by 1.1 m deep partially welded tuff block
located along the Magma Mine road, about 100 meters from the plateau
site (Figure 3.5). The lower and right sides of this block were
bounded by fractures, and the left, front, and top faces were open.
The second block was an irregularly shaped, densely welded tuff 0.9 m
(3 feet) high and 1.8 m (6 feet) long. It was found along the old U.S.
60 route, about 75 meters west of the old tunnel (Figure 3.6). From
35
Figure 3.5
Field exposure of partially welded tuff from which
test block 2 was cut. Lens cap is 5.3 cm in
diameter. The vertical trace to the left of the
lens cap is the test fracture.
36
Figure
3.6
Densely welded tuff block found along former route
of U.S. 60. Test fracture runs diagonally from
the upper right to the lower left of the block.
37
inspection of the rock wall on the north side of the road, it appeared
that this block was dislodged from a location about 3.7 meters (12
feet) above the road.
Once these samples had been selected in the field, field flow
tests were performed using a dilute calcium chloride solution. These
tests indicated a conductive main fracture in each block. It appeared
during the flow test on the partially welded block that a series of
subsidiary fractures in the block would not allow the entire block to
be used for testing. The decision was made to cut three smaller blocks
from the rock during the shaping process. After the field flow tests
were performed, 1.27-cm (1/2-inch) diameter holes were drilled normal
to the fracture plane to allow the installation of bolts. The holes
were drilled with a rotary hammer drill and cleaned with air. The
first 5 cm length of the holes were drilled with a 1.91-cm (3/4-inch)
diameter bit to allow recessing of the bolts in the rock during the
shaping process. Consisting of 1.27-cm (1/2-inch) diameter allthreaded rod, the bolts were installed to help stabilize the fracture
during removal and shaping. A glue with the trade name of Depend
Adhesive secured the rock bolts in the holes. It was used because, if
later desired, the glue would break down upon heating and allow removal
of the bolts. The glue was mixed such that it was of low enough
viscosity to allow sufficient sealing of the annulus around the rock
bolt and yet viscous enough not to invade the fracture of interest.
The densely welded tuff required no further preparation for
removal. However, a fracture needed to be created along the back face
38
of the partially welded block prior to removal. To accomplish this,
sixteen 5.08-cm (2-inch) diameter boreholes were drilled along the back
face and parallel to the top surface of the rock. A local construction
company was hired to drill these holes with a compressed air driven,
rotary hammer drill. The boreholes were cleaned with compressed air,
and the pneumatic packers that were to be inserted in the holes were
tested for fit. Two pneumatic packers were then placed in boreholes,
leaving one empty borehole between them, and inflated until a crack was
induced. The pneumatic packers each consisted of a reinforced, rubber
gland, or bladder, which expands radially when inflated by pneumatic
pressure. The specific packers used in this method were chosen such
that the maximum amount of pressure exerted by the inflated packer
against the side of the borehole exceeded the estimated tensile
strength of the rock. Compressed nitrogen was used to inflate the
packers and was delivered to the packers through 4.8-mm (3/16-inch)
outside diameter stainless steel tubing. It was expected that the
induced crack would be short, and the procedure would need to be
repeated a few times. However, the first time the procedure was
attempted, at 950 psi inflation pressure, a crack was induced along the
entire set of boreholes. When the crack appeared along the boreholes,
the freed block of rock settled onto timbers that had been placed
beneath it before inflating the packers. The settling of the block
onto the timbers appeared to open the test fracture slightly.
After both rock blocks were prepared for removal, a truck towing
company was hired to lift each rock onto the back of a stake-bed truck.
39
To accomplish this, woven straps were placed under the rocks, and the
rocks were cradled from the tow truck boom. Timbers were placed below
each rock on the truck to provide cushioning, and chains and binders
were used to secure the load. During the lifting process of the
partially welded block, a corner of the block hit another boulder,
causing the corner to break off. This shortened the potential length
of one of the test blocks.
The two blocks of tuff were then transported to Belen, New Mexico
to be shaped. New Mexico Travertine, whose cutting and shaping plant
is located in Belen, shaped the test blocks in a two-stage process that
required four days to complete. The first stage consisted of
separating excess rock by making saw cuts parallel to the fracture.
Two parallel saw cuts, approximately 21 cm (8.25 inches) apart, were
made using a 9.5-mm diameter cable saw. The cable saw consisted of a
continuous loop of cable which held diamond-impregnated steel
cylinders. Although the cable saw was able to cut blocks up to 2.7
meters (9 feet) across, the accuracy of the cable sawing procedure was
less than that using the blade saw that was available.
After a slab of rock had been cut with the test fracture running
down the middle of the slab, the block was transferred to a computerdriven laser-guided blade saw for the second stage of cutting. Each
test block was separated from the slab and trimmed to the final
dimensions. One test block was obtained from the densely welded tuff
block, and three test blocks were cut from the partially welded tuff
block. Rock number 2 was one of the three partially welded test
40
blocks. Final dimensions after shaping were
wide by
66.0 cm high by 20.9 cm
20.2 cm deep. After shaping, the test blocks were strapped to
pallets, the excess rock pieces were loaded onto the stake-bed truck,
the pallets were chained to the truck, and the blocks and excess rock
were transported back to the University of Arizona.
CHAPTER FOUR
EXPERIMENT
This chapter outlines the procedures used for testing equipment,
preparing calibration curves, and running experiments on the test
blocks. A discussion of how the tests rocks were prepared for testing
and set up will also be included.
4.1 Preparation of Rocks for Experimentation
Each test block needed to be prepared for experimentation prior
to the start of the first test. Preparation involved installing the
test block in a frame to hold the fracture together, tightening the
fracture aperture as desired for testing, drilling the matrix and
fracture sampling ports, drilling the holes that held the displacement
transducer (LVDT) posts, cleaning both the boreholes and the rock
surface, and assembling the test block in its testing location. A
detailed procedure outlining this preparation is provided in Appendix
B, Procedure 1. This section will provide a brief summary of that
procedure.
Since rock number 1 contained four galvanized all-threaded rods,
a steel inner frame was not necessary. One at a time, each rod was
taken out of the test block and replaced with a pre-weighed rod,
41
42
allowing later weighing of the test block. The bolts were then
tightened to a torque of
Rock number
5 foot pounds using a torque wrench.
2 was first prepared for experimentation by attaching
a painted steel inner frame to the rock, denoted frame
A.
The purpose
of this frame was to hold the test block together across the test
fracture. The frame was held together by all-threaded rods and nuts
that were threaded through holes drilled in the overhanging frame. To
ensure that the frame load was evenly distributed across the rock face,
brass shim was placed where needed between the frame and the rock
surface. Using a torque wrench, the bolts were tightened to a torque
of
30 foot pounds.
Each face of the test block was labeled. On both blocks, face
and face
1
2 were the top and bottom of the block, respectively. Figure
4.1 diagrams test block 1; test block 2 face numbers are shown later in
Figure
5.13. Matrix and fracture sampling ports and displacement
transducer
(LVDT) post holes were drilled in each test block (Figures
4.2 through 4.4). The purpose of the sampling ports was to allow the
measurement of in-situ water potentials and the sampling of test
solution for tracer movement. The sampling ports and
LVDT post holes
were drilled using a diamond-studded coring bit. Tap water was used to
cool the drill bit during this process. The rock was leveled so that
the port was perpendicular to the face parallel with the fracture
plane. The matrix ports and
cm into the rock matrix.
LVDT post holes extended approximately 4
43
FACEI (TOP)
FACE 5
FACE 4
///1
4M-U
FAC5\13
(FRONT)
FACE 5
(SIDE)
FACE 4
(SIDE)
I FAC E6
(BA CK)
L
FACE 2 (BOTTOM)
4M-L
•
SAMPLING PORT
Figure 4.1
SAMPLING PORT
Test block number 1 numbering system. Fracture
intersects faces 1, 2, 3, and 6.
44
FRACTURE PORTS
MATRIX PORTS
II
103
97
29 8
50 0
350
34.2
49.0
49 8
48.8
15.6 20.3 FACE 4
Figure 4.2
FACE 5
Test block 1 sampling port locations.
45
15.0
14.1
I
5.5
5.2
je 4F-IA
4F-IB'
•
j
FRAM A
24.7
29.8
4F-2B
4F-2A
1.2
61.2
•
I 4F-3 1A / I
I 4F-3B
I
66.0
14 4.6-I
14.4
20.2
Figure
4.3
Test block number
face 4.
SAMPLING
PORT
2 fracture sampling ports,
46
6.9
i
6M:T
®
,..,
4.4
C) 6M-2
I
9.8
i
6M-3
6M-4.0
19.9
•
4
I
20.0
I
SAMPLING
PORT
66.0
5.6H
15.1 Figure 4.4
i
20.2 ]
Test block number 2 matrix sampling ports, face 6.
47
The fracture sampling ports were paired such that variations in
flow and transport could be studied in the direction lateral to the
general direction of flow.
Care was exhibited during the drilling of
the fracture sampling ports not to drill past the fracture surface.
When
the fracture was neared, drilling proceeded slowly. The sampling
port was frequently inspected, both visually and with a wire, and
drilling was stopped when the water in the vertically oriented sampling
port drained out the bottom of the hole, which was assumed to be the
fracture surface. Additionally, the cores taken from the sampling
ports were inspected, and often the intersection of a weathered
fracture surface could be seen on the end of the cores. In rock number
1, three ports extended from a face parallel to the fracture to the
fracture face. The fourth port, 5FLC, inadvertently intersected a
subsidiary fracture and was not drilled to the main fracture. When the
ports were not being used to obtain samples, rubber stoppers sealed off
the port entrances.
After drilling was completed, the rock was moved to a table and
cleaned. The cleaning procedure consisted of flushing the sampling
ports and post holes repeatedly with a dilute calcium chloride solution
from a squirt bottle and removing any cuttings with a test tube brush.
A chisel was used to chip out any rock pieces still attached to the end
of the port after the drilling process. The test block surface was
then cleaned using a dilute calcium chloride solution and a soft
bristle brush, removing any silt or clay accumulated on the rock
surface in the shaping and port drilling. Throughout the preparation
48
of the block for testing, touching of the end faces (faces 1 and 2) was
minimized, to avoid adding oil to the surface pores.
Installation of the LVDT posts followed. The LVDT posts
consisted of solid cylindrical aluminum. One of the two posts making
up a set contained a tapped hole which accepted the threaded LVDT core
(see section 4.3.5). The other post contained a square head in two
parts which could be tightened over the LVDT coil with four screws.
The posts were glued into the rock using Depend Adhesive which, upon
heating above about 120°C, broke down and allowed removal of the
aluminum posts when the experiment was concluded.
The test blocks were mounted in a frame which stood on a
laboratory table top. For sake of discussion, this second frame is
called frame B. The frame material was composed of thick galvanized
angle iron, with pre-drilled holes; the frame design consisted of four
independently standing posts, with footings welded on, and separate
cross strips that were bolted to the corner posts. By standing the
test block in its testing orientation and elevation on top of blocks of
wood, the cross members of frame B were attached to the protruding allthreaded rod, in the case of rock 1, and frame A, in the case of rock
2. The wood blocks were then removed and the frame and rock assembly
positioned in its testing location.
To minimize evaoration, it was necessary to enclose the test
block assembly in a plastic canopy. This was accomplished by welding
6.4-mm (1/4-inch) diameter steel rod together to form a canopy frame.
The frame was built big enough to fit over the entire test assembly.
49
Clear polyethylene covered the canopy frame that was placed over rock
1. Duct tape secured the polyethylene to the frame and the laboratory
table top. Access patches were cut in the canopy, allowing entry to
the sampling ports and faces 1 and 2. Duct tape closed the access
patches when the ports were not being sampled and was used to tape on
the polyethylene top.
Using polyethylene as a canopy material had two disadvantages:
it could not be glued using any available adhesives, and it was hard to
see through. Therefore, clear vinyl was used to enclose rock 2. Vinyl
adhesive sealed the seams, and as before, duct tape sealed the bottom
edges to the table top. Rubber bands were used to secure the
polyethylene top that covered the top of the frame. The access patches
in rock number 1 also proved to be inadequate. Clear PVC tubing was
used to access the sampling ports in rock 2. The tubing was caulked to
the evaporation canopy using lightweight washers to give added support.
Epoxy glued to the lead end of the tubing provided a tight fit in the
ends of the sampling ports. Less than 1 cm of the tubing was allowed
to rest in a sampling port. Rubber stoppers sealed the ends of the
access tubes when they were not in use.
4.2 Experiment Setup
Figures 1.1 and 4.5 show the basic setup for experiments
performed using test blocks 1 and 2. Both setups involved the
assemblies described above and a test solution delivery system which is
50
EVAPORATION
CAN
ALL-THREADED ROD
FRAME B
POROUS
CERAMIC
PLATE
IASMMV.W.T4tr
'
''..1:*
i.::::- , :q..r.i,,":
•
.
—,...1.Vt. \
...
-4-.
r•-:
:.:
t,1.-::::;
' - '4 ...•
-
-
TEST BLOCK 2
'
.....,,
••
•
.%:.
FRAME A
N.
''.'....',
!.W.
....
.......
7.e.
,-.....
7..., •
.
.r.t1 ,.......;,; .....
er.V.
CONNECTING
ROD ,
.
LVDT
..."
......"....tr •••,'
,....w,
.
'
. .....r . : ....
..4.? ?P.:4; '
• ;
4:
Zi ;
S..
/./...Mige..K.
Is.
FRACTURE
,
.....r.
warm,.
'....
....:.t.
.........
.......
:...%-..
s.-
TABLE TOP
Fi gure 4.5
Tygon tubing
/ enters under
canopy
Test block number 2 experimental setup. Frame A
is held by hooks from frame B.
51
detailed in Figure 4.6. The calibration and use of each of the
components in the test block experimentation will be described in
section 4.3. In general, the upper surface of each test block was fit
with specially designed rectangular porous ceramic plates to provide a
water source under a controlled pressure head. Each plate was
hydraulically separated from adjacent plates. Narrow plates were
placed along the fracture/surface intersections to more precisely
measure fracture inflow. Test solution inflow for each plate was
measured. Additional test data aquisition included water potential
measurements at the sampling port locations at the fracture surface and
in the matrix, and fracture displacement monitoring.
The test solution used during the experiments performed on the
test blocks consisted of deaerated 0.001 M CaCl2, with 0.1 gram of
thymol added per liter of solution. Procedure 2 of Appendix B outlines
the making of the solution. This particular test solution was chosen
because calcium stabilizes the diffuse double layer surrounding any
clay present in the test fracture or present in any heavily weathered
portions of the block. Chloride was chosen as the tracer to be used in
the transport portion of the study (Chuang, 1988). A concentration of
0.001 M was selected based on the standard test solution concentrations
used in soil science studies (Klute and Dirksen, 1986). Thymol acted
as a bacteriological inhibitor (Klute and Dirksen, 1986). The test
solution was deaerated by boiling to minimize air bubble formation in
the porous plate matrix, backing, and associated tubing.
52
—1
(
53
4.3 Equipment Testing, Calibration, and Experimental Procedures
The principal equipment used in the test block experiments
included the porous plates, the constant-head reservoirs, the pipet
flow tubes, the microtensiometer, and the displacement transducers.
The follow sections describe each device.
4.3.1 Porous Ceramic Plates
Soilmoisture Equipment Corp. of Goleta, California manufactured
the porous ceramic plates. Each plate consisted of a 0.7-cm thick
rectangle of baked ceramic attached to a 1.2 cm thick, clear polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) base, or backing (Figure 4.7). Standard plate length
was 20.2 cm (7.950 inches). The porous plate was held to the PVC by
epoxy around the four, notched edges. The pore sizes of the ceramic
plate were small enough that the plate provided at least 200 kPa (2
bars) of suction, that is, the air entry value was at least 200 kPa of
suction. A continuous groove cut the plate side of the PVC backing and
connected two brass nipples. This construction allowed both the supply
of water to the ceramic plate and, since the groove was continuous, the
instantaneous flushing out of the water delivery system.
One narrow ceramic plate (3.0 cm, or 1.190 inches wide) was used
to provide solution to the top of the fracture. Two ceramic plates
(8.6 an, or 3.380 inches wide) were required to deliver solution to the
top of the rock matrix. For the porous plates to be effective, good
contact was required between the plates and the rock matrix surface or
fracture. Whatman number 42 filter paper, with a 2.5 pM retention
54
200 kPa CERAMIC PLATE
EPDXY
CLEAR PVC
SIDE VIEW
(0)
PLAN VIEW SHOWING GROOVES IN PVC
Figure 4.7
Porous ceramic plate. Length and thickness of all
plates equals 20.2 cm and 0.7 cm, respectively.
Width of matrix plates equals 8.6 cm, and width of
plate covering fracture equals 3.0 cm.
55
rating was cut to fit the ceramic side of each plate and was placed
between the plate and the matrix surface. Additionally, filter paper
pulp, derived from Whatman number 42 filter paper, was placed in the
top of the fracture to aid contact between the porous plate and the
fracture. The porous ceramic plates were held to the rock face by one
of two methods. For rock number 1, 1.27-cm (1/2-inch) thick plexiglas
was placed on top of the plates above the rock. The plexiglas was held
down by all-threaded rods connecting to a second piece of plexiglas
underneath the test block. Small blocks of wood were used to distance
the second piece of plexiglas from the bottom of the rock (see Figure
4.5). For rock number 2, 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. all-threaded rod cut
into appropriate lengths was used to hold the plates down onto the top
of the rock. Threaded couplings were used to tighten the rod against
galvanized steel strips that were bolted to rock frame B.
Prior to use, each porous ceramic plate was tested for plate
conductance (Appendix
B,
Procedure 3). Each porous plate was set up
with tubing, a pipet flow tube, a manometer, and a Mariotte reservoir
as described in the procedure for setting up the rock and supporting
equipment. Instead of placing the porous plate on a rock block, it was
placed horizontally in a plastic tub, ceramic side down. Enough
solution was added to the tub to cover the plate. A second manometer
measured the solution level in the tub. The elevation of the Mariotte
reservoir was varied, and the flow rate through the porous plate was
measured at least twice at each reservoir elevation. The conductance,
which includes the plate hydraulic conductivity, area, and ceramic
56
thickness, was then determined by plotting flow rate versus the total
head drop across the plate.
4.3.2 Head Control
The constant-head reservoirs supplying test solution to the
porous ceramic plates consisted of Mariotte reservoirs (Figure 4.7).
Each reservoir was composed of a sealed one-liter nalgene bottle with a
screw top. A solution tube exited the bottom of the bottle, and two
tubes entered the top of the reservoir. One of the tubes remained
clamped off when the bottle was in use and served as a solution refill
tube. The other tube was open to the atmosphere and allowed air to
bubble into the bottom of the reservoir. Prior to use, each reservoir
was marked along the outside in 100 mL increments and was pressure
tested up to 13.8 kPa (2 psi).
Mariotte reservoirs maintain a nearly constant pressure head by
balancing out the decreasing positive solution pressure at the bottom
of the air entry tube with an increasing negative gas pressure in the
air space above the solution. When the bottle is first filled, the
solution pressure at the bottom of the air entry tube is at its
highest, and the air pressure is at its most negative. As a small
amount of solution drains from the reservoir, the solution pressure
decreases slightly, an air bubble is induced to enter the reservoir
through the open air entry tube, and the air pressure increases,
maintaining a nearly constant pressure head over time. The pressure
drop required to cause a bubble to enter the reservoir depends upon the
57
size of the bubble or number of bubbles that enter the reservoir at a
time, which in turn depends upon the type of air entry tube used.
Since the size or number of bubbles entering the Mariotte
reservoir at a given time controls the pressure variation around the
constant pressure that one is trying to maintain, it is best to have an
air entry tube that produces a steady bubbling rate and a small bubble
size. Various materials were tested as air entry tubes, and two were
eventually used in the experiments. The first was used primarily with
test block 1 and consisted simply of a 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) o.d. stiff
plastic tube. The second type of air entry tube, used mainly with rock
2, contained a set of needles assembled in series. Stiff plastic
tubing, as described previously, was glued to the bottle top, and two
needles were joined in series from the tubing with appropriately sized
tygon tubing.
During the experiments performed with the test blocks, each
porous plate was supplied solution from a separate Mariotte bottle.
This was required since each porous plate had a unique conductance. To
vary the total head on the top of a porous plate, the Mariotte bottles
were simply raised or lowered accordingly.
A
manometer was used to
measure the pressure head, or total head if the manometer elevation is
measured relative to the bottom of the plate, at the top of the plate.
Once a flow rate through the plate was obtained (see below), the
average pressure head at the bottom of the plate was calculated using
Darcy's Law applied across the plate:
58
hp = Ht - (Q/C)
where
(4.1)
hp = average head at the bottom of the plate, cm;
Ht = average total head at the top of the plate, cm, if the
manometer elevation is measured from the bottom of the
plate;
Q = flow rate, cm3 /min;
C = plate conductance, cm 2 /min.
4.3.3 Flow Rate Measurement
Two methods were used to measure flow into the test blocks. The
first consisted of an air-bubble flow meter, or pipet flow tube
(Appendix B, Procedure 4). This device was constructed using a 1.0-mL
graduated pipet with a bubble entrance port and a bubble exit port
attached on opposite ends of the pipet. The ports were constructed
from nalgene or glass elbows, flexible tubing, and rubber septa. Flow
rate was measured by injecting an air bubble through the entry port and
monitoring its movement along the pipet.
In the course of testing the pipet flow tube, it was found that
injection of an air bubble into the system temporarily raised the
pressure head at the top of the plate. To lower the pressure back to
the controlled pressure range, solution was extracted out of the bubble
inlet tube once the bubble moved into the pipet. Enough solution was
extracted to force an air bubble into the system through the air inlet
tube of the Mariotte bottle, ensuring that the pressure in the system
was in the range that the Mariotte reservoir would hold it.
On the average, a pressure drop of less than 5 mm across the test
bubble was measured during flow measurement. To ensure that no
solution was flowing around the test bubble in the pipet, producing
59
faulty results, two tests were performed. In the first, dye was
injected in front of the bubble and a flow test performed. Dye was
injected behind the test bubble in the second test. In both cases, the
dye did not move around the test bubble. These tests demonstrated that
the test bubble moved at the same rate as the solution around it in the
pipet and was thus an adequate method of measuring flow.
The second method of inflow measurement involved measuring the
change in volume in the Mariotte reservoir. When flow measurements
were made using the air bubble flow meter, the volume of solution in
the reservoir was also noted. Since times and dates were also
recorded, the average flow rate since the last measurement could also
be calculated.
4.3.4
Water Potential Measurement in the Fracture and the Matrix
Water potential measurement in the test blocks was made possible
using a microtensiometer. This device was constructed of a porous
ceramic cup (100kPa air entry value) which was epoxied to a short
aluminum rod through which a hole was drilled. A stainless steel tube
was slipped through the hole in the rod and epoxied in place. A
thimble, of the type used in Soxhlet extractions, was epoxied along its
base onto the end of the porous cup. The thimble was obtained from
Whatman, Inc. of Clifton, New Jersey, and consisted of a 1-mm layer of
cotton cellulose. The stainless steel tubing was slipped through a
rubber stopper which contained a hole drilled through the center
lengthwise. After the inside of the assembly was filled under vacuum
60
with deaerated distilled water, it was joined to a pressure transducer
(MICRO SWITCH 142PC15D) with a vacuum tubing attachment. A syringe was
used to fill the pressure transducer port with deaerated distilled
water prior to assembly of the tensiometer.
Prior to their use, both the pressure transducer and the
microtensiometer required calibration. The pressure transducer was
first calibrated by applying a partial vacuum to the low pressure port
(Appendix B, Procedure 5). The vacuum was varied, and the transducer
output was measured. A calibration curve was then prepared that
minimized the error in the low pressure differential range. This was
accomplished by determining an average zero differential output,
subtracting this value from all of the readings, and then determining
an average pressure-corrected output ratio.
The microtensiometer was calibrated by two methods. The first
involved putting the cup of the instrument in test solution in a sealed
chamber, decreasing the air pressure over the test solution, and
measuring the transducer output. The second method involved placing
the cup of the microtensiometer against a vertical porous plate,
varying the suction head applied to the plate, and measuring the
transducer output. To minimize evaporation, the porous plate was
placed in partially sealed box. Sampling ports were installed in the
box, allowing the tensiometer to rest solidly against the ceramic
surface of the porous plate.
Calibrating and using the microtensiometer involved the use of a
regulated power supply to provide a direct current to the pressure
61
transducer, a precision voltage regulator, and a Hewlett Packard data
aquisition unit to measure the voltage output from the pressure
transducer. Additionally, since the pressure transducer used for this
study required that the low pressure port remain dry, a hand-operated
vacuum pump and associated tubing was necessary to impose a partial
vacuum on the transducer. A detailed description of the type of
equipment used is provided in Appendix B, Procedure 6.
Use of the microtensiometer in test fracture water potential
measurement involved placing the instrument in a sampling port with the
tensiometer tip against the fracture surface. The stopper was slipped
into the sampling port until it held the tensiometer tip against the
fracture. The pressure transducer output was monitored until a stable
reading, or range of readings, was obtained. An average value was
recorded. The tensiometer was then moved to another sampling port.
Obtaining a matrix water potential from either the matrix sampling
ports or the rock surface was more difficult and less precise. The
matrix sampling ports were too short to allow the stopper to hold the
tensiometer in place. Therefore, the tensiometer had to be held by
hand which put abnormal pressure on the vacuum tubing connection
between the pressure transducer and the stainless steel tubing. The
readings obtained by this method varied considerably more around the
average value recorded at a given time than did those obtained when the
tensiometer was held by the stopper.
62
4.3.5 Displacement Transducers
Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to
measure displacement perpendicular to the fracture plane. The
electronics of the LVDT were contained in a stainless steel housing and
were referred to as a coil, or coil assembly. A stainless steel core
fit into a hole that ran lengthwise through the coil. The unit
required a DC input, and a DC output was yielded. The core, when
displaced axially within the coil assembly, produced a voltage change
in the output directly proportional to the core displacement from the
electrical center of the coil. The polarity of the output voltage was
a function of the direction of the core displacement with respect to
the electrical center. The maximum working range of coil displacement
from the electrical center was plus or minus 6.4 mm (1/4 inch).
Prior to use, the displacement transducers required calibration.
A detailed account of the calibration procedure is provided in Appendix
B, Procedure 7. It involved installing two square-head aluminum posts
(see section 4.1) into a scrap block of partially welded tuff, cut from
test block 1 during the shaping process. The coil assembly of the LVDT
to be calibrated was then secured in one post, and a micrometer that
held the core was installed in the other post. Output voltage readings
were then recorded for various core positions inside of the coil. The
micrometer was used to measure the amount of movement of the core
within the coil assembly. A calibration curve was then plotted, and
the data were fit using the least squares method, yielding a
displacement to voltage ratio for the tested coil assembly.
63
Two displacement transducers were used to monitor fracture
movement in test block
1. One was placed on each side of the block,
34.5 cm down from the top on face 3 and 12 cm down from the top on face
6. Three LVDTs were installed in test block 2. Two were placed on
face
3, 11 cm and 52 cm down from the top. One LVDT was also installed
31 cm down from face 1 on face 5. Frequent LVDT readings were taken
throughout the experiments performed on each block.
4.4 Rock
Number
1 Tests
Three types of tests were performed on the first test block. The
first involved flowing test solution down the fracture only. The
second test type consisted of an imbibition test using three porous
plates. A steady state flow test was the third type of analysis
performed on the first test block. A brief description of each test
follows.
4.4.1 Fracture Imbibition Tests
Two fracture imbibition tests were performed on the first test
block. The first consisted of a simple fracture conductivity test.
Prior to shaping the first block, a test was performed to determine if
the proposed test fracture was conductive to solution movement. The
rock was strapped to a pallet and positioned on a frame such that the
fracture lay in a vertical plane. Moldable, caulking compound formed a
surface reservoir, and a Mariotte bottle supplied tap water to the rock
64
through tygon tubing. The water was dripped on the exposed fracture on
the upper rock surface.
The porous plates for test block number 1 were not designed and
ordered until after the block was shaped. After the porous plates
arrived, the second fracture imbibition test was performed on the rock
sample. The purpose of the second test was to determine whether a test
solution would travel vertically downward through the test fracture
when the solution was applied to the surface or whether horizontal
solution movement and leakage out the side of the fracture would be a
problem. To test this, the block was oriented such that the test
fracture lay in the vertical plane, and a narrow porous plate was
placed over the upper fracture surface. The plate had been previously
saturated with deaerated test solution. Whatman filter paper number 42
was used to provide good contact between the porous plate and the rock
surface. Deaerated test solution was supplied to the rock through
tygon tubing from a 1 liter beaker; an air-bubble flow meter was used
to measure the flow rate. Inflow rate and wetting front position were
monitored through time. Initially, the solution reservoir surface was
held at the same elevation as the top of the rock. The solution
reservoir elevation was raised throughout the experiment.
Solution was applied and the wetting front monitored for 149
hours, at which time the block was subjected to analysis with the gamma
attenuation apparatus. Rasmussen and Evans (1987) describe the gamma
attenuation equipment in detail. Such analysis involves passing a
mono-energetic gamma radiation beam through the test block. The
65
reduction in intensity of the gamma beam can be related to either the
water content or the bulk density of the sample. The effective
diameter of rock that affects the gamma beam is about 1 cm. To solve
for water content:
8 . -[
where
1n(I/I0)-XPrPr]/(XliwPW)
(4.2)
e = volumetric water content of the rock;
I = the measured beam intensity after attenuation by the
test block;
10 = the source intensity;
x = the thickness of the test block in the path of the
gamma beam;
Pr = the gamma absorption coefficient for the matrix of the
test block;
Pr = the dry bulk density of the test block;
uw = the gamma absorption coefficient for water;
Pw = the density of the pore water.
A 110 millicurie Cs-137 source was used in this analysis. It was
enclosed in a 5-cm thick lead shield. A sodium-iodide crystal gamma
detector, and electronics to process and record the detector signal
were also used. The test block was oriented such that the gamma beam
was perpendicular to the fracture, and readings were taken at seven
locations in the block.
4.4.2 Three-plate Imbibition Test
Test block number 1 was air dried for 102 days between the
fracture imbibition tests and the whole-rock imbibition test. During
this time, equipment was calibrated, further test blocks were obtained
from the field, the laboratory was set up for testing on multiple
blocks, and the sampling ports and LVDT post holes were drilled in rock
number 1. Ten days prior to beginning the three-plate imbibition test,
66
a gamma beam attenuation analysis of the block was performed. The test
block was positioned so that the gamma beam was parallel to the
fracture; readings were taken at ten locations in the block, five on
each side of the fracture.
The purpose of the three-plate, or whole-rock, imbibition test
was to investigate the infiltration and percolation characteristics of
the test fracture and surrounding matrix when test solution was applied
to the test block at atmospheric pressure. In conjunction with this
purpose, test instruments and procedures to perform such an experiment
were also developed. The experiment involved standing the test block
such that the test fracture lay in the vertical plane. Face 1 was the
top face, and face 2 was the bottom face. A narrow plate was placed
over the test fracture, and two wide plates were placed over the matrix
on either side of the test fracture. A 500-mL beaker of tap water was
placed on the table top inside of the evaporation canopy to provide a
source for maintaining saturated airspace in the canopy. Throughout
the test, the Mariotte reservoirs were adjusted to maintain the
pressure head at the bottom of each plate as close to atmospheric
pressure as possible. Inflow rate, visual observations of the wetting
front position, room temperature, and fracture displacement were
monitored through time. Barometric pressure was not monitored in any
of the tests.
Improvements were made in experimental procedures throughout the
test. Manometers, which were not used at the beginning of the
experiment, were added to the inflow tubing to monitor total head at
67
the top of the plate. Improvements to the evaporation barrier were
made, and an upgraded evaporation canopy frame was built. Minor
adjustments in the flow rate procedure were also made.
4.4.3 Steady-State Flow Test
Once the matrix of test block number 1 was completely wet and
solution was dripping from the face 2, the steady state flow test was
begun. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the saturated,
or near-saturated fracture transmissivity and matrix hydraulic
conductivity of the test block. As in the previous experiment, test
instruments and techniques were developed to perform the test. The
flow test involved continued application of test solution through the
configuration of plates used in the imbibition test. The constant-head
reservoirs were adjusted to maintain the pressure head at face I near
atmospheric pressure. Inflow rate was measured using both the pipet
flow meters and the volume change in the Mariotte reservoirs. Outflow
rate was monitored by collecting in beakers the solution that dripped
from face 2. As in the imbibition test, a beaker of water was placed
inside of the evaporation canopy to saturate the airspace, minimizing
evaporation from the test block. Room temperature and fracture
displacement were monitored until the data aquisition unit failed to
operate properly.
Improvements and additions were made in experimental procedures
throughout the test, the most significant of which involved the
construction and use of the microtensiometer. Two-thirds of the way
68
through the steady-state flow test, the microtensiometer was built,
tested, and calibrated. Frequent readings were made throughout the
remainder of the test. The fracture sampling ports were the focus of
the monitoring since the tensiometer could not be used in the short
matrix ports.
At the end of the steady-state flow test, the evaporation canopy
and frame 8 were disassembled. The test block was separated along the
test fracture, and a transport analysis was performed along the
fracture surface (Chuang, 1988). The microtensiometer would have been
used to obtain water potential measurements at various points along the
fracture surface, but the pressure transducer malfunctioned as the
final stage of the test was begun. Another student is currently
studying the surface roughness characteristics of the separated
fracture of test block 1.
4.5 Rock
Number
2 Tests
One experiment was performed on the second test block. It
consisted of a three-plate imbibition test similar to the rock number 1
test. Due to time limitations, the wetting front was less than half
way down the test block at the time this study ended. Other students
are continuing the study and will present the remaining imbibition
results in a future publication.
69
4.5.1 Three-plate Imbibition Test
The three-plate imbibition test investigated the infiltration and
percolation characteristics of the test fracture and surrounding matrix
when test solution was applied to the rock at subatmospheric pressure.
With rock number 2, an added purpose in the experiment was to see at
what applied suction head the fracture specific discharge decreased
below the matrix specific discharge.
After the preliminary setup of the test block 2, the porous
plates were attached to the top of the rock (face 1), and the
imbibition test was initiated. One narrow plate was used to introduce
test solution to the test fracture, and two wide porous plates provided
solution to the matrix. A nearly constant negative pressure head, or
suction head, of 15 cm was maintained along face 1 by adjusting the
elevations of the Mariotte reservoirs. A beaker filled with water
provided a saturated airspace inside of the evaporation barrier.
Inflow rate, wetting front advance, fracture displacement, and room
temperature were monitored throughout the experiment. Water potential
in the fracture and matrix would have been monitored behind the wetting
front, but the pressure transducer needed to quantify the amount of
suction in the microtensiometer remained on backorder through this
phase of the imbibition test.
Two methods were used to derive the relationship of fracture flow
rate to matrix flow rate. The first involved visually comparing the
influence of the fracture on the wetting front shape. It was assumed
that if the wetting front did not protrude downward at the fracture
70
relative to the matrix wetting front that the fracture specific
discharge was less than or equal to the matrix specific discharge. The
second method involved comparing the inflow rates to the fracture and
matrix porous plates. If the average specific discharge of the
fracture plate, defined as the volumetric flow rate, Q, divided by the
cross-sectional area of the plate, did not exceed the average specific
discharge of the matrix plate, it was assumed that the fracture
specific discharge was less than or equal to that of the matrix.
4.6 Rock Characterization Tests
Rock samples cut from test blocks 1 and 2 during the shaping
process were analyzed for pore size distribution, dry bulk density,
effective porosity, and saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Additionally, moisture release curves were prepared. A diamond-studded
coring bit was used to obtain 5.65-cm diameter cores for testing.
Cores 1.2 cm in diameter were used in the mercury porosimeter.
Rasmussen and Evans (1987) provide detailed procedures for all of the
characterization tests but the mercury intrusion test. Vogt (1988)
presents the mercury intrusion procedure used in this study. Brief
summaries of the methods follow.
4.6.1 Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined for six
samples each from test blocks 1 and 2 using a modified Tempe pressure
71
cell. The saturated sample was confined in an inflatable bladder,
placed in the cell, and confined between 0-rings on the top and the
bottom. The bladder was inflated to 689 kPa (100 psi). A preciselyregulated pressurizing system supplied nitrogen pressure above a test
solution supply tank. Flow rate through the sample was monitored using
a pipet flow meter installed at the Tempe cell exit port. The matrix
saturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated from:
K s = QL/(AHt)
where
(4.3)
Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity, m/s;
Q = flow rate, msJ/s;
L = sample length, m;
A = sample area, m 2 ;
Ht = total head imposed on the upper surface of the sample
in meters of water.
The intrinsic permeability of the sample was determined from:
k w = K s p/pg
where
(4.4)
kw = intrinsic permeability, m 2 ;
K s = saturated hydraulic conductivity, m/s;
p = water viscosity, Pa•s;
p = density of water, kg/m3;
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s 2 .
At 24°C,
p = 0.9973 x 10 3 kg/m 3 and p = 9.11 x 10 -4 Pa•s.
4.6.2 Matrix Moisture Release Curves
Moisture release curves were prepared for six core samples
retrieved from rock surrounding block number 1 and five samples from
rock surrounding test block 2. Compressed nitrogen, supplied at a
regulated pressure, was used to force solution out of sample cores that
were placed on top of a porous ceramic plate inside of a pressure
extractor. To start the test, saturated cores were weighed and placed
72
in the pressure extractor. Nitrogen gas pressurized the container to
10 kPa. When equilibrium was reached, the samples were removed,
weighed, and returned to the pressure extractor. The process was then
repeated at pressures of 25 kPa, 50 kPa, and 100 kPa.
4.6.3 Matrix Dry Bulk Density and Effective Porosity
The matrix effective porosity was determined by first oven drying
the sample for at least 48 hours. The dry mass and volume were then
measured, using a balance and calipers, respectively. After saturating
the sample, the wet mass was measured. Effective porosity equaled:
ne = (msat - mdry)/(pwV) where
(4.5)
ne = effective porosity, dimensionless;
msat = saturated sample mass, kg;
mdry = oven dry sample mass, kg;
Pw = density of water, kg/mi;
V = sample volume, m 3 .
Dry bulk density equaled:
Pb = mdry/V
where
(4.6)
Pb = dry bulk density.
Six samples taken from rock number 1 were analyzed for dry bulk density
and effective porosity. Ten samples from block 2 were tested.
4.6.4 Matrix Pore Size Distributions
Mercury porosimetry is based on the capillary equation discussed
in section 2.3 above. A positive pressure which intrudes the nonwetting fluid, mercury, into rock pores represents a negative pressure
which forces the wetting fluid, water, from rock pores. In general, an
73
oven-dried pre-weighed sample core was evacuated in a Micromeritics
Pore Sizer, model 9310, and the sample chamber gravity-filled with
mercury. In two stages, the sample was then intruded with mercury.
This was accomplished by reducing the vacuum in the first stage and by
applying hydraulic pressure to the sample chamber stem in the second
stage. These steps forced mercury from the stem into the pores of the
rock sample. At each measurement step during the intruding process,
the capacitance of the sample chamber stem was recorded. The
capacitance thus recorded was later converted to a volume of mercury
that had left the sample chamber stem and entered the sample pores for
a given applied pressure. Pore size distributions were determined for
5 core samples from test block 1 and 6 core samples from block 2.
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chapter five discusses the results of the imbibition and steadystate flow tests using test blocks
1 and 2. Also included are
discussions of the equipment calibrations and the rock characterization
analyses. All tables referred to as "A." in this chapter appear in
Appendix A.
5.1 Equipment Calibration Results
Table
A.1 presents the results of the porous ceramic plate
conductance tests. Table
5.1 summarizes those results. Volumetric
flow rate was plotted versus the total head drop across the plate, and
the least squares method was used to fit the data with a straight line.
The slope of the best-fit line was taken as the plate conductance.
Findings from a typical conductance test are provided in Figure
As seen in the case of porous plate number
2, a straight line fits the
data well. The sample coefficients of determination
straight-line relationship and range from
5.1.
(r 2 ) show a good
0.966 to 0.995 for the six
plates tested. Factoring out the thickness and area of the plate
yields the apparent hydraulic conductivity of the porous ceramic used
in the plates. Since it is not known how evenly the solution was
74
75
0.30
0.20
—J
0.15
0
EL- 0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure 5.1
Results of a conductance test performed on porous
ceramic plate number 2. Head refers to total head
drop across the plate.
76
actually delivered to the top of the plate, the apparent hydraulic
conductivity of the ceramic may not equal the actual hydraulic
conductivity of the material. For the six plates used in the study,
the apparent hydraulic conductivity of the ceramic varied from 1.8 x
10 -9 m/s to 6.6
x 10 -9 m/s. The mean value was 4.0 x 10 -9 ni/s.
Table 5.1
Plate
1
2
3
4
5
6
Plate Conductance Results
Conductance (cm 2 /min.)
0.0043 915
0.0056101
0.0026828
0.0071274
0.0019596
0.0034371
r2
0.966
0.995
0.988
0.990
0.991
0.988
The method used to obtain the plate conductance data contains a
number of sources of variability. First is the measurement of pressure
head. In this method, pressure head is measured using a manometer and
a meter stick, graduated in millimeters. Potential errors include a
variable meniscus due to dirty manometer tubing and incorrect sighting
of the meniscus location with a hand level. In addition, the pressure
head on top of the porous plate fluctuates with time due to pressure
variation in the Mariotte reservoir. All effects combined, the
probable variation in the pressure head reading is plus or minus 0.5
mm. A second source of variation lies in the flow rate reading itself.
Starting and stopping the stopwatch as the test bubble crosses the
77
pipet graduations leads to variablility in the time recorded.
Variations from this source are difficult to quantify, but a rough
estimate might be plus or minus 0.5 percent of the flow rate measured.
From equation 4.1, one can see that the pressure head calculated at the
bottom of the porous plate is highly sensitive to the value of the
plate conductance used in the equation. Although it is essential to
obtain accurate plate conductances, the variability in the slope of the
plate conductance curve due to the aforementioned sources is difficult
to quantify. The effects of variability in flow and pressure
measurements of one point on the plot may cancel such variability of
another point on the plot.
After the first set of plates was removed from test block number
1, they were cleaned with an ultrasonic bath. Plate conductances
determined for one of the plates before and after cleaning were the
same, and plate clogging was not considered throughout the rest of the
study. However, in work performed after the completion of this study,
it was found by another student that reduction in plate conductance of
up to 10 percent may take place after a plate has been idle for a few
months in a solution bath.
Tables A.2 through A.7 provide the pressure transducer and
microtensiometer calibration results. Two methods were used to analyze
the pressure transducer output. The first involved plotting the
imposed pressure differential versus output voltage and, using the
least squares method, fitting a straight line to the data. The second,
as described in section 4.3.4, involved minimizing the error in the low
73
pressure differential range, which was the principal range in which the
transducer was used. The second method, for sake of discussion, is
referred to as the J.B. method. The results in Tables A.2 and A.3 show
that the J.B. method of analysis provides a lower mean squared
percentage error, due to the smaller percentage error for low pressure
differential measurements.
Of the two methods used to calibrate the microtensiometer, the
method employing the porous ceramic plate provides more usable results.
Tables A.4 and A.5 show that, after considerable start-up difficulties,
the microtensiometer readings obtained in the chamber method of
calibration were within about 0.5 cm of suction head of the suctions
applied to the chamber. However, Tables A.6 and A.7 indicate that a
correction factor of 2.88 cm of suction is required to compare
-
tensiometer readings with suction heads present in the porous plate
against which the tensiometer was placed. The correction factor was
used to obtain fracture or matrix suctions during analysis of test
block 1. In summary, the results of the microtensiometer calibration
indicate that 90 percent of the microtensiometer readings, after
application of the correction factor, should be within about 1 cm of
the actual water potential. This neglects any variations which are
possible in measuring the suction imposed on pressure transducer port
Pl. Another, perhaps easier, method of calibrating the
microtensiometer would be to eliminate the pressure transducer
calibration and employ the porous plate method, subsequently plotting
applied AS versus output voltage. The slope of a straight line fit to
79
the data would then be used to translate voltage output from the
tensiometer to water potential.
Calibration of the LVDT units was simple and straightforward.
Table A.8 provides the raw data and the least squares regression
results. Figure 5.2 shows a typical plot of micrometer readings versus
LVDT output. Table 5.2 summarizes the calibration results. The
smallest amount of movement that could be detected by the LVDTs was not
determined. Displacement transducer 6 was tested twice on different
days, and virtually the same results were obtained. Voltage output
from the LVDTs increases as the core is pushed into the coil assembly.
Therefore, an increase in LVDT output indicates fracture closing, and a
decrease in LVDT output shows fracture opening.
Table 5.2
LVDT
1
2
3
4
5
6
LVDT Calibration Summary
Slope (mm/volt)
1.358
1.361
1.363
1.288
1.282
1.298
r2
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
80
4.0
0.0
Figure 5.2
Calibration results of LVDT number 2.
81
5.2 Rock
Number
1 Tests
5.2.1 Fracture Imbibition Tests
In the first test fracture imbibition test, tap water was dripped
on the exposed fracture trace on top of the rough test block. Tap
water was used because of concern over distilled water disolving
fracture cement. When dripped in such a manner, water immediately
flowed into the fracture. The drip rate was held at about 3 mL/minute
for 100 minutes at which time the rate was increased tenfold. Water
began flowing from the bottom of the fracture shortly after the drip
rate increased. This test indicated that the fracture was conductive
to water and that the rock was suitable for experimentation. After
this intitial test, the test block was shaped to its test dimensions.
The second fracture imbibition test consisted of applying test
solution to the top of the fracture trace through a narrow porous
plate. Initially, the surface of the reservoir supplying solution to
the plate was held at the same elevation as the top of the rock.
Fracture flow was monitored by visually inspecting the wetting front.
If the wetting front contained a significant lobe protruding downward
along the fracture trace, it was assumed that solution was flowing
through the fracture at a greater rate than through the matrix. After
21 hours of applying solution, no fracture flow was observed, and the
reservoir surface was raised to an elevation 10 cm above the top of the
rock. Four hours later, the reservoir was raised to an elevation 20 cm
above the upper rock surface. It was maintained at this elevation for
32
21 hours, and since no fracture flow was observed, the system was
disconnected.
It was suspected that the conductance of the porous plate was low
enough that the pressure head at the top of the rock was negative. The
plate conductance, with the filter paper in place, was roughly
measured, and the system was reconnected. At that point, the reservoir
surface elevation was placed at 26 cm above the upper rock surface. At
t = 73 hours, the average pressure head calculated at the bottom of the
porous plate was still less than atmospheric. Based on this, the
solution supply surface was raised to 42 cm above the top of the rock.
Five hours later, after similar calculations, the reservoir was raised
to an elevation of 51 cm. Solution movement had been noted in the
fracture by the movement of the wetting front an hour earlier. This
movement continued on one side of the block. No fracture flow was
noted on the other side of the rock. Solution was applied and the
wetting front monitored for three more days, bringing the total
experiment time to 149 hours, at which time the block was subjected to
analysis with the gamma ray apparatus. Table 5.3 presents the gamma
ray results, with the distance, z, measured from the top of the block.
At that time, the wetting front had advanced between 11 cm and 28 cm
down the sample block, averaging about 20 cm. Average pressure head at
the bottom of the plate increased from -37 cm at the beginning of the
test to 8 cm at the end of the test. Since only one porous ceramic
plate was used to supply test solution to the sample block, test block
flow parameters could not be determined.
83
Table 5.3
Gamma Beam Attenuation Results, Post Fracture Test
z
(cm)
5
10
15
20
25
35
40
0.117
0.131
0.107
0.075
-0.005
-0.020
0.011
From the initial tests, it was determined that leakage from the
side of the fracture did not present difficulties during analyses of
flow through the fracture and matrix of the sample. Additionally, it
was found that fracture flow did not occur until the suction at the
porous plate-fracture interface was less than that required to allow
filling of the fracture. Some sand-sized rock fragments had been
plucked from the top of the fracture during the shaping process, and it
was suspected that hydraulic contact between the porous plate and the
fracture was not adequate. During the subsequent tests, filter paper
pulp was placed in the top of the fracture to aid contact between the
porous plate and the fracture. Based on the preliminary analyses, it
was decided that a three-plate imbibition test would be performed on a
partially dry test block.
5.2.2
Three-plate
Imbibition Test
Ten days prior to beginning the whole-rock imbibition test, the
test block was subjected to gamma attenuation analysis. Table 5.4
presents a summary of the water content values determined at various
points throughout the block. Despite the preparations performed on the
test block, nearly all of the water in the test block had evaporated
84
prior to the start of the imbibition experiment. Negative values in
the table result from probable local variations in dry bulk density and
reflect the minimum amount of error to be expected in the results.
Seven days prior to the start of the test, monitoring of the
displacement transducers was begun. Table
A.9 provides the LUDT data
collected during the imbibition and steady state flow tests. Figure
5.3 presents a plot of the LVDT output versus time. The large break in
the data through the middle of the imbibition test occurred because the
electronics ceased to function correctly and required repairing. As
soon as the repairs were made, the system was reconnected, and final
readings were taken. From Figure
5.3, it can be seen that the
displacement transducer output varied throughout the test. Around the
beginning of the imbibition test,
200
indicated in a short period of time by
pM of fracture opening were
LVDT 3. This suggests that
during the placement and securing of the porous plates movement in the
fracture took place or that
LVDT 3 was bumped at the time. By about 20
days into the imbibition test, the
Overall, output from
opening of about
222
test. Output from
LVOT readings had stabilized.
LVDT 2 dropped about 0.163 volts, indicating an
pm in the fracture aperture by the end of the
LVDT 3 increased 0.23 volts during the imbibition
test, representing a fracture closure of
313
pin.Given that only
5
foot pounds of torque were applied to the bolts holding the test
fracture together, it is likely that the fracture movement indicated by
the displacement transducers occurred due to lack of sufficient
confining pressure normal to the fracture.
35
+++++ LVDT 3 (1.363 mm/voit)
"ALL LVDT 2 (1.361 mm/voit)
2.10
2.00 —
41-
)1
44
1.70 —
1.60
IIIIIIiiiII,11111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiii11111:1
6.0
40
0
20
—20
—40
Time (days)
Figure 5.3
Monitoring of fracture aperture change in test
block number 1.
36
Table 5.4
Gamma Beam Attenuation Results, Prior to Whole-rock Test
z (cm)
4.8
11.8
18.8
25.8
37.2
7.2
14.5
20.8
27.8
37.1
y along face 3 (cm)
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
e
0.009
0.004
0.026
0.011
0.038
0.033
0.025
-0.002
0.042
0.018
The flow rates obtained using the pipet flow tube taken through
the imbibition test are provided in Table A.10. Reliable Mariotte
reservoir volume measurements were not made during the imbibition test.
A graphical presentation of the flow through each plate and the
pressure head maintained at the bottom of the plates appears in Figures
5.4 through 5.9. As the test block was viewed looking at face 3, plate
positions 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C were located from left to right across the
top of the block. Position 1-B covered the fracture.
Significant fracture flow was noted throughout the early portion
of the imbibition test. Up through three days after the beginning of
the test, the wetting front extended up to 20 cm farther down the
fracture trace than down the matrix near the edges of the block. The
wetting front lobe along the fracture trace was more pronounced on face
6 than face 3. Although the all-threaded rods extending through the
rock were tightened to the same torque, the fracture aperture may have
been greater near one face than the other. Sand grains, other debris
37
2.5E-007 —n
2.0E-007 -.744.
=• 1,
o
(t)
1.5E-007
o
1.0E-007 —I
o
+ ++
5.0E-008
0.0E+000
o
1 tilliiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiii
80
40
•
120
Cumulative Time (days)
Figure
5.4
Inflow to plate position
1-A, test
block number
1.
88
+
6.0 —
-1
-I
O
._.
4.0 —
Q.)
4*
O
1
4-4
Ef.
t^i
+
+
+4+'
2.0
+
E
o
-
8
co
+
^
4-4
a
+
++
.-
-1-1-
-
0
0
q..) —2.0
-
I
_-
+
+
+
_I
-
Q)
+
__I
-
D
U)
8 —4.0
++
+ +4. +
4- +
+
+
••n•1
+
+
-
-
L
*
+
0.0
+
-
+
(
L.
CL
-
__a
_
-
—6.0 - 1 1 i I
40
0
80
120
Cumulative Time (days)
Figure
5.5
Average pressure head beneath the plate located
over position 1-A, test block number 1.
89
5.0E-007 —
—1
-
4.0E-007 -21
4.
iit-
(..)
-
(1)
Cr)
.‘--\
3.0E-007
E
,_.
_
_
—
-1
+
-
-
-
Q)
4-/
0
-44•41" 4 4...4 t.
+
+
+
.
—
2
.0E-007 —
#4.1-+
++
+
+ +
-I*
—_
+
1.0E-007 1
-
_
1^
-
_
0.0E+000 1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1IL1!
80120
40
Cumulative Time (days)
Figure 5.6
Inflow to plate position 1-B, test block number 1.
90
10.0
++
4—
o
41*
0.0
++
4-4
Q
7D
a) —10.0 —
S
cr)
L._
—15.0
C
L
r4
—20.0
IIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIII
120
40
80
0
Cumuictive Time 'days)
,
Figure
5.7
Average pressure head beneath the plate located
over position 1-B, test block number 1.
91
2.0E-007
7
•
••
1.5E-007 —
.--..
2*
(.)
+
Q) 1.0E-007 4
-
a
CC
+
.4+
5.0E-008
+4.
I
+
+
+
+++ +
+
•
4.
1I
•
0.0E+000
ii!!
0
it!
tilt!titi!!!jilt!
40
80
li
Ii
120
Cumulative Time (days)
Figure 5.3
Inflow to plate position 1-C, test block number 1.
92
10.0
(.)
5.0
o
0_
Figure
o
0.0-
++
.44*
+ 4+ +
o
—10.0
—20.0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1111
1
11111
80
1
120
Cumulative Time (days)
5.9
Average pressure head beneath the plate located
over position 1-C, test block number 1.
93
in the fracture, or loosened rock fragments may have prevented even
tightening of the fracture over its entire area. Small wetting front
lobes were observed along fracture splays on face 3. One such
fracture, which terminated in the matrix, acted as a solution conduit
to the matrix along its length.
After two days of solution flow into the test block, test
solution was observed along the upper portions of the fracture traces
on faces 3 and 6. After three days of flow, test solution was seen
flowing from one of the plates covering the rock matrix down the
outside of the rock along face 6. The effects of this external flow
were noted in subsequent days as the wetting front wrapped around the
bottom of the test block (face 2) and up face 3. Possible reasons for
the external flow include poor contact between the plate in position 1C, a rough fracture surface that channeled flow to the edge of the test
block, and a sloping top surface of the test block. Most likely, a
combination of these three mechanisms acted to channel test solution
over the edge of the test block rather than allowing the solution to
infiltrate. In an attempt to improve the plate-rock surface contact,
all three plates were replaced 33 days into the test. After seven days
of flow, solution began to drip from the fracture along face 2. It was
collected in beakers placed beneath the test block. Interpretation of
the solution volumes that were collected was hampered by the
intermittent leakage of solution both from beneath one of the matrix
plates and out of the fracture on face 6. The volume of solution
collected beneath the test block was always less than the inflow
94
volume, however. Nine days into the test, the surface of the test
block was completely moist.
As seen in the tables and figures, flow rates decreased with time
during the earliest portion of the imbibition test. This was most
noticeable for plates covering rock positions
1-A and 1-C. The narrow
fracture plate showed a general decrease in flow rate with time during
the imbibition test; however, the flow rates through this plate varied
somewhat from that trend over short time intervals. Figures
and
5.4, 5.6,
5.8 show that about 35 days after the infiltration test was begun,
steady state flow was achieved. The measured inflow rates and thus the
average pressure head calculated at the bottom of the plate varied
considerably in the test. It was expected that after a fairly steady
imbibition rate was achieved both the inflow rate and the pressure head
would stabilize throughout the remainder of the imbibition test. From
Figures
5.4 through 5.9, it can be seen that although these
measurements fluctuated throughout the test, only the data obtained
from the plate positioned over the fracture trended significantly after
the early days of the test.
Equation
4.1 shows the relationship between Ht, pressure head,
and flow rate. As flow rate decreases with time during the early
stages of infiltration, the calculated hp increases. The Mariotte
reservoir is lowered, and both
Ht and Q in equation 4.1 change. How
these variables change depends on how the matrix and fracture imbibe
solution and interact with each other. Based on calculations using
equation
4.1, the Mariotte reservoirs were raised or lowered, with the
95
intent of maintaining a constant average h p across the top of the test
block. Much of the variation in both flow rate and hp can be explained
as a result of attempts to maintain a constant pressure head along the
top of the test block. External leakage of solution also contributed
to variation in measured flow rates and calculated pressure heads.
5.2.3 Steady-state Flow Test
As implied above, the three-plate imbibition test and the steadystate flow test ran sequentially with no break in between tests.
Results of the steady-state flow test are presented in Table
Figures
A.10 and
5.4 through 5.9. LVDT output for the steady state test is
presented above in Figure
5.3; the output remained steady through the
latter stages of the infiltration test and throughout the steady state
flow test. Flow through plate positions
stable; the narrow plate in position
1-A and 1-C was the most
1-B decreased in flow rate
slightly over the steady-state portion of the test. Possibly, the
fracture drained slightly over the course of the test or less leakage
from the side of the fracture occurred during later stages of the
steady-state test. The sudden increases in flow rate for plate
position
1-C occurred when solution leaked over the edge of the rock
and ran down face
6.
Outflow solution from the bottom of the test block was collected
throughout the steady-state flow test.
A
mass balance was routinely
performed. It indicated that, in general, the outflow was about
95
percent of the inflow. Since direct solution volume extractions for
96
transport analysis or microtensiometer measurement were insignificantly
small, the solution loss was probably due to evaporation. Despite
attempts through the test to improve the evaporation canopy surrounding
the test block, sampling and water potential measurement required
opening of the canopy, increasing the airflow around the test block.
The air temperature varied throughout the tests on block number 1 from
°
18°C to 22 C.
The microtensiometer was first employed on the seventy-fifth day
after the three-plate imbibition test was begun, and it was used until
the steady-state test was completed. Output from the pressure
transducer was allowed to equilibrate before a reading was recorded.
Equilibration time varied from 15 minutes to 90 minutes. To calculate
the water suction potential, the pressure transducer output was
multiplied by the pressure-voltage ratio developed in the J.B.
calibration method. The correction factor obtained in calibrating the
microtensiometer with a porous plate was then applied to the initial
water potential estimate, yielding the corrected suction. Tables A.11
amd A.12 present the microtensiometer data, and Table 5.5 summarizes
the results in each of the sampling locations.
As seen in Table 5.5, suction in the fracture varied from -1.2 cm
(positive pressure) to 8.1 cm. The upper two fracture sampling ports
yielded lower suctions and more variable results than did the lower two
ports. The least variable results were obtained from the two matrix
ports, whose standard deviations were the lowest. Considering that the
tensiometer was held in the matrix sampling ports with a wrench, these
97
results are quite good. Sampling port 5FLC, which intercepted a
fracture splay rather than the main test fracture, yielded the highest
mean suction, indicating that less flow may have occurred through the
subsidiary fracture. Data from only one sampling port, 5FUS, showed a
trend with time. Suction increased with time in this port. During
transport sampling and other periods when the evaporation canopy was
open, the short-term suctions obtained from a given port increased,
possibly due to increased air flow around the edges of the fracture.
Table 5.5
median
mean
std dey
coef var
high
low
5FUS
1.67
1.89
1.08
0.57
3.19
-1.16
Test Block Number 1 Water Potential Measurements
Sampling Port Suction Head (cm of water)
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
4MU
2.34
3.04
6.40
-0.09
2.45
3.04
6.40
-0.07
1.67
0.31
0.48
0.85
0.68
0.10
0.13
-6.51
5.35
3.79
8.09
0.68
-0.86
2.59
4.59
-0.69
4ML
0.81
0.59
0.93
1.57
-1.05
1.62
Note: T = 75 days to T = 98 days after solution was first
applied to test block
When test block number 1 was separated after the flow test, it
was observed that fine sand- and silt-sized particles had accumulated,
or been left unentrained, in tortuous paths down the fracture face.
One such path lay near sampling port 5FUC. These debris paths may
represent the locations of preferential solution flow. Such an
98
interpretation is supported by transport data taken immediately after
the test block was broken apart.
Matrix hydraulic conductivity and fracture transmissivity were
calculated for the steady state portion of the test. Data used in the
calculations were obtained after the forty-fifth day since the start of
the imbibition test. Two methods were used to estimate the fracture
transmissivity. In the first, it was assumed that all of the solution
which flowed into the test block through the narrow center plate
entered the fracture at the top surface. No other solution was assumed
to flow into the fracture. Outflow from the fracture was assumed to be
at the bottom of the rock only. Darcy's law was applied from the top
to the bottom of the fracture. The pressure head at the top of the
fracture was assumed to be the average pressure head calculated at the
bottom of the plate, and the pressure head at the bottom of the
fracture was assumed to be atmospheric. Transmissivities calculated by
this method are designated 1(1) in Table A.13.
The second method of determining fracture transmissivity assumed
that vertical flow lines occurred throughout the test block. Since the
plate in position 1-B covered both fracture and matrix, it was also
assumed that the amount of solution entering the matrix from the plate
over the fracture was proportional to the area of the matrix that the
fracture plate covered. An average specific discharge was calculated
from data taken from the matrix plates. This value was multiplied by
the fracture plate area and subtracted from the volumetric flow rate
through the fracture plate:
99
Qf = Qfp - qmp.Afp
(5.1)
where Qf = inflow to the top of the fracture, m 3 /s;
Qfp = inflow through the plate in position 1-B, m 3 /s;
q mp = average specific discharge through the
matrix plates, m/s;
Af p = surface area of the plate in position 1-B that contacts
the test block, m2.
The volumetric flow rate calculated by this method was then inserted
into Darcy's law as in the first method. Table A.13 designates
transmissivities determined in this manner T(2). Table 5.6 summarizes
the results of the above calculations.
Table 5.6
Saturated Matrix Conductivity and Fracture Transmissivity
Test Block Number 1
Fracture
Matrix K(mis)1 (1) (m 2 /s)
T(2)
(m2 /s)
median
6.19 X 10-8
7.47 X 10 -9
5.38 X 10 -9
mean
5.91 X 10 -8
7.16 X 10 -9
5.12 X i
2.29 X 10-8
1.68 X 10 -9
1.54 X 10 -9
0.387
0.235
0.301
high
1.33 X 10-7
1.07 X 10 -8
8.64 X iû
low
2.85 X 10 -8
3.52 X 10 -9
2.11 X 10 -9
std.dey.
coef. var.
-
-
Table 5.6 indicates that both methods of calculating the fracture
transmissivity yield similar results. As expected, the first method
gives a higher mean transmissivity than does the second. The standard
deviations and ranges of T(1) and 1 (2) are also reasonable. The matrix
100
hydraulic conductivities were calculated using data collected from both
matrix plates and varied somewhat more than did the fracture
transmissivities. The higher range and coefficient of variation of the
matrix conductivities reflect this. Probably, the increased variation
in the matrix hydraulic conductivities was due to the intermittent
solution leakage from the top of the test block.
Rather than calculate either matrix hydraulic conductivity or
fracture transmissivity, one can determine a bulk test block hydraulic
conductivity which includes both fracture and matrix. Bulk hydraulic
conductivities were determined in instances where flow rates were
available for each plate on the same day; due to time limitations and
equipment malfunctions, flow rates for all three inflow plates were not
taken on the same day. Twenty such bulk hydraulic conductivity values
were calculated. The mean bulk hydraulic conductivity for twenty test
block 1 data points was 3.39 x 10 -7 m/s, and the standard deviation was
3.74 x 10 -8 m/s. Tidwell (1988) performed such analyses in angled
boreholes drilled at the Apache Leap tuff site. By two analytical
methods (adapted solutions of Glover,1953, and Philip,1985), he
calculated bulk hydraulic conductivities for borehole segments. The
mean conductivity of all of the data collected using the first method
was 2.75 x 10 - 7 m/s and using the second method was 5.61 x 10 -7 m/s.
Variation on the order of 5 decimal places was found, reflecting
fractured and non-fractured zones in the boreholes. Since no
compressive stress was applied to the block to simulate field
conditions, the mean bulk hydraulic conductivity calculated for test
101
block 1 is not really comparable to those calculated by Tidwell.
However, the bulk conductivity of test block 1 lies well within the
range of values he calculated.
Figures 5.10 and 5.11 present the flow and sampling port pressure
head data generated from Rasmussen's (1988) boundary integral model
(section 2.5). Ten streamtubes encompass the matrix. Although the
leftmost streamline should be at the edge of the block, it is located
in the rock matrix due to model numerical oscillations. In the model,
the streamlines are roughly vertical towards the outside edge of the
block. Towards the top of the block, the streamlines bend towards the
fracture. Figure 5.11 shows the upper righthand corner of the block
and the strong influence that the fracture has on fluid flow through
the matrix. Under the conditions imposed in the model, all of the
solution flowing into the block through the center plate enters the
fracture within 3.5 cm of the top. Additionally, about 19 percent of
the solution flowing through the outer plate enters the fracture by the
bottom of the test block. Streamlines in the porous plates were
essentially vertical, with those nearest the fracture in the center
plate bending slightly towards the fracture.
Based upon these results, it would seem that the two methods used
to estimate fracture transmissivity are inadequate. Neither accounts
for fluid entering the main test fracture from subsidiary fractures or
the matrix plates, and neither considers the effect of solution
entering the fracture but at the top. To accurately calculate fracture
transmissivity, one should determine the amount of solution entering
102
MATRIX
PLATE
FRACTURE PLATE
_
z01
SEE
ENLARGEMENT
—
-10
STREAMLINE
h =0 3Icm
P
-20
FRACTURE
MATRIX
-30
hP= 0 •20 cm
-40
50 cm
10.2Icm
Figure 5.10
Simulated results for test block number 1 showing
streamlines and pressure head at the sampling
ports.
103
y= 7.1
6.6 8.7
MATRIX
PLATE
10.2 1 cm
FRACTURE
PLATE
f
Yo.
1.0
FRACTURE
2.0
3.0
ENTER
FRACTURE
Zr 6.9cm
4 0 cm
ENTER FRACTURE
z 20.0 cm
Figure 5.11
Enlargement of Figure 5.10 showing the fractureplate-matrix intersection. Streamlines of Figure
5.10 are shown as solid lines and other
streamlines of interest are dashed.
104
different fracture segments, calculate the transmissivity of each
segment, and average the transmissivities thus determined. In
practice, it is not possible to measure the flow rate entering the
fracture through the walls, and one of the estimates used above needs
to be employed.
It was assumed in the model that no filter paper aided platerock contact. In fact, filter paper was used in the laboratory
experiment. Although the hydraulic conductivity of the filter paper
was not measured, based upon its retention rating, it was more
conductive than the test block or the porous plates. As such, it would
provide a preferential flow conduit for solution to move from the
center plate to the fracture. Without the filter paper, it would be
expected that results similar to the modeled case would exist.
However, with the filter paper present, most of the fluid exiting the
center porous plate was most likely shunted directly to the top of the
fracture. This suggests that the first method of calculating fracture
transmissivity is the most accurate. The influence of using filter
paper as a contact material has not been quantitatively studied, nor
its impact upon the streamlines beneath the matrix plates considered.
The modeled case produced pressure heads along the fracture very
near zero. At z = 10 cm, hp was 0.31 cm, and at z = 35 cm, hp was 0.2
cm. Given the numerical accuracy of the model, these two values are
equivalent. In the laboratory study, the mean suction heads at the
fracture sampling ports varied from 1.9 cm to 3.0 cm, suggesting that
the suction head at the top of the fracture was greater than zero. A
105
pressure head drop of about 5 cm occurred along the base of the center
porous plate in the modeled case, leaving a suction head of 1.7 cm at
the top of the fracture. The suction at the fracture was about 4 cm
greater than the areal average for the modeled plate. This also
indicates that the suction at the top of the test fracture was greater
than the average suction beneath the plate and probably greater than
zero. If the fracture transmissivities are recalculated, using a
suction head at the top of the fracture 4 cm greater than the fracture
plate average, the mean values of transmissivity using both calculation
methods increase. The mean value of T(1) increases to 7.69 X 10 -9
m 2 /s, and the mean value of T(2) increases to 5.20 X 10 -9 m 2 /s.
Rock Number 2 Tests
5.3.1 Three-plate Imbibition Test
Nine days before the initial application of test solution to rock
number 2, the LVDTs were connected. The three displacement transducers
were monitored from that point throughout the test. Table A.14
provides complete LVDT data, which is summarized in Figure 5.12. LVDT
1 was the most stable, varying only 3.7 millivolts througout the test.
This corresponds to a fracture closure of 5 microns at that location.
LVDT 2 indicated a fracture closure of 44 microns. The third
displacement transducer was the most variable and, not counting
accidental bumping, showed 148 microns of closure. Since LVDT 3 output
106
OCIDUCI LVDT 11 .3513 mm/volt
+++++ LVDT 2 1.361 MM/V0 It
1.363 mm/volt
AAAAA LVDT 3
1.40
pAA
•••n
-
-
—
Ail
a
a
A
A
i.30 .]
A
A
—
CO
..
0
±=
1.20 —
A
AA
.n.1
0.-n
A
AA AA
A
AA A ALAAA5,
Q.
o
1.10
Co oCIOtrappcptlatAlo01300
—
:1
1.00
40 + + +
++++
riaoop
+--.+++ 'r
LP 411119
—
^
_
0.90
i1 r imlifiliiI1111111111Iiiiii1i1iiiIIIIIIIIIIIII
30
20
10
0
—10
—20
- -
Time (days)
Fi gure 5.12 Monitoring of fracture aperture change in test
block number 2.
107
continued to increase through the entire test, it is not known if it
was working properly. In general, less fracture aperture change
occurred during testing of block number 2 compared to block number 1,
most likely because the frame holding the test fracture together in
block 2 was tightened to 30 foot-pounds of torque. Apparently, 5 footpounds, and even 30 foot-pounds, of torque is not enough to maintain
the test fracture at a nearly constant aperture.
Figure 5.13 presents a composite diagram of the wetting front
advancement with time. Significant fluctuation of the wetting front
occurred during the first five days of the test. Contributing factors
to this included poor plate-rock contact along the upper edge of face 4
during the first few days of the test and adjustments made to flow rate
to obtain the desired suction below the porous plates. By ten days
into the test, the wetting front had smoothed out considerably.
Subsequently, it proceeded rather evenly down the rock. The wetting
front along face 4 lagged behind the front along face 6 due to the poor
plate contact early in the test at the top of face 4.
Flow data obtained during the imbibition test are presented in
Tables A.15 and A.16. Flow rate was monitored throughout the test both
by using the pipet flow meters and by recording volume changes in the
Mariotte reservoirs. Despite the similarity in flow rates obtained by
the two methods, the pipet flow tubes were difficult to use at the low
flow rates encountered in this test, and at lower flow rates may cease
to function entirely. A graphical summary of the cumulative volume of
inflow versus time is presented in Figure 5.14. After one day of flow,
108
0
o
'
co
co0 0
r)r)
0
,
,
•
,
oo,
--
%
0)
N
k.
Oi
•
0
o"0
ev
1 7)
W 6
I4 )) E3
0
ni •
4
c ._E
L) -7- E
-
I
CC
c
-
A
.1g Et
ir
N s'
\
Zo“-
1.2
\
•
o
0'
,
,,
cni ",
N
")Nç)
Q`
lND?c> '"•,.
\
0
2
<
CC1,-
‘\/%n
.,0) ya If..4* 0) )0
--
0
... 0)•
oliN
0
w 0
.
co In
al
cn w)o1.o- %
1 ` oo kti ci,
6
aa
crc1.-c.2—Eg
w -6 ,.
Lt P_
u
co
it
I
t 1
1111 -1
w
t AN11111
a
cc
I
o
2.0
109
3.00 -1
***** Mariotte Bottle
G-EFEIEFE) Row Tube
1
2.50 -2
E
2 00
•
0
— 1.50
15
a
5
E 1.00
-
o
0.50
0.00
Figure 5.14
Test block
number 2 imbibition test summary.
110
the flow rate was nearly constant, and by four days, the flow rate
roughly stabilized, yielding a straight-line plot. This indicates
that, after four days of flow, the suction gradient in the zone of
transmission was negligible. By the end of the imbibition test, the
specific discharge of the porous plate covering the test fracture was
less than the specific discharge of either of the two matrix plates.
This suggested that the specific discharge of the fracture was less
than or equal to that of the matrix. This was visually confirmed by
the lack of a wetting front lobe throughout the test.
An infiltration and percolation analysis was performed on three
sets of data: wetting front, pipet flow tube inflow, and Mariotte
reservoir inflow. The data used are tabulated in Tables A.17, A.18,
and A.19. To use the wetting front data, it was assumed that the test
block was saturated behind the wetting front. Cumulative inflow and
inflow rate were then calculated. Based on the inflow data, the two
unknown parameters of the Philip's infiltration equation were
determined (Philip, 1969; Hillel, 1971). Figure 5.15 provides a plot
of I(t)/t versus t 1/2 for pipet flow tube and constant-head reservoir
-
data. The wetting front data were used to prepare a similar plot but
is not shown because the assumption that the matrix was saturated
behind the wetting front proved unsatisfactory; a saturated average
wetting front was determined from the Mariotte reservoir data and
consistently was less than the actual mean wetting front. The slope of
the linear part of the Phillip's curve equals the sorptivity, s. The
y-intercept equals the parameter A, or since the data along the linear
111
0.30
•
0.25 —
***** Mariotte Bottle
oriorio Flow Tube
0.51.0
1.5
1 At**0.5) (1 1/day**0.5)
Fi gure 5.15
Phi lip's infiltration
number 2.
anal ysis, test block
112
part of the curve represents relatively late-time data, the hydraulic
conductivity at about 15 cm of applied suction. Little fracture flow
occurred during the infiltration test. Thus, the hydraulic conductivity
determined by this method may be equivalent to or less than the matrix
hydraulic conductivity at 15 cm of suction, depending on how the
fracture influenced the adjacent matrix flow. Table 5.7 summarizes the
calculations, which were based on a least squares fit of data taken
after t = 2.9 days. The hydraulic conductivities calculated for the
case of 15 cm of applied suction are an order of magnitude less than
the matrix conductivities determined for test block 1 at roughly 0 cm
of applied suction.
Table 5.7
Flow Tube Data
s (m.s-1/2)
K(mis)
r2
7.73 X 10 -6
Philip's Parameters
Mariotte Reservoir Data
7.47 X 10 -6
5.36 X 10 -9
5.64 X 10 -9
0.994
0.983
113
5.4 Rock Characterization Tests
5.4.1 Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
The complete results of the matrix saturated conductivity tests
described in section 4.6.1 are presented in Tables A.20 and A.21.
Initially, numerous flow tests were performed for each rock core, with
the intent that sample statistics could be developed. However, in the
course of the tests, it was observed that the flow rate through a given
core decreased with time, despite the fact that none of the test
conditions were changed. The flow rates did not stabilize within two
days of beginning the test. It was postulated that the air pressure
exerted on the sleeve used to prevent flow down the side of the core
reduced the pore volume over time. Given enough time, the flow rates
should have stabilized and would have represented the hydraulic
conductivity at 689 kPa (100 psi) applied stress. Since little stress
was applied to either test block, it was decided to use the first
measurement taken as a rough estimate of saturated matrix hydraulic
conductivity taken under no applied stress. Cores analyzed later in
the program were therefore only tested once. Table 5.8 summarizes
those results for cores obtained near test blocks 1 and 2.
114
Table
Test Block
5.8
Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
K (mis)k (m2)
Core
1
FT 3 A
6.80 x 10 - 9
6.33 x 10 - 16
1
FT-5-A
8.79 x 10 -9
8.19 x 10 -16
1
FT-5-B
4.15 x 10 -9
3.87 x 10 -16
1
FT-3-AA
9.22 x 10 -9
8.59 x 10 - 1 6
1
FT-5-AA
5.32 x 10 -9
4.95 x 10 -16
1
FT-3-BB
7.81 x 10 - 9
7.27 x 10 -16
2
A3A
4.15 x 10 -9
3.87 x 10 -16
2
A4A
2.09 x 10 -9
1.95 x 10 -16
2
B4A
1.58 x 10 -9
1.47 x 10 -16
2
B5A-1
1.62 x 10 - 8
1.51 x 10 -16
2
B5A-2
1.36 x 10 - 8
1.27 x 10-16
2
B6A
3.14 x 10 -9
2.93 x 10 -16
-
-
The mean saturated matrix hydraulic conductivities, determined
using the core samples from near test blocks number
1 and 2 were 7.02 x
10 -9 m/s and 6.79 x 10 - 9 mis, respectively; the standard deviations
were
1.99 x 10 -9 m/s and 6.39 x 10 -9 m/s, respectively; the median
values were
7.30 x 10 -9 m/s and 3.65 x 10 -9 m/s, respectively.
Compared to the near-saturated matrix hydraulic conductivity determined
from the analysis of test block
1, the conductivities determined from
the rock cores are low. The most likely explanation for the
unexpectedly low conductivities determined using the modified Tempe
115
cell lies in the method itself. Apparently, the compressive stress
exerted by the bladder or sleeve encircling the core almost immediately
reduces the pore space available to flow and greatly reduces the
resulting hydraulic conductivity. Thus, not even readings taken
immediately after inflating the sleeve are comparable to matrix
hydraulic conductivities determined in flow tests on the fractured
blocks.
Cores recovered from the angled boreholes drilled on the plateau
at the Apache Leap tuff site have been analyzed for saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Evans, 1988) using the same technique that was used in
this study. Only 550 kPa (80 psi) were applied to the bladder
surrounding the core. The mean conductivity was 1.69 x 10 -8 m/s, with
a coefficient of variation of 2.89. A range of over two orders of
magnitude was found, and the median hydraulic conductivity was 4.20 x
10 -9 m/s. Since a wide range of conductivities were determined in the
study of Evans, it is not surprising that one order of magnitude
variation was found in samples taken near test block 2 or that the test
block mean matrix hydraulic conductivities determined using the Tempe
cell in this study are lower than those calculated by Evans. The
median hydraulic conductivity values compare well.
5.4.2 Matrix Moisture Release Curves
Table A.22 provides the data used to construct the matrix
moisture release curves. Figures 5.16 through 5.19 show the curves,
plotted as suction versus relative saturation, for test blocks 1 and 2.
116
120—,
•n••n
***-0-* FT-3A
Geoeo FT-5A
13.8-1343-E1 FT-5B
4.\\
-4
\
N
N\
\
80
40
-
-4
1111111171
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Relative Saturation
Figure 5.16
Moisture release curves for cores obtained from
rocks surrounding test block number 1.
117
120—t
-
1
Fr-3M
FT-3M
intrentri, F-r- 5M
*-0-11141P-*
1
34343.9.9
-I
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
Relative Saturation
Figure
5.17
Moi sture release curves for cores obtained from
rocks surrounding test block number 1.
118
120
**-4.-4•4 A3A
A4A
mfrerient 84A
3013943
,
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
Relative Saturation
Figure
5.18
Moisture release curves for cores obtained from
rocks surrounding test block number 2.
119
120
40
-4
4.4.0.040 85A
EittaaM B6A
0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Relative Saturation
Figure 5.19
Moisture release curves for cores obtained from
rocks surrounding test block number 2.
120
Table A.22 includes the water content at each pressure step. Little
moisture was lost from the samples at low applied chamber pressures.
Due to measurement error, two samples gained mass after the first
pressure step. The pressure step from 50 kPa to 100 kPa induced the
most drainage from the samples, but noticeable drops in water content
also occurred in the pressure step from 25 kPa to 50 kPa. Since data
were not generated which would allow construction of curves showing
hydraulic conductivity versus suction or relative saturation, it is not
known how the slight drop in relative saturation at the first pressure
step would affect the water transmitting properties of the matrix
during unsaturated tests performed on the test blocks. Additionally,
the first pressure step was significantly greater than the entire
suction range that has been, and likely will be, analyzed with the test
blocks.
5.4.3 Matrix Dry Bulk Density and Effective Porosity
The results of the matrix dry bulk density and effective porosity
characterizations are presented in Table A.23. A summary of the
results is provided in Table 5.9. Similar analyses were performed on
other core samples retrieved from the plateau boreholes at the Apache
Leap tuff site (Evans, 1988). He found a mean dry bulk density of 2.12
g/cm 3 and a mean effective porosity of 0.161. Their median values were
close to the mean, but their range of results was slightly larger than
in this study. Given the few samples used in this study and the
variable nature of ash flow tuffs, the results obtained in this study
121
appear to compare favorably with those found in other cores obtained
from the field site.
Table 5.9
median
mean
std dey
coef var
high
low
Matrix Dry Bulk Density and Effective Porosity
Test Block Number 1
Dry Bulk
Effective
Density (g/cm 3 )
Porosity
2.12
0.176
2.12
0.177
0.027
0.008
0.013
0.048
2.17
0.193
2.06
0.166
Test Block Number 2
Effective
Dry Bulk
Porosity
Density (g/cm 3 )
0.154
2.140.156
2.13
0.013
0.037
0.081
0.017
0.181
2.20
0.141
2.07
5.4.4 Matrix Pore Size Distributions
Output from the porosimeter consisted of a table of raw data, a
set of curves showing pore volume and pore surface area plotted against
pore diameter, and a summary data table. Since the present and future
laboratory work does not employ suction heads exceeding 200 kPa, the
porosimeter was not used up to the 207,000 kPa (30,000 psi) limit.
Therefore, the output obtained from this study is only visually
comparable to other porosimeter work performed on core samples obtained
from the Apache Leap test site.
Vogt (1988) found a bimodal pore size distribution. The mean
large pore size class mode was 2.91 pM, and the mean small pore size
class mode was 0.07 pm. All of the pore size distribution curves
122
plotted from this study showed a bimodal distribution through the range
tested. One pore size mode corresponded to the large pore size class
noted by Vogt. For test blocks 1 and 2, this peak averaged 2.97 um and
3.00 um, respectively, which compares well with the peak noted by Vogt.
Another larger mode in the pore size distribution was also noted in all
but one of the ten samples. It was located at 68.6 pM for all samples
in which it appeared. Unlike the study of Vogt, this study performed a
low pressure test which identified the low pressure pore size
distribution. The two pore size peaks in this study, 2.98 pM and 68.6
Urn, correspond to suction heads of about 5.0 m and 20 cm, respectively.
Although drainage of the smaller peak requires a suction head beyond
that used in this phase of this project, the larger pore size peak
represents the upper end of suctions applied to test block number 2.
According to the data, a considerable number of pores exist that are
larger than 68.6 pm, and it is conceivable that some pore drainage of
the matrix could occur at low suctions, reducing the hydraulic
conductivity.
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES
The principal study objective was to develop procedures to
determine both the unsaturated transmissivity of a fracture under
controlled laboratory conditions and the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity of the adjacent matrix. Although the unsaturated
transmissivity of the test fractures in either of the two blocks was
not determined over a range of applied suctions, procedures were
developed allowing such experimentation in future studies. Additional
purposes of this study included the investigation of the infiltration
and percolation characteristics of a fractured laboratory test block
and the analysis of the physical properties of the tested blocks. This
section will summarize how this study accomplished the above objectives
and will suggest changes that might improve the ongoing investigation.
During this investigation, instruments and equipment were
developed to facilitate the objectives of the study. Porous ceramic
plates, Mariotte reservoirs, pipet flow meters, an effective
evaporation canopy, and a microtensiometer were among the more
important of the instruments used in the study.
This study found that accurate measurement of the porous ceramic
plate conductances was necessary to minimize the error in calculation
of pressure head at the bottom of the porous plate. This was
123
124
particularly true when the applied suction of the test block was near
atmospheric pressure. Since the hydraulic conductivity of the plates
was only an order of magnitude less than rock matrix at saturation, the
importance of the plate as an impeding layer should diminish at the
lower matrix hydraulic conductivities expected under unsaturated
conditions. Given that the study of fracture flow takes place at
relatively wet conditions, porous plates of lower air entry values than
those used in this study could be employed. After the first set of
plates was removed from test block number 1, they were cleaned with an
ultrasonic bath. Plate conductances determined for one of the plates
before and after cleaning were the same, and plate clogging was not
considered throughout the rest of the study. In work progressing after
the completion of this study, it was found by another student that
reduction in plate conductance of up to 10 percent may take place after
a plate has been idle for a few months in a solution bath. It is not
known whether biological activity or precipitation of solutes
contributed to the clogging that has recently been observed. Future
work will have to consider the change in plate conductance with time
for plates that are idle and plates that are being used in flow tests.
Once the Mariotte reservoirs were calibrated, it was found that
the flow measurements obtained using the reservoir volume measurements
agreed well with those determined from the pipet flow tubes. Since
measuring the reservoir volume is significantly less time consuming
than taking a pipet flow reading and more accurate at low flow rates,
it is recommended that the Mariotte reservoirs be used to monitor
125
inflow. Installing pre-calibrated burets sized according to the
expected flow rate would significantly improve accuracy. A small yet
non-restrictive air entry tube in the Mariotte burets will minimize the
head variation on top of the porous plate also.
About five percent evaporative loss occurred during steady stateflow tests performed with test block number 1. Laboratory temperature
remained relatively constant throughout the study, varying from about
18 ° C to 22 ° C. The access to the sampling ports was redesigned for test
block 2, and significantly less evaporation should occur. If the
improved vinyl evaporation canopy and access tubes do not lessen
evaporation in the future, it is recommended that a humidifying system
be designed and implemented to maintain the test environment at a
constant humidity.
Although reasonable microtensiometer results were obtained during
steady-state flow tests on block number 1, improvements in design could
be made. Given that the pressure transducer failed during use and has
been difficult to replace, it is recommended that a different type of
transducer be employed. Instead of a differential transducer, a vacuum
transducer should be obtained. Additionally, a stiffer connection
between the tensiometer stem and the transducer could be designed to
reduce outside pressure variations on the tensiometer assembly. If
available, porous ceramic cups of lower air entry suction than the 100
kPa cup used in this study would also speed equilibration between
measurements. Equilibration time for the tensiometer used on test
block 1 varied from 15 minutes to 90 minutes.
126
Table
6.1 summarizes the test results for blocks 1 and 2. Mean
values are reported unless otherwise stated.
6.1
Table
Parameter
Dry Bulk Density
Summary of Test Blocks
Test Block 1
(g/cm 6 j
Effective Porosity
2.13
0.177
0.156
K (mis)
5.91 x 10 -8
Saturated Matrix
k (m2)
5.51 x 10 -15
K, Applied 0=15 cm (mis)5.50
Steady State Matrix
Saturated If
(m 2 /s)
0 (cm)
x
2
10 -9
0.26
7.16 x 10 -9
Steady State Fracture i (cm)
Test Block
2.12
Saturated Matrix
Matrix
1 and 2
1.9 to 3.0
A number of imbibition test results are worth noting. First,
infiltration and percolation tests performed on both test blocks
indicate that the fracture influenced the shape of the wetting front
curve only during early portions of the test. Later on, the fracture
contributed solution to the matrix, slowing the advance of the wetting
front near the fracture, relative to the matrix. Second, when the
suction gradient was strongest in the early stages of imbibition, the
shape of the wetting front was influenced by less permeable inclusions
in the tuff and had a jagged appearance. Third, both the gamma beam
attenuation tests performed on test block number
1 and wetting front
127
analysis of test block
2 suggest that the test blocks did not have a
uniform water content behind the wetting front.
Fourth, Philip's equation fit the infiltration data from test
block
2 well. The strong linear trend of the late-time data suggests
that flow through the transmission zone was driven by the gravity
gradient only and was primarily through the matrix, with little
fracture flow occurring. Dominant matrix flow was also seen in both
the shape of the test block
2 wetting front and the comparison of
specific discharges from the plates covering the fracture and the
matrix. The Philip's infiltration analysis of the total inflow yielded
a matrix hydraulic conductivity of
5.50 x 10 -9 m/s, an order of
magnitude less than in the saturated flow tests performed on test block
1. If the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the matrix of block 2
equals that of block
1, a significant decrease in the matrix
conductivity occurs with relatively little applied suction.
From the plots of inflow rate versus time, it was determined that
steady-state flow in test block number
1 was achieved about 35 days
after solution was first introduced to the test block. Despite steadystate conditions, inflow rates continued to vary around a mean value
due to Mariotte reservoir adjustments and solution leakage from beneath
one of the matrix plates and from the side of the fracture. The inflow
rate of the fracture plate decreased slightly with time, suggesting
that either the fracture may have drained slightly over the course of
the test or less leakage from the side of the fracture occurred during
later stages of the steady-state test. Table
6.1 shows the test block
123
parameters determined during the steady-state portion of testing on
block 1. The fracture transmissivity shown was calculated by assuming
that all of the solution flowing into the test block through the
fracture plate went into the top of the fracture. Although modeling of
steady-state flow through test block number 1 found about 20 percent of
the flow through the matrix plates entered the fracture before reaching
the bottom of the test block, it was assumed in the model that no
filter paper aided plate-rock contact. In fact, filter paper was used
in the laboratory experiment. Filter paper improved contact between
the porous plates and the matrix or fracture, and most of the fluid
exiting the center porous plate was likely shunted directly to the top
of the fracture. Although the hydraulic conductivity of the filter
paper was not measured, based upon its retention rating, it was more
conductive than the test block or the porous plates. As such, it would
provide a preferential flow conduit for solution to move from the
center plate to the fracture. This suggests that the assumption used
to calculate fracture transmissivity shown in Table 6.1 is a good one.
Future work on this project will have to consider further how using
filter paper as a contact material influences flow into the test
fracture.
Results of the block 1 tests indicate a number of limitations to
this method of study. First, due to leakage from beneath both the
porous plates and out of the fracture, the method does not lend itself
to saturated fracture study. If the fracture traces along the sides of
the block could be sealed, and if a gasket could be placed around the
129
edges of the porous plate, saturated flow could more accurately be
investigated. Second, monitoring of the displacement transducers
suggests that over 30 foot-pounds of torque need to be applied to the
fracture to minimize aperture change during the course of flow testing.
It is not known what maximum torque can be applied to the current
innermost frame. Third, if comparisons of the matrix hydraulic
conductivity or bulk hydraulic conductivity of each test block with the
hydraulic conductivity of Apache Leap tuff determined elsewhere are to
be made, a new method of applying compressive stress to the entire rock
matrix needs to be developed. The saturated matrix hydraulic
conductivity calculated from the block analysis was an order of
magnitude greater than those determined on cores. Apparently, the
compressive stress applied during testing of the cores reduced the pore
space available to flow and reduced the resulting hydraulic
conductivity. This suggests that a compressive stress will need to be
applied to the test blocks that is equivalent to that present in the
medium to which the results will be compared. However, more can be
said about the comparability of results once more data has been
gathered over a range of applied suction heads using the current setup.
Results of the rock characterization tests indicate that the
partially welded test blocks used in this study are of similar
porosity, dry bulk density, and pore size distribution to the cores
obtained from the plateau location at the Apache Leap tuff site.
However, additional moisture release curves will be needed to precisely
characterize the rock matrix in the range of suctions to be used during
130
flow tests. Although significant variability occurs throughout the
entire tuff sequence, the partially welded test blocks were removed
from locations near to the borehole locations, and thus have similar
physical properties. It is expected that the densely welded test block
will differ considerably in physical properties from the partially
welded tuff.
In conclusion, by using porous ceramic plates to apply a
relatively constant suction along the upper surface of a fractured
block of tuff, it is possible to determine important unsaturated flow
properties. By varying the applied suction along the top and bottom of
the test block and the applied stress perpendicular to the test
fracture, it should be possible to analyze flow through a combined
matrix-fracture system over a variety of conditions.
A number of other studies have been completed or are in progress
which investigate the nature of flow and transport through unsaturated
fractured tuff. Chuang (1988) investigated the transport of chloride
ion in test block number 1 using ion-selective electrodes. By using
filter paper to obtain solution samples from both the matrix and
fracture sampling ports, he monitored the movement of pulse inputs of
cholride transport through the block.
Since the end of this study, other students have continued the
work with test block number 2. Once the wetting front has reached the
bottom of the test block, porous plates will be placed against the
bottom face of the block, allowing removal of solution from the block.
A controlled pressure head will be maintained along the bottom of the
131
test block in a manner similar to that used at the top face of the
block. Attempts will be made to maintain the same pressure head at the
top and bottom of the block. After steady-state flow has been reached,
fracture transmissivity and matrix hydraulic conductivity will be
determined. Additionally, the transport of chloride or other tracer
will be investigated. The controlled pressure head at the top and
bottom of the test block will then be changed. When steady-state flow
has again been achieved, the test block parameters will again be
determined. This process will be repeated throughout a controlled
suction range less than the critical suction where fracture flow is
less than matrix flow. Once test block parameters have been defined
for one applied stress level, the compressive stress across the
fracture will be increased and the analysis repeated.
Similar studies will also be performed by graduate students on
three other test blocks retrieved from the Apache Leap tuff site. One
is a densely welded tuff block, and two are partially welded tuff
blocks with different vertical lengths than the test blocks used in
this study. Various plate configurations may be used during the
imbibition tests performed on these blocks, and the test fracture may
be oriented differently than it was during this study. Porous plates
will only be placed over the test fracture of the densely welded block,
since preliminary laboratory tests indicate that the matrix of the
densely welded tuff is one to two orders of magnitude less conductive
than the matrix of the partially welded tuff.
132
Two other related studies are investigating fractured tuff. The
first consists of a fracture profile study on the test fracture from
block number 1. A computer-controlled profiling device is being used
to characterize the roughness and tortuosity of the fracture. The
second is an extension of this study. It involves the use of a
cellulose membrane that will serve as an impeding layer in a field flow
test. Development of a membrane and frame to hold it in the borehole
will allow a positive pressure head inside the angled boreholes at the
Apache Leap tuff site to result in a negative pressure head around the
boreholes. This will allow the analysis of unsaturated flow
characteristics in situ.
APPENDIX A
CALIBRATION AND TEST RESULTS
133
134
TABLE A.1
PLATE CONDUCTANCE TESTS
Plate
Date
Time (24hr)
Q (ml/min)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/25/88
6/27/88
6/27/88
6/27/88
6/27/88
6/27/88
6/27/88
1630
1955
0915
1009
1100
1140
1216
1243
1315
1347
1411
1434
1456
1514
1545
1055
1114
1137
1200
1218
1235
0.02171875
0.02028583
0.06088960
0.06351155
0.05908303
0.10295830
0.11116670
0.10415220
0.13492550
0.13996780
0.14232850
0.19060930
0.17465220
0.18071740
0.17725260
0.17204790
0.19859660
0.18529960
0.23252210
0.22868470
0.21682570
0.00000000
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
1133
1237
1350
1551
1250
1326
1423
0.0043915
0.0001834
0.04981320
0.05044009
0.02545987
0.02344638
0.08370069
0.08890206
0.08418808
Head (cm)
Comments
6.05 --following
readings taken
6.10
post ultra16.25
16.10
sonic cleaning
16.15
26.50
26.55
26.55
33.85
33.90
33.95
41.35
41.40
41.35
41.35
48.60
48.80
48.75
48.50
48.70
48.70
0.00
-0.0069733
0.0132752
0.9662897
22
20
(y-intercept)
(slope)
9.80 --following
readings taken
9.78
prior to
5.18
5.05
ultra-sonic
cleaning
15.40
15.30
15.40
135
TABLE A.1 (continued)
PLATE CONDUCTANCE TESTS
Plate
Date
Time (24hr)
Q (ml/min)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/16/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/19/88
6/20/88
6/20/88
1454
1513
1539
1556
1612
1624
1534
1548
1604
1625
1640
1705
1725
1215
1300
0.18744730
0.19712200
0.18449620
0.28401020
0.26890150
0.27275210
0.26532240
0.27577330
0.26371310
0.20594490
0.22152480
0.16000430
0.15913010
0.07792208
0.07391894
0.00000000
Head (cm)
33.35
33.95
33.85
48.85
48.95
48.95
49.53 --following
readings taken
49.48
post ultra49.50
sonic
cleaning
37.90
37.75
27.00
27.00
14.90
14.65
0.00
Regression Output:
-0.0013161
0.0068014
0.9951367
23
21
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8/15/88
8/15/88
8/15/88
8/16/88
8/16/88
8/16/88
8/16/88
8/17/88
8/17/88
8/17/88
8/17/88
8/18/88
8/18/88
8/18/88
8/18/88
1012
1340
1528
1001
1151
1450
1620
1015
1100
__
1002
1032
1120
1400
0.0056101
0.0000856
0.01365763
0.01219535
0.03259208
0.03091287
0.03280757
0.03104626
0.05508580
0.05334282
0.05138228
0.07423629
0.07588693
0.08088979
0.07239295
0.07662052
0.10797390
Comments
6.07
5.83
13.45
19.88
13.59
13.48
21.77
21.70
21.90
30.93
30.85
30.92
30.89
30.90
40.52
136
TABLE A.1 (continued)
PLATE CONDUCTANCE TESTS
Plate
Date
Time (24hr)
Q (ml/min)
Head (cm)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8/18/88
8/19/88
8/19/88
8/22/88
8/22/88
8/22/88
8/22/88
1420
1130
1159
1540
1555
1605
1615
0.10675970
0.10450050
0.10406550
0.13724570
0.12954210
0.13407820
0.13317940
0.00000000
40.38
40.40
40.40
51.57
51.45
51.55
51.52
0.00
Regression Output:
-0.0052230
0.0047078
0.9882314
23
21
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
4
4
a
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8/23/88
8/23/88
8/24/88
8/24/88
8/25/88
8/25/88
8/25/88
8/25/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/26/88
8/27/88
1010
1135
1020
1100
1145
1215
1350
1500
0952
1012
1043
1121
1132
1144
-1225
1253
1338
1355
1408
1422
1432
1105
0.0026828
0.0000639
0.03566185
0.03759304
0.07364132
0.06423845
0.07035977
0.13281850
0.13316270
0.12229370
0.18320610
0.18576430
0.18232090
0.23293730
0.21388850
0.21806290
0.26303100
0.27007560
0.26394510
0.27235590
0.28734260
0.30424420
0.31828550
0.29827000
0.33530790
5.60
6.03
11.40
11.53
11.43
20.80
20.85
20.83
27.97
28.08
28.00
31.25
31.25
31.28
38.42
38.44
38.43
42.00
41.95
41.95
42.05
42.00
49.38
Comments
137
TABLE A.1 (continued)
PLATE CONDUCTANCE TESTS
Plate
4
4
4
Date
8/27/88
8/27/88
Time (24hr)
Q (ml/min)
Head (cm)
1117
1130
0.33320380
0.34036760
0.00000000
49.48
49.47
0.00
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
-0.0093660
0.0105604
0.9903752
26
24
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
5
5
b
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8/9/88
8/9/88
8/9/88
8/11/88
8/11/88
8/11/88
8/11/88
8/12/88
8/12/88
8/12/88
8/12/88
8/12/88
8/13/88
8/13/88
8/13/88
8/13/88
8/13/88
8/13/88
8/14/88
8/14/88
8/14/88
---
1503
1533
1611
0924
1231
1427
1618
1143
1314
1434
1542
1638
1322
1404
1452
1536
1613
1649
1346
1416
1446
0.0071274
0.0001434
0.072935027
0.076197249
0.073247552
0.013973180
0.013695220
0.025873670
0.028328750
0.024512610
0.030292423
0.048138639
0.047664820
0.045265595
0.058275060
0.058456740
0.054207540
0.081574690
0.077995010
0.078903760
0.098317140
0.092216890
0.095676990
0.000000000
37.35
37.15
37.20
7.57
7.55
14.92
14.60
15.08
15.25
22.97
22.95
23.02
31.26
31.28
31.36
40.48
40.28
40.35
49.67
49.67
49.63
0.00
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
-0.0008354
0.0028049
0.9910345
22
Comments
133
TABLE A.1 (continued)
PLATE CONDUCTANCE TESTS
Plate
Date
Time (24hr)
Q (ml/min)
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
6/22/88
1248
1515
1647
1737
1849
1936
2010
2041
0927
1010
1148
1217
1444
1931
1955
2036
Comments
20
0.0019596
0.0000417
0.01674598
0.01851983
0.05656162
0.05449047
0.05329496
0.09555814
0.09634764
0.09843973
0.11379590
0.12678560
0.11313070
0.11889900
0.16535300
0.15124020
0.16670370
0.10085900
0.00000000
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
Head (cm)
0.0034371
0.0000989
6.15 --airtemp=22.1 C
6.30 --following
readings taken
16.38
16.40
post ultrasonic cleaning
16.40
27.30
27.30
27.30
36.20
36.20
36.30
36.25
46.90
46.38
46.95
27.15
0.00
-0.0011824
0.0057999
0.9877370
17
15
139
PRESSURE
TABLE A.2
TRANSDUCER CALIBRATION DATA
TRANSDUCER 5290035
JULY 11, 1988
Transducer
Thermistor
Resistance
Temperature
Input
Voltage
Output
Voltage
1041
7.9981
1056
-1113
1122
1130
-1153
-1215
1226
7.9979
0.98335
4.67200
4.63200
4.58800
4.53140
4.49610
4.44520
4.40300
4.35260
4.28000
4.22290
4.16320
4.10590
4.03970
3.93040
3.62620
3.47140
0.98480
1.22384
1.37232
1.45654
1.57908
1.81376
2.09400
2.25035
2.58332
2.77234
2.88287
2.98067
3.19680
3.30800
3.42080
0.98470
0.98420
1.28460
1.04061
Time
1403
1435
1438
1441
1444
-1447
1449
(kohms)
(°C)
--
2.6600
21.73
-7.9979
2.6320
--
21.97
7.9980
---
--
--
-1529
2.6040
22.21
7.9979
1544
1653
2.6050
22.20
7.9979
7.9979
Suction
Applied
to Port
P2
(cm water)
0.00
773.71
764.22
754.74
742.54
735.77
724.93
715.44
704.60
688.34
676.82
664.63
652.43
637.53
615.17
550.13
518.29
0.00
50.14
80.62
97.56
122.63
172.09
230.35
262.87
331.98
371.27
394.31
415.31
460.70
483.74
507.45
0.00
0.00
61.80
11.70
140
TABLE A.2 (continued)
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CALIBRATION DATA
TRANSDUCER 5290035
JULY 11, 1988
Transducer
Thermistor
Output
Input
Resistance Temperature
Voltage
Voltage
(kohms)
Time
(°C)
Suction
Applied
to Port P2
(cm water)
1.10950
1.19108
1.22756
1.25201
1.34415
1.35584
0.98425
1.00790
1.02140
1.04320
1.06480
25.70
42.50
50.10
55.10
74.30
76.80
0.00
4.90
7.70
12.20
16.60
1705
1711
1712
-1717
2.595
22.29
7.9979
Mean output for 0 AS
0.984260
141
TABLE A.3
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CALIBRATION SUMMARY
TRANSDUCER 5290035
JULY 11, 1988
Least Squares Method
J.B. Method
Corrected
S/
Time Output V Corrected V
A
1041
--1056
-1113
1122
1130
-1153
-1215
1226
--1403
1435
1438
1441
1444
-1447
1449
-----1529
---1544
1653
---
Predicted
Predicted
A S
Error
LSError
3.68772
3.64772
3.60372
3.54712
3.51182
3.46092
3.41872
3.36832
3.29572
3.23862
3.17892
3.12162
3.05542
2.94612
2.64192
2.48712
-0.23956
0.38804
0.47226
0.59480
0.82948
1.10972
1.26607
1.59904
1.78806
1.89859
1.99639
2.21252
2.32372
2.43652
209.80596
209.50633
209.43237
209.33620
209.51120
209.46038
209.27149
209.18459
208.85895
208.98504
209.07356
209.00466
208.65483
208.80705
208.23137
208.38887
766.44716
758.13365
748.98878
737.22516
729.88849
719.30954
710.53878
700.06375
684.97473
673.10719
660.69927
648.79016
635.03129
612.31462
549.09034
516.91704
-0.00938
-0.00796
-0.00761
-0.00716
-0.00799
-0.00775
-0.00685
-0.00644
-0.00489
-0.00549
-0.00591
-0.00558
-0.00392
-0.00464
-0.00189
-0.00264
770.87126
762.50012
753.29187
741.44671
734.05919
723.40692
714.57537
704.02774
688.83412
676.88433
664.39041
652.39876
638.54453
615.67040
552.00791
519.61161
-0.00366
-0.00225
-0.00191
-0.00147
-0.00232
-0.00209
-0.00121
-0.00081
0.00072
0.00009
-0.00036
-0.00005
0.00160
0.00081
0.00341
0.00255
209.28213
207.77014
206.58243
206.16698
207.46205
207.57544
207.62724
207.60933
207.63879
207.68340
208.02956
208.22439
208.17294
208.26758
49.78901
80.64877
98.15288
123.62133
172.39671
230.64119
263.13664
332.34041
371.62592
394.59824
414.92478
459.84477
482.95634
506.40045
-0.00690
0.00033
0.00608
0.00810
0.00181
0.00126
0.00101
0.00110
0.00096
0.00074
-0.00092
-0.00186
-0.00161
-0.00206
49.24585
80.31951
97.94493
123.53991
172.70336
231.35154
264.07222
333.75565
373.31345
396.44499
416.91242
462.14376
485.41552
509.02212
-0.01774
-0.00376
0.00395
0.00785
0.00359
0.00435
0.00457
0.00536
0.00550
0.00543
0.00386
0.00313
0.00347
0.00310
0.30037
0.05639
205.74282
207.50200
62.42929
11.71894
0.01018
0.00162
61.96161
10.89977
0.00261
-0.06840
142
TABLE A.3 (continued)
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CALIBRATION SUMMARY
TRANSDUCER 5290035
JULY 11, 1988
J.B.
Least Squares Method
Method
A S/
Corrected
Time Output V Corrected V
Predicted
Predicted
A S
Error
A S
Error
----1705
--
0.12527
0.20685
0.24334
0.26779
0.35993
0.37161
205.14867
205.45793
205.88900
205.76209
206.43190
206.66550
26.03689
42.99230
50.57422
55.65586
74.80604
77.23566
0.01311
0.01158
0.00947
0.01009
0.00681
0.00567
25.31696
42.38989
50.02437
55.14122
74.42413
76.87060
-0.01490
-0.00259
-0.00151
0.00075
0.00167
0.00092
1711
1712
-1717
0.02368
0.03718
0.05897
0.08057
206.96938
207.12845
206.86732
206.01924
4.92056
7.72637
12.25724
16.74653
0.00420
0.00342
0.00469
0.00883
4.05427
6.87953
11.44180
15.96221
-0.17260
-0.10655
-0.06215
-0.03842
mean =
207.83785
0.89442
0.00430
Mean
0.00004
std =
c.v. =
Mean = -0.01037
Legend: V = voltage
S = suction head in cm of water
Corrected Output V = (measured V) - (V at 0 suction)
J.B. Predicted A S = (measured V) x (A S/Corrected V)
Error = [(predicted AS) - (applied AS)]/(applied AS)
143
TABLE A.4
TENSIOMETER CHAMBER DATA
TRANSDUCER 5290035
cm of Water
Date
Time
7/12/88
--
Therm.
Resist.
(kohms)
Air
Temp.
(°C)
Input
Voltage
-7.9973
1635
1644
---
7.9978
1700
1720
1727
1736
above data questionable due to start
7.9981
---
7/13/88 1016
-1033
7.9981
---
1043
-2.814 20.50
1102
1106
1112
1116
-----
1123
above data questionable due to
1132
1140
___
1144
1147
1151
1155
-1158
7.9980
1323
1338
2.881 20.00
1345
-1356
7.9980
1429
2.855 20.19
1449
1457
1508
1514
2.821 20.45
Tensio.
Output
Voltage
Suction
Applied
to Chamber Suction
Applied
to P1
796.74
57.50
4.01790
795.39
0.00
4.01000
792.68
22.40
4.61500
789.97
22.40
4.60920
788.61
22.60
4.60230
89.91
0.00
1.37759
45.70
0.00
1.16385
85.90
7.10
1.32160
86.00
7.30
1.32300
86.00
7.50
1.32400
up problems + vertical chamber
89.60
26.80
1.24155
89.80
26.80
1.24250
89.80
26.80
1.24200
89.80
26.80
1.24170
89.80
37.25
1.19055
89.80
37.25
1.19055
89.40
53.30
1.11225
89.40
53.10
1.11245
vertical test chamber
89.00
53.05
1.16860
89.00
0.00
1.41635
89.00
0.00
1.41760
89.00
8.80
1.37540
89.00
8.80
1.37500
89.00
13.95
1.35010
89.00
13.95
1.35000
89.60
24.95
1.29990
89.40
31.10
1.27230
89.20
41.20
1.22670
89.20
46.80
1.20000
88.55
0.00
1.40420
88.30
59.60
1.12651
88.20
76.50
1.04320
88.00
70.60
1.07092
88.00
61.25
1.11550
144
TABLE A.4 (continued)
TENSIOMETER CHAMBER DATA
TRANSDUCER 5290035
cm of Water
Therm.
Resist.
Date
Time (kohms)
1519
1524
1529
1533
1546
1549
1556
1559
1621
Air
Temp.
(°C)
___
Input
Voltage
Output
Voltage
Suction
Applied
to Chamber
Suction
Applied
to Pl
-7.9980
1.19070
1.21970
1.24200
1.26680
1.29620
1.32330
1.34915
1.39300
1.41460
45.80
39.70
35.10
29.80
23.60
17.60
12.30
3.10
0.00
87.75
87.85
87.70
87.70
87.50
87.50
87.30
87.20
88.50
Tensio.
145
TABLE A.5
TENSIOMETER CHAMBER CALIBRATION SUMMARY
TRANSDUCER 5290035
Readings Shown in cm of Water
Suction from Tensiometer Output
J.B.
P1-Chamber
Method
AS
Date
Time
A from
Applied
Least
Squares
-113.40
625.84
739.24
-171.18
795.39
624.21
-21.26
749.02
770.28
-19.74
747.82
767.57
1635
-19.61
746.40
766.01
1644
-8.77
81.14
89.91
--8.65
37.05
45.70
1700
-9.21
69.59
78.80
1720
-8.82
69.88
78.70
1727
-8.41
70.09
78.50
1736
above data questionable due to start up problems +
-9.72
53.03
62.80
7/13/88 1016
53.27
-9.73
63.00
1033
-9.83
53.17
63.00
1043
-9.89
53.11
63.00
1102
-9.99
42.56
52.55
1106
-9.99
42.56
52.55
1112
-9.70
26.40
36.10
1116
-9.85
26.45
36.30
1123
above data questionable due to vertical test
2.08
38.03
35.95
1132
0.14
89.14
89.00
1140
0.40
89.40
89.00
1144
0.49
80.69
80.20
1147
0.41
80.61
80.20
1151
0.42
75.47
75.05
1155
0.40
75.45
75.05
1158
0.47
65.12
64.65
1323
1.12
59.42
58.30
1338
2.02
50.02
48.00
1345
2.11
44.51
42.40
1356
-1.92
86.63
88.55
1429
0.65
29.35
28.70
1449
0.46
12.16
11.70
1457
0.48
17.88
17.40
1508
0.32
26.75
27.07
1514
7/12/88
--
A from
Applied
-113.79
625.45
-171.56
623.82
-21.72
748.56
-20.20
747.36
-20.07
745.94
-8.82
81.09
-8.68
37.02
-9.25
69.55
-8.86
69.84
-8.46
70.04
vertical chamber
-9.76
53.04
-9.76
53.24
-9.86
53.14
-9.93
53.07
-10.02
42.53
-10.02
42.53
-9.72
26.38
-9.87
26.43
chamber
2.05
38.00
0.08
89.08
0.34
89.34
0.44
80.64
0.36
80.56
0.37
75.42
0.35
75.40
0.42
65.07
1.08
59.38
1.98
49.98
2.08
44.48
-1.97
86.58
0.62
29.32
0.45
12.15
0.46
17.86
0.30
27.05
146
TABLE A.5 (continued)
TENSIOMETER CHAMBER CALIBRATION SUMMARY
TRANSDUCER 5290035
Readings Shown in cm of Water
Suction from Tensiometer Output
Date
Time
Pl-Chamber
as
J.B.
Method
A from
Applied
Squares
A from
Applied
1519
1524
1529
1533
1546
1549
1556
1559
1621
41.95
48.15
52.60
57.90
63.90
69.90
75.00
84.10
88.50
42.59
48.57
53.17
58.29
64.35
69.94
75.28
84.32
88.78
0.64
0.42
0.57
0.39
0.45
0.04
0.28
0.22
0.28
42.56
48.54
53.14
58.25
64.31
69.90
75.23
84.27
88.72
0.61
0.39
0.54
0.35
0.41
0.00
0.23
0.17
0.22
Least
147
TABLE A.6
TENSIOMETER CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATED WITH POROUS PLATE
TRANSDUCER 5290035
Thermistor
Port
Resistance
Date
Time
Location
(kohms)
7/18/88
7/19/88
7/20/88
7/21/88
7/22/88
2055
2139
1010
1017
1119
1203
1322
1358
1421
1438
1520
1600
1616
1659
1724
0850
0938
1007
1114
1231
1401
1604
1656
2030
0825
1016
1148
1335
1451
1659
1049
1244
1501
1528
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
lower
lower
lower
lower
lower
upper
upper
lower
lower
upper
upper
Air
Temp.
°
( C)
Input
Voltage
8.0001
2.862
--2.825
2.810
--2.801
--2.740
2.751
--2.717
2.716
2.746
2.845
2.839
--2.850
--2.855
--2.812
--3.077
2.841
7.9990
-7.9988
7.9986
-7.9986
-7.9989
7.9989
7.9988
-7.9989
7.9990
7.9987
7.9988
-7.9989
-7.9988
-7.9990
-7.9990
7.9984
2.780
2.790
3.043
---
3.090
7.9988
7.9988
7.9993
-7.9992
--
---
Tensio.
Output
(volts)
1.29600
1.29300
1.27840
1.30400
1.27930
1.23015
1.18050
1.19858
1.23975
1.24150
1.28660
1.30665
1.30800
1.33266
1.33650
1.34765
1.32320
1.32300
1.20150
1.19870
1.25120
1.33350
1.33380
1.36100
1.36330
1.35200
1.32650
1.32560
1.26600
1.21950
1.27175
1.22875
1.17340
1.16520
Note: Upper and lower sampling ports located 10 cm apart
148
TABLE A.7
TENSIOMETER CALIBRATION SUMMARY
CALIBRATED WITH POROUS PLATE
TRANSDUCER 5290035
Readings Shown in cm of Water
Suction
Port
Applied
Date
Time Location
to Plate
7/18/88
7/19/88
7/20/88
7/21/88
7/22/88
2055
2139
1010
1017
1119
1203
1322
1358
1421
1438
1520
1600
1616
1659
1724
0850
0938
1007
1114
1231
1401
1604
1656
2030
0825
1016
1148
1335
1451
1659
1049
1244
1501
1528
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
upper
lower
lower
lower
lower
lower
upper
upper
lower
lower
upper
upper
coef. var.
19.60
19.60
20.50
19.70
19.70
29.50
39.50
34.40
24.50
24.50
14.50
9.50
9.50
4.40
4.30
4.40
9.80
9.80
34.60
34.60
22.70
4.70
4.70
-5.25
-0.70
0.00
4.80
4.80
14.80
23.20
13.20
20.85
30.85
30.85
0.12
Diff.
Calc.
from
Plate
Suction Applied
Suction
Applied
to P1
P 1 -P2
AP
86.30
86.00
84.20
83.50
83.20
82.60
82.50
81.40
81.20
80.90
80.40
79.90
80.00
80.40
80.40
82.50
82.40
82.40
81.90
81.70
80.80
79.80
79.70
80.90
81.30
79.00
77.90
77.80
75.55
74.50
75.30
74.10
72.60
71.00
64.31
63.69
60.68
65.96
60.87
50.73
40.48
44.21
52.71
53.07
62.37
66.51
66.79
71.87
72.67
74.97
69.92
69.88
44.82
44.24
55.07
72.05
72.11
77.72
78.20
75.86
70.60
70.42
58.12
48.53
59.31
50.44
39.02
37.33
21.99
22.31
23.52
17.54
22.33
31.87
42.02
37.19
28.49
27.83
18.03
13.39
13.21
8.53
7.73
7.53
12.48
12.52
37.08
37.46
25.73
7.75
7.59
3.18
3.10
3.14
7.30
7.38
17.43
25.97
15.99
23.66
33.58
33.67
2.39
2.71
3.02
-2.16
2.63
2.37
2.52
2.79
3.99
3.33
3.53
3.89
3.71
4.13
3.43
3.13
2.68
2.72
2.48
2.86
3.03
3.05
2.89
8.43
3.80
3.14
2.50
2.58
2.63
2.77
2.79
2.81
2.73
2.82
0.33
mean =
2.88
std dey. =
149
TABLE A.8
LVDT CALIBRATION
Micro.
Reading
LVDT
(mm)
Time
Date
LVDT
Output
(Volts)
11.543
12.543
13.543
14.543
15.543
16.543
17.543
10.543
9.543
8.543
7.543
6.543
5.543
4.543
0.00071
-0.72610
-1.46378
-2.20019
-2.93579
-3.67010
-4.40130
0.74657
1.48608
2.22467
2.96395
3.69370
4.43220
5.15370
06/17/88 03:14 PM
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
Air
Input
(Volts)
Resist.
(kohms)
Temp.
14.9409
2.532
22.85
( ° C)
- - -
14.9408
2.518
22.98
••••••••
- - -
---
mlam• =I
=lb Ea w•
14.9411
2.523
22.93
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
06/17/88 02:17 PM
02:48 PM
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9.936
10.936
11.936
12.936
13.936
14.936
15.936
8.936
7.936
6.936
5.936
4.936
3.936
2.936
-1.35829
0.00069
-0.00016
-0.72720
-1.46370
-2.19747
-2.92885
-3.65710
-4.38560
0.73817
1.47826
2.21454
2.95200
3.68670
4.42260
5.14940
11.557629
0.007638
0.999997
14
12
(y-intercept)
(slope)
2.558
22.61
14.9410
2.548
22.70
--14.9410
2.542
22.76
14.9409
---
150
TABLE A.8 (continued)
LVDT CALIBRATION
Micro.
Reading
Time
LVDT
Date
(mm)
LVDT
Output
(Volts)
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
Air
Input Resist. Temp.
(°C)
(Volts) (kohms)
9.949673
0.008036
0.999997
14
12
X Coefficient(s) -1.36160
0.00073
Std Err of Coef.
06/17/88 01:15 PM
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9.301
10.301
11.301
12.301
13.301
14.301
15.301
8.301
7.301
6.301
5.301
4.301
3.301
2.301
-0.00015
-0.73852
-1.47137
-2.20193
-2.93519
-3.65960
-4.38420
0.72729
1.46475
2.20210
2.94190
3.67380
4.40830
5.13475
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s) -1.36355
0.00082
Std Err of Coef.
14.9408
2.579 22.43
Me. =ID MI,
- - -
---
14.9408
I= •11. n
2.568 22.52
nnn
14.9408
9.303755
0.009120
0.999996
14
12
nnn
2.562 22.58
151
TABLE A.8 (continued)
LVDT CALIBRATION
Micro.
Reading
Time
LVDT
Date
(mm)
06/17/88 12:23 PM
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9.320
10.320
11.320
12.320
13.320
14.320
15.320
8.320
7.320
6.320
5.320
4.320
3.320
2.320
LVDT
Output
(Volts)
0.00026
-0.78432
-1.56685
-2.34514
-3.11810
-3.89190
-4.66050
0.77281
1.54635
2.32562
3.09980
3.87440
4.64530
5.41300
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
06/17/88 11:59 AM
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10.060
11.060
12.060
13.060
14.060
15.060
16.060
9.060
8.060
7.060
6.060
5.060
4.060
3.060
Air
Input
(Volts)
Resist.
(kohms)
Temp.
14.9414
2.607
22.18
14.9413
2.590
22.33
(°C)
•ND
14.9413
2.577
22.44
2.629
21.99
9.308754
0.007996
0.999997
14
12
-1.28844
0.00068
-0.00014
-0.77830
-1.56047
-2.34210
-3.12200
-3.90150
-4.67850
0.78189
1.56577
2.34254
3.12480
3.90050
4.67830
5.44870
Regression Output:
14.9411
- - -
14.9413
2.620
22.07
14.9412
2.618
22.09
152
TABLE A.8 (continued)
LVDT CALIBRATION
Micro.
Reading
LVDT
Time
Date
(mm)
LVDT
Output
(Volts)
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
Air
Input Resist. Temp.
(°C)
(Volts) (kohms)
10.060049
0.005339
0.999998
14
12
X Coefficient(s) -1.28230
0.00045
Std Err of Coef.
06/17/88 11:03 AM
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
10.623
11.623
12.623
13.623
14.623
15.623
16.623
9.623
8.623
7.623
6.623
5.623
4.623
3.623
-0.00027
-0.77816
-1.55414
-2.32888
-3.10230
-3.87490
-4.64320
0.77668
1.54361
2.30893
3.08190
3.83780
4.59710
5.34910
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
2.557 22.62
14.9414
14.9413
2.608 22.17
14.9415
2.633 21.96
10.606409
0.018495
0.999982
14
12
X Coefficient(s) -1.29817
0.00159
Std Err of Coef.
06/21/88 10:43 AM
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
10.683
11.683
12.683
13.683
14.683
15.683
16.683
9.683
-0.00048
-0.77715
-1.55288
-2.32931
-3.10080
-3.87230
-4.64060
0.76539
14.9433
n•n•
2.668 21.67
0/1 MI
---
14.9437
2.668 21.67
153
TABLE A.8 (continued)
LVDT CALIBRATION
Micro.
Reading
Time
LVDT
Date
(mm)
6
6
6
6
6
6
8.683
7.683
6.683
5.683
4.683
3.683
LVDT
Output
(Volts)
1.53666
2.30786
3.07360
3.83660
4.59530
5.34970
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s) -1.29892
0.00130
Std Err of Coef.
Air
Input Resist. Temp.
(°C)
(Volts) (kohms)
••• .11. OW
14.9437
10.664678
0.015091
0.999983
14
12
2.667 21.67
154
TABLE A.9
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Therm.
Air
Resist.
Temp.
Time
(kohms)
(°C)
Date
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/22/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/23/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
16:11
18:11
18:41
19:11
19:41
20:11
20:41
21:11
21:41
22:11
22:41
14:46
15:16
15:46
16:46
17:16
17:46
18:16
20:16
20:46
21:16
21:46
22:16
22:46
23:16
23:46
00:16
00:46
02:16
02:46
03:16
03:46
04:16
04:46
05:16
06:16
06:46
08:46
09:46
--
(volts)
----
--
------
2
14.9396
14.9389
14.9388
14.9387
14.9386
14.9386
14.9387
14.9387
14.9388
14.9388
14.9387
--
--
LVDT Output (volts)
LVDT
Input
3
MO.. MO
5.89760
5.89430
5.89400
5.89390
5.89390
5.89410
5.89420
5.89560
5.89550
5.89500
5.89470
5.89450
5.89450
5.89450
5.89450
5.89470
5.89480
5.89540
5.89550
5.89560
5.89570
5.89590
5.89600
5.89610
5.89640
5.89650
5.89650
5.89630
155
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK
Air
Therm.
Resist.
Temp.
(°C)
Date
Time
(kohms)
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/24/88
04/25/88
04/25/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/26/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/83
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
10:16
10:46
11:16
11:46
12:16
12:46
13:16
13:46
14:46
15:16
15:46
08:20
15:10
17:16
19:15
19:45
20:15
20:45
21:15
21:45
22:15
22:45
23:15
23:45
00:15
00:45
01:15
01:45
02:15
02:45
03:15
03:45
04:15
04:45
05:15
05:45
06:15
06:45
07:15
07:45
08:15
--
1
LVDT
Input (volts)
--
---
----
--
---
--
--
-----
----
-----
--
--
--14.9481
14.9476
14.9474
14.9473
14.9471
14.9470
14.9472
14.9472
14.9473
14.9472
14.9472
14.9472
14.9472
14.9471
14.9471
14.9471
14.9470
14.9470
14.9469
14.9468
14.9469
14.9467
14.9467
14.9467
14.9466
14.9468
14.9466
14.9466
Output (volts)
LVDT
2
3
5.89620
5.89620
5.89600
5.89600
5.89580
5.89620
5.89700
5.89740
5.89760
5.89750
5.89760
5.89830
5.89740
1.89742
1.90144
1.90169
1.90188
1.89917
1.90223
1.89920
1.89912
1.90196
1.39899
1.89926
1.89928
1.89930
1.89938
1.89943
1.89948
1.89954
1.89962
1.89965
1.89973
1.89977
1.89978
1.89981
1.89984
1.89983
1.89947
1.89986
1.89976
1.95073
1.95313
1.95302
1.95440
1.95340
1.95466
1.95456
1.95344
1.95461
1.95159
1.95170
1.95190
1.95085
1.95109
1.95120
1.95128
1.95145
1.95160
1.95166
1.95181
1.95200
1.95206
1.95219
1.95218
1.95228
1.95335
1.95613
1.95281
156
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Air
Therm.
Resist.
Temp.
Time
(kohms)
(°C)
Date
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/27/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/28/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
08:45
09:15
16:34
17:33
18:33
19:33
20:33
21:33
22:33
23:33
00:34
02:33
03:34
05:33
06:34
07:34
11:00
11:03
11:07
11:11
11:58
13:27
13:57
14:27
14:57
15:27
15:57
17:02
18:31
20:01
20:31
23:01
00:31
02:01
03:32
06:31
08:02
11:33
11:47
12:47
13:02
-
- -
- -
-
LVDT
Input (volts)
14.9466
14.9466
14.9485
14.9481
14.9479
14.9478
14.9477
14.9475
14.9474
14.9477
14.9477
14.9477
14.9478
14.9479
14.9474
14.9473
14.9477
14.9477
14.9477
14.9477
14.9478
14.9473
14.9472
14.9472
14.9473
14.9473
14.9475
14.9464
14.9459
14.9457
14.9456
14.9459
14.9458
14.9458
14.9458
14.9456
14.9455
14.9460
14.9462
14.9461
14.9462
LVDT Output (volts)
2
3
1.89997
1.90015
1.89593
1.89580
1.89608
1.89646
1.89676
1.89701
1.89751
1.89744
1.89725
1.89713
1.89710
1.89717
1.89756
1.89770
1.89297
1.89642
1.89392
1.89280
1.89640
1.89370
1.89380
1.89365
1.89374
1.89374
1.89349
1.89553
1.89556
1.89580
1.89615
1.89590
1.89580
1.89581
1.89582
1.89613
1.89637
1.89385
1.89385
1.89403
1.89261
1.95297
1.95614
1.96484
1.96556
1.96601
1.96644
1.96675
1.96395
1.96311
1.96291
1.96287
1.96310
1.96329
1.96367
1.96367
1.96442
1.96735
1.97112
1.96716
1.96788
1.97108
1.96833
1.96847
1.96848
1.96848
1.96857
1.96845
1.97146
1.97178
1.97209
1.97238
1.97218
1.97213
1.97212
1.97219
1.97259
1.97283
1.82167
1.82161
1.82207
1.82193
157
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
14:02
14:17
14:32
14:48
15:03
15:18
15:33
16:02
16:18
16:33
16:48
17:03
17:18
17:33
17:48
18:03
18:42
21:00
22:30
00:00
01:30
10:10
11:41
13:41
17:28
19:28
21:28
23:28
01:28
03:28
05:28
16:24
20:24
22:24
00:24
02:24
04:24
06:24
08:24
10:24
12:28
Therm.
Resist.
Air
LVDT
Temp.
(kohms)
(°C)
Input (volts)
2.5950
2.8812
2.9278
2.9691
3.0024
3.0360
3.0597
3.0400
2.9395
2.9532
22.2856
19.9980
19.6517
19.3483
19.1049
18.8601
18.6878
18.8310
19.5654
19.4646
14.9465
14.9467
14.9467
14.9465
14.9465
14.9464
14.9466
14.9465
14.9467
14.9466
14.9462
14.9464
14.9466
14.9463
14.9462
14.9461
14.9470
14.9463
14.9460
14.9461
14.9459
14.9460
14.9462
14.9461
14.9462
14.9458
14.9461
14.9460
14.9459
14.9457
14.9455
14.9453
14.9448
14.9448
14.9447
14.9446
14.9444
14.9443
14.9442
14.9446
14.9444
LVDT Output (volts)
2
3
1.88747
1.88757
1.88752
1.88767
1.88742
1.88744
1.88753
1.88729
1.88689
1.88684
1.88659
1.88691
1.88668
1.88710
1.88711
1.88644
1.88603
1.88643
1.88718
1.88707
1.88758
1.88700
1.88573
1.88508
1.87991
1.87989
1.87681
1.87542
1.87498
1.87475
1.87291
1.85731
1.35648
1.85424
1.85406
1.85369
1.85337
1.85209
1.85059
1.84703
1.84068
1.82450
1.82102
1.82087
1.82438
1.82450
1.82223
1.82201
1.82130
1.82495
1.82504
1.82189
1.82554
1.82255
1.82287
1.82247
1.82557
1.82179
1.82208
1.82555
1.82248
1.82672
1.82649
1.82267
1.82248
1.82251
1.82335
1.82332
1.82381
1.82405
1.82432
1.82456
1.82613
1.82717
1.82763
1.82817
1.82870
1.82927
1.82920
1.83025
1.82996
1.82999
158
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
Therm.
Resist.
Air
Temp.
Time
(kohms)
(°C)
14:28
16:28
18:28
20:28
22:28
00:23
02:28
04:28
08:28
13:27
15:33
16:52
17:22
17:52
18:22
18:52
19:22
19:52
20:22
20:52
20:22
21:39
22:05
23:05
23:35
00:05
00:35
01:35
02:35
03:05
03:35
04:05
04:35
05:05
05:35
06:05
06:35
07:05
07:35
08:05
08:35
3.0301
2.9902
3.0310
3.0198
2.9513
2.9927
3.0490
3.0809
2.9855
2.9536
2.9002
2.8393
2.8628
2.8534
2.8856
2.9134
2.9468
2.9579
2.9500
2.9329
2.9461
2.8594
2.8544
2.8945
2.9002
2.9060
2.9182
2.9403
2.9625
2.9719
2.9798
2.9906
2.9989
3.0204
3.0233
3.0223
2.9996
2.9880
2.9668
2.9363
2.9410
18.9031
19.1935
18.8965
18.9780
19.4789
19.1756
18.7656
13.5333
19.2282
19.4615
19.8563
20.3131
20.1355
20.2065
19.9651
19.7583
19.5119
19.4300
19.4883
19.6142
19.5169
20.1610
20.1989
19.8985
19.8563
19.8131
19.7223
19.5593
19.3965
19.3279
19.2701
19.1912
19.1303
18.9736
18.9525
18.9598
19.1254
19.2097
19.3652
19.5891
19.5543
LVDT
Input (volts)
14.9443
14.9444
14.9443
14.9441
14.9443
14.9442
14.9440
14.9439
14.9440
14.9444
14.9443
LVDT Output (volts)
2
3
1.84073
1.83936
1.83460
1.83516
1.83416
1.83384
1.83376
1.83374
1.83057
1.82658
1.82158
1.83101
1.83106
1.83126
1.83339
1.83433
1.83476
1.83507
1.83539
1.83523
1.83710
1.83810
15 9
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Therm.
Resist.
Date
Time
(kohms)
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/10/88
09:05
09:53
09:54
10:54
11:24
11:54
12:24
13:24
20:25
21:10
00:10
03:10
06:10
09:10
11:26
13:05
16:45
19:45
22:45
01:45
04:45
07:45
13:58
15:13
15:58
19:58
23:58
03:58
07:58
11:58
15:22
19:22
03:22
07:22
23:22
03:22
07:22
11:22
15:22
19:22
14:18
2.9411
2.9122
2.9090
2.9315
2.9079
2.8597
2.8124
2.6936
2.8391
2.8622
2.8361
2.8489
2.9506
2.9346
2.8787
2.7777
2.6747
2.8261
2.8625
2.8470
2.8470
2.9420
2.9266
2.9076
2.8606
2.9666
2.9518
3.0327
3.0526
3.0300
Air
Temp.
(°C)
19.5534
19.7674
19.7908
19.6246
19.7989
20.1586
20.5175
21.4552
20.3146
20.1397
20.3369
20.2400
19.4841
19.6019
20.0167
20.7854
21.6097
20.4129
20.1379
20.2548
20.2548
19.5468
19.6607
19.8013
20.1519
19.3668
19.4751
18.8841
18.7394
18.9038
19.0033
18.8826
18.8471
18.6774
20.1374
19.5101
19.2993
19.4449
20.1736
19.7654
20.7533
LVDT
Input (volts)
LVDT Output (volts)
2
3
14.9443
1.80448
1.83666
14.9444
14.9447
14.9445
14.9444
14.9442
14.9438
14.9442
14.9446
14.9448
14.9445
14.9442
14.9442
14.9440
14.9438
14.9441
1.79057
1.79032
1.79038
1.79014
1.79006
1.78904
1.78771
1.78491
1.78024
1.77669
1.77704
1.77685
1.77699
1.77713
1.77347
1.84470
1.84551
1.85142
1.85883
1.86820
1.87761
1.88564
1.89406
1.90406
1.91699
1.92810
1.93797
1.94447
1.94925
1.96094
14.9442
14.9435
14.9436
14.9434
14.9432
14.9434
14.9434
14.9433
14.9432
14.9431
14.9439
14.9435
14.9434
14.9437
14.9439
14.9437
14.9442
1.77019
1.77036
1.76943
1.76951
1.76959
1.76899
1.76730
1.76732
1.76663
1.76679
1.76060
1.76084
1.76115
1.76009
1.75986
1.75906
1.75604
1.97064
1.97018
1.97434
1.97869
1.98268
1.98599
1.98939
1.99396
2.00134
2.00443
2.01640
2.01938
2.02160
2.02294
2.02523
2.02738
2.03399
160
TABLE A.9 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 1
Therm.
Resist.
Air
Temp.
Date
Time
(kohms)
(°C)
05/11/88
05/11/88
05/11/88
05/12/88
05/12/88
05/12/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
08:01
15:05
16:58
13:25
14:25
15:53
09:24
09:28
------2.7529
19.8032
22.5386
22.3789
23.0353
23.1615
23.4842
20.9799
LVDT
Input (volts)
14.9437
14.9451
14.9456
14.9458
14.9458
14.9460
14.9436
14.9437
LVDT
Output (volts)
2
3
1.75484
1.75100
1.74923
1.74566
1.74498
1.74402
1.73693
1.73660
2.04123
2.04128
2.04128
2.04595
2.04585
2.04555
2.05351
2.05320
161
TABLE A.10
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/12/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/14/88
01/14/88
01/14/88
01/14/88
01/14/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/16/88
01/16/88
01/16/88
01/16/88
01/17/88
01/17/88
01/17/88
01/17/88
11:55
12:10
12:45
13:16
13:48
14:18
14:48
15:15
15:42
16:10
19:47
08:18
09:07
11:43
13:31
15:43
21:33
09:15
11:56
13:34
15:42
20:56
08:14
08:40
11:20
12:40
15:41
16:33
17:37
22:11
22:28
10:02
14:40
14:55
21:52
11:01
16:05
21:00
09:15
Plate
Position Number
1-B
1-B
1-8
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-8
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-B
1-8
1-8
1-B
1-B
1- 8
1-B
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-B
1-8
1-8
1-B
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Ht
q
hb
(cm)
(m/sec)
(cm)
2.537713E-07
2.360958E-07
2.142758E-07
2.065457E-07
2.006088E-07
1.980502E-07
1.940341E-07
1.930217E-07
1.947473E-07
1.907513E-07
1.821539E-07
1.734917E-07
1.939739E-07
1.893277E-07
2.292415E-07
2.329189E-07
2.344480E-07
2.290877E-07
2.757743E-07
2.680595E-07
2.778506E-07
2.850906E-07
2.760748E-07
2.906913E-07
2.815662E-07
2.827410E-07
4.089513E-07
4.676852E-07
4.683136E-07
4.740017E-07
4.813072E-07
4.417470E-07
4.371052E-07
4.542462E-07
4.422606E-07
4.108364E-07
4.298407E-07
4.246060E-07
3.915727E-07
-37.02
-35.14
-32.82
-32.00
-31.36
-31.09
-30.66
-30.56
-30.74
-30.31
-29.40
-28.48
-30.66
-30.16
-4.41
-4.80
-4.97
-4.40
-3.17
-2.35
-3.39
-4.76
-4.20
-3.56
-2.58
-2.71
-1.25
0.20
0.13
1.02
0.24
3.16
3.25
3.63
4.10
5.65
6.23
6.18
8.30
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
-10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
26.20
26.20
26.20
25.60
25.20
27.40
27.40
27.40
42.30
50.00
50.00
51.50
51.50
50.20
49.80
52.00
51.20
49.40
52.00
51.40
50.00
162
TABLE
A.10 (continuea)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Ht
q
hb
(cm)
(m/sec)
(cm)
6
6
49.60
49.10
3.921819E-07
3.881412E-07
7.84
7.77
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
2
6
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
1
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
38.00
35.00
40.00
38.00
30.00
40.00
38.00
28.00
40.00
38.00
25.00
36.00
36.00
25.00
40.00
40.00
36.00
25.00
40.00
32.00
25.00
40.00
30.00
25.00
40.00
27.00
25.00
23.00
3.711860E-07
1.552519E-07
2.043573E-07
3.644215E-07
1.566101E-07
1.957309E-07
3.669158E-07
1.456506E-07
1.866166E-07
3.431005E-07
1.432320E-07
1.658397E-07
3.719018E-07
1.435528E-07
1.432531E-07
3.758852E-07
1.443837E-07
1.326164E-07
3.842562E-07
1.380251E-07
1.214821E-07
1.293852E-07
1.280597E-07
1.249121E-07
3.392537E-07
3.472668E-07
1.243925E-07
1.291336E-07
3.534440E-07
1.131151E-07
1.343943E-07
3.332869E-07
1.041150E-07
1.274594E-07
3.395542E-07
9.488161E-08
1.298136E-07
8.014442E-08
0.47
3.19
2.08
1.19
2.87
3.68
0.93
5.47
5.37
3.46
4.04
4.22
0.40
3.97
3.42
-0.03
3.77
3.39
-0.92
5.28
2.46
5.33
5.64
1.82
3.87
3.02
6.51
1.04
2.36
5.18
0.06
4.51
5.32
1.35
3.84
4.51
0.91
4.00
Plate
Position Number
Date
Time
01/17/88
01/17/88
12:11
16:31
1-8
1-B
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/29/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
04/30/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/01/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
17:29
17:45
17:55
20:30
20:40
20:50
09:30
09:42
09:56
12:20
11:52
12:03
16:54
17:06
17:18
20:49
21:00
21:12
08:05
08:17
08:29
11:30
11:43
11:56
12:17
15:25
15:39
15:52
20:24
20:37
20:48
09:05
09:20
09:35
12:14
12:27
12:36
15:26
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-C
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-C
163
TABLE A.10 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/02/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/03/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/04/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/05/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/06/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/07/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/09/88
05/10/88
15:44
15:55
20:57
21:24
21:41
07:53
08:24
09:52
15:37
15:56
15:54
20:31
20:36
20:47
08:11
08:21
08:46
11:45
11:54
12:05
20:41
20:41
20:28
08:34
08:29
08:43
12:56
12:20
18:26
18:50
19:02
13:29
13:57
13:44
14:32
14:43
14:54
10:18
10:26
10:13
14:20
Plate
Position Number
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-A
I-C
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
6
2
6
1
2
6
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
6
6
1
2
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
2
6
1
2
6
6
1
2
6
2
1
1
2
6
1
Ht
(cm)
40.00
25.00
40.00
20.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
15.00
40.00
15.00
25.00
25.00
10.00
40.00
40.00
10.00
25.00
-5.00
25.00
40.00
-5.00
25.00
40.00
-5.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
40.00
0.00
25.00
40.00
40.00
-5.00
25.00
40.00
25.00
-5.00
-10.00
25.00
40.00
-10.00
hb
q
(m/sec)
(cm)
3.410733E-07
1.300249E-07
3.576241E-07
6.738091E-08
1.317308E-07
3.617331E-07
1.302987E-07
6.125608E-08
3.731121E-07
6.159188E-08
1.322111E-07
1.341561E-07
4.544629E-08
3.505562E-07
3.710768E-07
4.541229E-08
1.341561E-07
2.680404E-08
1.366928E-07
3.804559E-07
2.952989E-08
1.375602E-07
3.726122E-07
2.639505E-08
1.325972E-07
3.719538E-07
1.350398E-07
3.625418E-07
5.218347E-08
1.348533E-07
4.469874E-07
3.349892E-07
3.333656E-08
1.296936E-07
3.536107E-07
1.270859E-07
2.930464E-08
1.322313E-08
1.287266E-07
3.618304E-07
1.563402E-08
3.68
0.87
1.92
4.03
0.55
1.48
0.82
0.48
0.27
0.40
0.46
0.10
-0.77
2.67
0.48
-0.77
0.10
-11.35
-0.37
-0.52
-12.00
-0.53
0.32
-11.26
0.39
0.39
-0.06
1.39
-12.37
-0.03
-7.60
4.33
-12.90
0.93
2.34
1.42
-11.95
-13.13
1.11
1.47
4 3.71
164
TABLE A.10 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
05/10/88
05/10/88
05/11/88
05/11/88
05/11/88
05/12/88
05/12/88
05/12/88
05/13/88
05/13/88
05/13/88
05/18/88
05/18/88
05/18/88
05/28/88
05/28/88
05/30/88
05/30/88
05/31/88
05/31/88
05/31/88
05/31/88
05/31/88
05/31/88
06/01/88
06/01/88
06/02/88
06/02/88
06/02/88
06/04/88
06/04/88
06/04/88
06/05/88
06/06/88
06/06/88
06/06/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
Time
13:26
13:14
14:56
16:44
16:16
15:00
16:16
16:00
15:32
17:01
16:45
12:46
12:05
11:19
14:39
14:53
08:57
09:13
08:03
08:17
08:21
14:36
15:02
14:55
09:26
09:44
08:10
09:02
09:48
13:55
14:25
14:56
15:01
15:54
16:22
16:26
08:09
08:19
08:31
08:12
08:53
Plate
Position Number
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-8
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-8
1-A
1-C
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
6
2
6
2
6
2
1
5
4
3
5
3
5
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
Ht
q
hb
(cm)
(m/sec)
(cm)
1.374980E-07
3.293492E-07
1.316363E-08
1.405255E-07
3.365574E-07
1.416306E-08
1.433177E-07
3.443195E-07
1.381493E-08
1.405460E-07
3.482922E-07
6.409404E-09
1.269851E-07
3.020745E-07
2.955604E-07
1.238069E-07
3.126046E-07
1.236449E-07
2.820580E-07
1.234966E-07
9.016836E-09
2.271922E-07
5.304564E-08
6.646474E-08
2.409473E-07
7.268829E-08
2.378003E-07
3.264449E-08
7.423028E-08
2.363852E-07
4.127218E-08
7.470695E-08
7.667860E-08
8.032289E-08
4.018163E-08
2.397386E-07
8.421386E-08
4.317180E-08
2.375153E-07
8.185627E-08
1.098061E-07
-0.52
4.93
-13.12
-1.08
4.16
-13.36
-1.60
3.33
-13.28
-1.08
2.91
-11.52
1.43
7.83
8.53
2.02
4.71
2.05
7.96
2.08
-12.14
-4.94
-13.75
-0.49
-7.51
-2.91
-6.92
0.23
-3.51
-6.65
-1.03
-1.99
-2.76
-2.17
-0.87
-7.28
-2.68
-1.31
-6.86
-1.77
-11.04
25.00
40.00
-10.00
25.00
40.00
-10.00
25.00
40.00
-10.00
25.00
40.00
-10.00
25.00
40.00
40.00
25.00
38.00
25.00
38.00
25.00
-10.00
37.50
-6.00
25.30
37.50
25.30
37.50
5.00
25.30
37.50
5.00
27.00
27.00
29.00
5.00
37.50
30.00
5.00
37.50
30.00
5.00
165
TABLE A.10 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Plate
Date
Time
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/12/88
06/12/88
06/12/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/15/88
06/15/88
06/15/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/21/88
06/21/88
06/21/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/27/88
08:56
19:47
19:48
20:03
11:59
12:06
12:18
09:34
09:46
09:56
19:48
20:07
20:20
08:00
08:20
08:27
11:30
14:05
08:44
08:58
09:05
08:49
09:10
09:44
10:44
11:48
13:43
14:05
13:41
13:51
14:30
08:29
08:56
09:35
08:49
09:20
09:58
09:00
09:27
08:41
09:37
Position
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
Number
Ht
(cm)
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
37.50
31.00
6.00
37.50
31.00
6.00
37.50
31.00
6.00
37.50
30.00
5.00
35.75
30.00
5.00
35.75
35.70
35.80
30.00
5.00
36.20
30.00
36.20
36.20
5.00
35.90
36.20
36.20
30.00
5.00
35.90
30.00
5.00
35.88
30.00
5.00
35.80
30.00
5.00
35.90
30.00
(ni/sec)
hb
(cm)
2.349621E-07
8.640446E-08
1.090441E-07
2.401983E-07
8.088882E-08
8.583308E-08
2.235242E-07
7.868237E-08
1.214638E-07
2.181141E-07
8.202287E-08
3.359502E-08
2.315960E-07
7.714465E-08
3.717595E-08
2.250555E-07
2.202417E-07
2.243962E-07
7.904195E-08
3.591987E-08
2.280518E-07
8.210233E-08
2.270191E-07
2.592950E-07
3.551413E-08
2.396903E-07
2.373019E-07
2.374501E-07
8.209532E-08
3.681969E-08
2.186013E-07
7.914377E-08
3.817375E-08
2.361962E-07
8.066471E-08
3.631895E-08
2.325158E-07
8.166141E-08
3.636089E-08
2.484596E-07
7.924495E-08
-6.39
-2.53
-9.93
-7.37
-0.39
-6.54
-4.25
0.47
-11.74
-3.24
-1.83
0.09
-7.51
0.06
-0.43
-6.29
-5.44
-6.11
-0.67
-0.25
-6.40
-1.86
-6.20
-12.23
-0.19
-8.87
-8.12
-8.15
-1.86
-0.38
-4.93
-0.71
-0.58
-8.24
-1.30
-0.31
-7.63
-1.69
-0.31
-10.51
-0.75
q
166
TABLE A.10 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Plate
Date
Time
Position
06/27/88
06/27/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/03/88
07/03/88
07/03/88
07/05/88
07/05/88
07/05/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/18/88
07/18/88
07/18/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
10:03
09:58
11:37
12:42
12:05
09:42
10:39
10:41
08:59
-09:38
10:50
11:13
08:30
09:12
09:23
12:27
12:47
-11:44
12:28
12:59
10:00
10:15
10:22
-09:59
10:35
11:27
09:50
10:44
10:25
12:20
16:07
12:50
14:11
15:03
14:43
09:00
10:00
09:30
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-8
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
Ht
q
hb
Number
(cm)
(m/sec)
(cm)
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
4.35
35.60
27.85
4.35
35.55
27.95
4.65
35.85
27.80
4.30
35.60
27.80
35.60
27.70
4.40
35.70
28.00
5.20
35.70
27.50
4.30
35.45
27.65
5.95
36.30
35.85
28.60
35.95
27.95
28.65
5.40
36.65
28.05
4.45
36.05
28.15
4.60
36.10
28.50
4.85
36.80
3.925811E-08
2.175524E-07
7.583014E-08
3.421570E-08
2.197368E-07
8.151239E-08
4.277829E-08
2.208916E-07
7.333950E-08
3.516955E-08
2.157373E-07
7.280766E-08
2.043458E-07
7.129274E-08
3.544593E-08
2.259396E-07
8.228403E-08
5.236841E-08
2.176479E-07
7.363655E-08
3.335852E-08
2.052818E-07
6.659299E-08
2.949049E-08
1.546158E-07
2.246330E-07
5.859956E-08
2.254517E-07
6.779708E-03
6.923876E-08
3.258456E-08
2.638441E-07
6.393488E-08
3.359560E-08
1.826855E-07
6.859271E-08
3.612295E-08
1.836434E-07
6.569721E-08
3.570202E-08
2.042332E-07
-1.38
-5.04
-1.58
-0.65
-5.49
-3.68
-1.60
-5.41
-0.66
-0.84
-4.70
-0.45
-2.57
0.03
-0.73
-6.50
-3.93
-2.45
-4.95
-1.08
-0.57
-2.89
1.81
1.64
7.42
-6.11
5.86
-6.16
1.64
1.78
0.64
-12.63
3.24
-0.46
1.93
1.53
-0.68
1.80
3.01
-0.37
-1.35
5
5
3
5
3
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
167
TABLE A.10 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENTS
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
08/03/83
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
20:47
21:55
20:46
21:28
10:54
11:16
10:23
18:02
19:04
09:45
Plate
Position Number
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-B
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
5
5
5
Ht
(cm)
q
(m/sec)
hb
(cm)
27.20
-0.90
30.00
30.00
27.25
0.50
29.50
30.20
30.20
29.60
6.947752E-08
9.360935E-08
1.592188E-07
1.644136E-07
6.948972E-08
3.493086E-08
1.606922E-07
1.304128E-07
1.622967E-07
1.655895E-07
0.24
-14.57
0.26
-0.71
0.28
-4.60
-0.51
5.84
-0.11
-1.33
Legend: Ht = total head on top of the plate
q = specific discharge = Q/A, A = area of plate
hb = pressure head on the bottom of the plate
168
TEST BLOCK
TABLE A.11
MOISTURE POTENTIAL DATA
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
1
Average
Date
Time
Port
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
16:35
16:45
16:49
17:28
20:12
20:20
20:49
21:20
12:09
12:32
12:56
13:33
13:48
08:58
09:45
09:58
10:28
10:50
10:56
11:07
11:15
11:01
11:12
11:25
11:36
20:59
21:12
21:44
08:37
08:44
09:01
09:51
10:22
12:29
13:40
14:32
5FUS
5FUC
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FUS
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLS
5FUS
5FUC
4MU
4ML
FACE
5FUC
5FUS
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
Resist.
Air
Temp.
(kohms)
(°C)
Transd.
Input
(volts)
3.118
18.26
7.9982
3.068
3.128
18.63
18.19
3.078
18.55
3.220
17.52
3.171
17.88
7.9982
7.9986
-7.9937
7.9987
-7.9988
-7.9979
7.9977
2.860
20.16
2.807
20.56
2.788
2.775
3.082
20.71
20.81
18.53
3.066
18.64
2.861
2.810
2.808
2.777
20.15
20.54
20.55
20.79
Transducer
Output
(volts)
Transd.
1.360-1.390
1.389-1.392
1.3957-1.3963
1.37500
1.39050
1.39600
1.38550
1.37140
1.36940
1.36800
1.36900
1.38450
1.38355
1.37450
1.36450
1.36300
1.35130
1.36545
1.36970
1.36700
1.38000
1.38300
1.38300
1.37800
1.35800
1.34800
1.33525
1.31300
1.30620
1.30395
1.30360
1.30400
1.30275
1.30200
1.30100
1.29830
1.27960
1.27790
1.27350
1.368-1.370
1.3844-1.3848
1.3832-1.3839
1.3741-1.3749
1.3640-1.3650
1.3627-1.3633
1.35105-1.35155
1.36510-1.36580
1.36950-1.36990
1.36680-1.36720
3
1.376-1.380
-7.9979 1.3505-1.3513
-1.3405-1.3413
7.9979 1.33500-1.33550
-1.31280-1.31320
-7.9995
7.9995
7.9996
-7.9996
-7.9996
7.9994
7.9993
7.9992
Output
(volts)
169
TABLE A.11 (continued)
TEST BLOCK 1 MOISTURE POTENTIAL DATA
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
Average
Transd.
Resist.
Air
Temp.
( ° C)
Input
(volts)
Date
Time
Port
(kohms)
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/29/88
07/29/88
07/30/88
07/30/88
07/31/88
07/31/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
15:07
16:35
20:08
20:18
08:03
08:37
10:02
15:11
15:50
16:23
17:21
07:59
08:25
09:45
10:40
10:58
12:54
14:45
17:07
19:27
08:03
11:18
15:36
16:51
10:36
16:25
13:11
16:56
12:56
10:36
16:25
13:11
16:56
12:56
17:02
07:40
10:33
14:27
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLS
2.777
2.740
2.825
20.79
21.08
20.42
7.9993
7.9992
7.9993
3.068
3.029
18.63
18.91
7.9994
7.9994
2.833
20.36
7.9991
2.774
2.775
3.053
20.81
20.81
18.74
7.9991
7.9991
7.9993
2.830
2.829
20.38
20.39
7.9988
7.9988
2.810
2.782
2.759
2.818
3.038
20.54
20.75
20.93
20.47
18.85
7.9987
7.9985
7.9985
7.9986
7.9987
2.870
2.842
2.782
2.810
3.025
3.033
3.060
2.782
2.810
3.025
3.033
3.060
3.070
3.040
3.036
2.865
20.08
20.29
20.75
20.54
18.94
18.88
18.69
20.75
20.54
18.94
18.88
18.69
18.61
18.83
18.86
20.12
7.9990
7.9990
7.9989
7.9988
7.9989
7.9989
7.9989
7.9989
7.9988
7.9989
7.9989
7.9989
7.9988
7.9988
7.9989
7.9989
Transducer
Output
(volts)
Transd.
Output
(volts)
1.27210
1.26730
1.26965
1.27050
1.27410
1.27190
1.27340
1.26315
1.26120
1.25970
1.25780
1.26460
1.26230
1.25660
1.25890
1.24230
1.24500
1.23815
1.23570
1.23910
1.23840
1.24050
1.23110
1.22860
1.21560
1.21100
1.21185
1.20690
1.19700
1.21560
1.21100
1.21185
1.20690
1.19700
1.19125
1.18600
1.18220
1.20140
170
TABLE A.11 (continued)
TEST BLOCK 1 MOISTURE POTENTIAL DATA
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
Air
Date
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
Time Port
15:27
16:31
19:48
21:40
07:54
13:31
16:11
16:34
19:38
20:58
08:10
08:26
09:55
11:00
12:21
15:10
17:41
19:49
21:55
07:55
11:38
15:20
17:30
21:51
22:57
09:36
11:05
11:42
12:50
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
4MU
4MU
4MU
4MU
4ML
4ML
4ML
4ML
Transd.
Input
(volts)
Resist.
(kohms)
Temp.
2.880
2.860
2.851
2.781
3.052
3.029
2.888
20.01
20.16
20.22
20.76
18.74
18.91
19.95
7.9988
7.9989
7.9989
7.9988
7.9986
7.9985
7.9982
2.830
3.053
3.068
20.38
18.74
18.63
7.9993
7.9992
7.9994
3.050
3.030
2.852
2.824
2.766
3.020
2.792
2.853
2.841
2.852
2.727
2.694
2.673
2.691
2.674
2.639
2.648
18.76
18.90
20.22
20.43
20.88
18.98
20.67
20.21
20.30
20.22
21.19
21.45
21.62
21.48
21.62
21.91
21.83
7.9995
7.9994
7.9994
7.9993
7.9994
7.9994
7.9993
7.9994
7.9993
7.9994
7.9993
7.9992
7.9991
7.9991
7.9991
7.9991
7.9991
(°C)
Transducer
Output
(volts)
Average
Transd.
Output
(volts)
1.20050
1.19980
1.19950
1.19900
1.20530
1.20440
1.17416
1.17217
1.19660
1.20030
1.20560
1.19740
1.19860
1.19250
1.19045
1.17925
1.17610
1.18400
1.18060
1.18410
1.17680
1.18845
1.18160
1.17600
1.17630
1.16445
1.16400
1.16330
1.16370
171
TABLE A.12
TEST BLOCK 1 MOISTURE POTENTIAL SUMMARY
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
Suction
Applied
to Pl
Date
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/14/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
cm of water
Time
Port
(cm water)
Transd. AS
(J.B.Method)
Raw
Suction
Corrected
Suction
16:35
16:45
16:49
17:28
20:12
20:20
20:49
21:20
12:09
12:32
12:56
13:33
13:48
08:58
09:45
09:58
10:28
10:50
10:56
11:07
11:15
11:01
11:12
11:25
11:36
20:59
21:12
21:44
08:37
08:44
09:01
09:51
10:22
12:29
13:40
14:32
5FUS
5FUC
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FUS
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
85.90
87.60
87.60
89.00
89.40
89.30
89.15
88.90
87.60
87.20
86.60
86.50
86.50
86.10
84.70
84.50
83.80
84.70
84.70
84.50
84.30
79.40
79.10
79.10
78.90
70.80
70.35
70.25
70.60
70.40
70.10
69.80
69.30
67.95
67.60
66.35
81.21
84.43
85.58
83.39
80.46
80.05
79.76
79.96
83.19
82.99
81.11
79.03
78.72
76.28
79.23
80.11
79.55
82.25
82.87
82.87
81.83
77.68
75.60
72.95
68.32
66.91
66.44
66.37
66.45
66.19
66.04
65.83
65.27
61.38
61.03
60.12
4.69
3.17
2.02
5.61
8.94
9.25
9.39
8.94
4.41
4.21
5.49
7.47
7.78
9.82
5.47
4.39
4.25
2.45
1.83
1.63
2.47
1.72
3.50
6.15
10.58
3.89
3.91
3.88
4.15
4.21
4.06
3.97
4.03
6.57
6.57
6.23
1.81
0.29
-0.86
2.73
6.06
6.37
6.51
6.06
1.53
1.33
2.61
4.59
4.90
6.94
2.59
1.51
1.37
-0.43
-1.05
-1.25
-0.41
-1.16
0.62
3.27
7.70
1.01
1.03
1.00
1.27
1.33
1.18
1.09
1.15
3.69
3.69
3.35
SELS
5FUS
5FUC
4MU
4ML
FACE 3
5FUC
5FUS
5FUC
5FLS
5FLC
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
172
TABLE A.12 (continued)
TEST BLOCK 1 MOISTURE POTENTIAL SUMMARY
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
Suction
Applied
to Pl
cm of water
Date
Time
Port
(cm water)
Transd. AS
(J.B.Method)
Raw
Suction
Corrected
Suction
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/29/88
07/29/88
07/30/88
07/30/88
07/31/88
07/31/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
15:07
16:35
20:08
20:18
08:03
08:37
10:02
15:11
15:50
16:23
17:21
07:59
08:25
09:45
10:40
10:58
12:54
14:45
17:07
19:27
08:03
11:18
15:36
16:51
10:36
16:25
13:11
16:56
12:56
10:36
16:25
13:11
16:56
12:56
17:02
07:40
10:33
14:27
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLC
5FLS
66.15
65.20
66.20
66.20
67.20
66.45
66.20
64.00
63.45
63.20
62.70
64.50
64.00
62.80
63.20
62.80
62.30
61.10
60.70
61.80
62.20
62.10
59.65
59.10
57.40
56.30
57.10
56.00
54.50
57.40
56.30
57.10
56.00
54.50
53.40
52.90
51.80
50.80
59.82
58.83
59.31
59.49
60.24
59.78
60.09
57.96
57.56
57.25
56.85
58.27
57.79
56.60
57.08
53.63
54.19
52.77
52.26
52.97
52.82
53.26
51.30
50.78
48.08
47.13
47.30
46.27
44.22
48.08
47.13
47.30
46.27
44.22
43.02
41.93
41.14
45.13
6.33
6.37
6.89
6.71
6.96
6.67
6.11
6.04
5.89
5.95
5.85
6.23
6.21
6.20
6.12
9.17
8.11
8.33
8.44
8.83
9.38
8.84
8.35
8.32
9.32
9.17
9.80
9.73
10.28
9.32
9.17
9.80
9.73
10.28
10.38
10.97
10.66
5.67
3.45
3.49
4.01
3.83
4.08
3.79
3.23
3.16
3.01
3.07
2.97
3.35
3.33
3.32
3.24
6.29
5.23
5.45
5.56
5.95
6.50
5.96
5.47
5.44
6.44
6.29
6.92
6.85
7.40
6.44
6.29
6.92
6.85
7.40
7.50
8.09
7.78
2.79
173
TABLE A.12 (continued)
TEST BLOCK 1 MOISTURE POTENTIAL SUMMARY
TENSIOMETER 1
JULY 1988
Suction
Applied
to Pl
cm of water
Date
Time
Port
(cm water)
Transd. AS
(J.B.Method)
Raw
Suction
Corrected
Suction
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
15:27
16:31
19:48
21:40
07:54
13:31
16:11
16:34
19:38
20:58
08:10
08:26
09:55
11:00
12:21
15:10
17:41
19:49
21:55
07:55
11:38
15:20
17:30
21:51
22:57
09:36
11:05
11:42
12:50
5FLS
5FLS
5FLS
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUC
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
5FUS
4MU
4MU
4MU
4MU
4ML
4ML
4ML
4ML
50.60
50.40
50.40
49.80
51.20
50.10
47.70
47.20
49.10
49.30
50.50
49.90
50.10
48.90
48.40
46.10
45.80
47.45
46.70
47.60
45.90
46.00
43.20
42.90
42.70
41.95
41.50
40.90
40.50
44.94
44.80
44.74
44.63
45.94
45.75
39.47
39.05
44.13
44.90
46.00
44.30
44.55
43.28
42.85
40.53
39.87
41.51
40.81
41.53
40.02
42.44
41.01
39.85
39.91
37.45
37.36
37.21
37.29
5.66
5.60
5.66
5.17
5.26
4.35
8.23
8.15
4.97
4.40
4.50
5.60
5.55
5.62
5.55
5.57
5.93
5.94
5.89
6.07
5.88
3.56
2.19
3.05
2.79
4.50
4.14
3.69
3.21
2.78
2.72
2.78
2.29
2.38
1.47
5.35
5.27
2.09
1.52
1.62
2.72
2.67
2.74
2.67
2.69
3.05
3.06
3.01
3.19
3.00
0.68
-0.69
0.17
-0.09
1.62
1.26
0.81
0.33
174
TABLE A.13
MATRIX K AND FRACTURE T
TEST BLOCK 1
Plate
Date
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/15/88
06/15/88
06/15/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/16/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/21/88
06/21/88
06/21/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/27/88
06/27/88
06/27/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
Time
19:48
20:07
20:20
08:00
08:20
08:27
11:30
14:05
08:44
08:58
09:05
08:49
09:10
09:44
10:44
11:48
13:43
14:05
13:41
13:51
14:30
08:29
08:56
09:35
08:49
09:20
09:58
09:00
09:27
08:41
09:37
10:03
09:58
11:37
12:42
12:05
09:42
10:39
10:41
Position
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1 -C
1-B
1 -A
1-C
1-B
Number
3
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
K
(m/sec)
T(1)
(m**2/sec)
T(2)
(m**2/sec)
8.52E-08
3.35E-08
--7.70E-08
3.75E-08
8.25E-09
6.19E-09
7.79E-09
7.47E-09
7.73E-09
---
5.81E-09
5.53E-09
5.76E-09
..--
7.91E-09
--7.84E-09
1.04E-08
--8.82E-09
8.58E-09
8.59E-09
5.92E-09
--5.81E-09
8.05E-09
7.33E-09
5.34E-09
8.56E-09
6.43E-09
8.30E-09
6.22E-09
9.53E-09
7.27E-09
7.32E-09
5.32E-09
7.47E-Os
.60E-09
7.49E-09
5.38E-09
8.01E-08
3.61E-08
--8.53E-08
3.56E-08
--8.53E-08
3.71E-08
--8.03E-08
3.86E-08
--8.29E-08
3.65E-08
--8.46E-08
3.66E-08
--8.05E-08
4.04E-08
--7.83E-08
3.47E-08
--8.81E-08
4.42E-08
- - -
- - -
175
TABLE A.13 (continued)
MATRIX K AND FRACTURE T
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/03/88
07/03/88
07/03/88
07/05/88
07/05/88
07/05/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/18/88
07/18/88
07/18/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08:59
-09:38
10:50
11:13
08:30
09:12
09:23
12:27
12:47
-11:44
12:28
12:59
10:00
10:15
10:22
-09:59
10:35
11:27
09:50
10:44
10:25
12:20
16:07
12:50
14:11
15:03
14:43
09:00
10:00
09:30
20:47
21:55
20:46
21:28
10:54
11:16
10:23
18:02
Plate
Position Number
K
(m/sec)
3
4
5
3
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
5
3
5
3
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
5
7.43E-08
3.58E-08
--7.35E-08
__7.12E-08
3.60E-08
--8.94E-08
5.51E-08
--7.53E-08
3.37E-08
--6.42E-08
2.85E-08
--2.56E-07
5.24E-08
--6.56E-08
6.68E-08
3.22E-08
--6.00E-08
3.39E-08
--6.65E-08
3.66E-08
__6.19E-08
3.60E-08
--6.91E-08
1.33E-07
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-8
1-B
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
1-A
1-C
1-B
1-B
6.91E-08
3.85E-08
1(1)
(m**2/sec)
--7.20E-09
--6.51E-09
1(2)
(m**2/sec)
5.39E-09
--4.78E-09
---
7.86E-09
6.00E-09
7.31E-09
5.05E-09
--6.59E-09
4.87E-09
4.06E-09
2.80E-09
7.78E-09
6.08E-09
--1.07E-08
----5.31E-09
8.64E-09
--3.89E-09
5.35E-09
---
3.83E-09
6.34E-09
4.77E-09
_-4.78E-09
5.04E-09
_--
2.33E-09
2.54E-09
4.90E-09
3.52E-09
3.31E-09
2.11E-09
176
TABLE A.13 (continued)
MATRIX K AND FRACTURE T
TEST BLOCK 1
Date
Time
08/04/88
08/05/88
19:04
09:45
Plate
Position Number
1-B
1-B
5
5
T(2)
K1(1)
(m/sec) (m**2/sec) (m**2/sec)
---
4.91E-09
5.14E-09
3.33E-09
3.52E-09
Legend: K = matrix hydraulic conductivity
1(1) = fracture transmissivity obtained by assuming
all of the solution from plate 1-B flows
down the fracture
T(2) = fracture transmissivity obtained by assuming
an areally proportional amount of the
solution from plate 1-B flows down the
fracture
177
TABLE A.14
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
LVDT Output (volts)
LVDT Therm.
Air
1
Input
Resist. Temp.
(face
5)
(°C) (volts)
(kohms)
Time
Date
(face 3)
(face 3)
1.09390
1.06899
1.07449
1.07343
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/27/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/29/88
07/29/88
07/30/88
07/30/88
07/31/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
14:00
14:04
14:13
14:18
14:24
14:28
14:36
14:44
15:04
15:13
15:18
15:21
16:44
08:08
16:28
16:34
17:26
08:04
08:07
15:39
16:55
10:58
16:30
13:16
16:54
12:59
07:42
10:36
14:32
16:36
19:52
07:57
13:36
16:22
16:26
16:29
16:32
2.802
20.60
14.9736
2
3
1.09444
1.09423
1.09548
2.737
20.71
14.9732
2.772
20.83
14.9738
2.764
20.89
14.9738
2.762
2.748
3.066
20.91
21.02
18.64
14.9735
14.9738
14.9697
2.775
3.057
3.033
2.873
2.835
2.774
2.801
3.025
3.033
3.060
3.040
3.036
2.865
2.860
2.851
3.052
3.029
2.854
20.81
18.71
18.88
20.06
20.35
20.81
20.61
18.94
18.88
18.69
18.83
18.86
20.12
20.16
20.22
18.74
18.91
20.20
14.9703
14.9689
14.9690
14.9676
14.9677
14.9688
14.9681
14.9675
14.9672
14.9668
14.9667
14.9671
14.9666
14.9670
14.9670
14.9663
14.9669
2.844
2.882
20.28
19.99
1.06901
1.07500
1.07565
1.07567
1.09545
1.09543
1.09544
1.09523
1.09555
1.09207
1.06918
1.06916
1.06989
1.07562
1.07551
1.07708
1.09246
1.09327
1.09341
1.09323
1.09535
1.09471
1.09062
1.09541
1.09553
1.09541
1.09518
1.09523
1.09500
1.09500
1.09507
1.09499
1.09501
1.09266
1.09262
1.09260
1.09258
1.07041
1.07120
1.07071
1.07103
1.07085
1.07356
1.07342
1.07081
1.07411
1.07425
1.07436
1.07440
1.07440
1.07459
1.07461
1.07467
1.07505
1.07501
1.07235
1.07232
1.07231
1.07231
1.14775
1.14917
1.14861
1.14845
1.14818
1.14748
1.14567
1.14817
1.14849
1.14838
1.14796
1.14801
1.14784
1.14780
1.14805
1.14789
1.14781
1.14747
1.14745
1.14745
1.14741
178
TABLE A.14 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
LVDT Output (volts)
Date
Time
08/02/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/14/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
19:44
08:14
17:43
19:55
21:59
07:59
11:42
15:25
21:57
09:39
11:48
19:57
11:03
14:59
16:25
18:45
08:46
10:06
19:32
08:03
10:28
16:52
08:05
12:28
17:12
11:50
20:06
08:27
10:31
17:00
11:09
17:10
12:48
17:29
13:13
09:32
15:30
12:20
17:22
Therm.
Resist.
Air
LVDT
Temp.
(kohms)
(°C)
Input
(volts)
(face 5)
(face 3)
(face 3)
2.830
3.068
2.766
3.038
2.792
2.853
2.841
2.852
2.684
3.050
2.691
20.38
18.63
20.88
18.85
20.67
20.21
20.30
20.22
21.53
18.76
21.48
--18.62
18.78
18.90
20.01
18.69
18.64
18.18
18.43
18.32
18.70
17.65
18.31
19.77
18.44
18.26
18.50
18.89
21.12
20.75
21.28
17.97
20.08
21.19
21.14
22.21
19.93
21.16
14.9670
14.9664
14.9647
14.9651
14.9649
14.9651
14.9633
14.9642
14.9663
14.9622
14.9663
14.9665
14.9637
14.9629
14.9634
14.9640
14.9636
14.9638
14.9626
14.9626
14.9615
14.9612
14.9617
14.9622
14.9617
14.9624
14.9623
14.9630
14.9623
14.9633
14.9630
14.9638
14.9618
14.9627
14.9638
14.9637
14.9647
14.9636
14.9641
1.09341
1.09399
1.09318
1.09408
1.09316
1.09410
1.09203
1.09137
1.09168
1.09406
1.09239
1.09257
1.09473
1.09392
1.09383
1.09423
1.09448
1.09430
1.09544
1.09542
1.09467
1.09407
1.09582
1.09482
1.09417
1.09543
1.09535
1.09533
1.09474
1.09386
1.09463
1.09372
1.09664
1.09553
1.09594
1.09560
1.09475
1.09472
1.09228
1.07386
1.07434
1.07581
1.07655
1.07606
1.07721
1.07614
1.07644
1.07692
1.07841
1.07644
1.07734
1.07895
1.07852
1.07850
1.07889
1.07921
1.07916
1.08011
1.08000
1.07964
1.07952
1.08080
1.08051
1.08029
1.08135
1.08178
1.08185
1.08153
1.08134
1.08226
1.08201
1.08392
1.08345
1.08388
1.08396
1.08376
1.08420
1.08271
1.14761
1.14818
1.14779
1.19951
1.20182
1.20801
1.21256
1.21205
1.21754
1.22787
1.21837
1.21844
1.22849
1.23300
1.23331
1.23392
1.23820
1.23781
1.24195
1.24178
1.24470
1.24357
1.25058
1.25488
1.25805
1.26023
1.26154
1.26165
1.26156
1.26728
1.26837
1.26990
1.27334
1.27453
1.27449
1.28514
1.29108
1.30287
1.30337
3.069
3.047
3.031
2.879
3.060
3.066
3.130
3.095
3.110
3.058
3.202
3.111
2.912
3.094
3.119
3.086
3.032
2.735
2.782
2.715
3.158
2.870
2.726
2.733
2.604
2.890
2.730
1
2
3
179
TABLE A.14 (continued)
ELECTRONICS DATA SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
Date
Time
08/17/88
08/17/88
08/18/88
08/19/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/23/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/26/88
08/27/88
08/27/88
08/28/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
10:12
15:00
09:10
11:45
10:25
15:30
09:50
10:20
16:20
11:28
17:00
09:40
12:01
15:03
16:34
09:10
16:53
Therm.
Resist.
(kohms)
Temp.
2.813
2.802
2.893
2.695
2.837
2.736
2.925
2.824
2.945
2.815
2.852
2.878
2.808
2.793
2.850
3.114
2.914
20.51
20.60
19.91
21.44
20.33
21.11
19.67
20.43
19.52
20.50
20.22
20.02
20.55
20.67
20.23
18.29
19.75
Air
('C)
LVDT Output (volts)
LVDT Input
2
3
1
(volts) (face 5) (face 3) (face 3)
14.9631
14.9638
14.9633
14.9639
14.9634
14.9637
14.9622
14.9625
14.9617
14.9623
14.9625
14.9617
14.9625
14.9627
14.9621
14.9611
14.9625
1.09540
1.09489
1.09304
1.09502
1.09606
1.09528
1.09675
1.09701
1.09696
1.09754
1.09699
1.09759
1.09762
1.09506
1.09593
1.09594
1.09518
1.08505
1.08496
1.08518
1.08804
1.09234
1.09250
1.09395
1.09456
1.09456
1.09612
1.09655
1.09782
1.09750
1.09751
1.09943
1.10059
1.10140
1.30653
1.30788
1.31404
1.32610
1.33096
1.33007
1.33460
1.34303
1.34284
1.34507
1.34355
1.34572
1.35234
1.35236
1.35311
1.35319
1.35840
130
TABLE A.15
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
Date
Time
Plate
Position
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/17/88
08/17/88
21:05
21:48
09:14
10:58
09:55
12:05
11:36
10:57
12:48
18:19
08:10
08:15
08:42
09:13
11:20
08:50
08:53
11:36
12:52
11:52
15:38
16:34
12:33
10:50
10:16
12:15
14:02
14:13
15:34
10:07
10:30
11:50
09:55
09:33
11:10
10:05
11:01
1-C
1-B
1-C
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-A
1-B
Total Head
on Top
Plate of Plate
Number
(-cm)
4.95
6.20
8.50
6.55
8.50
12.30
6.50
16.40
11.90
14.00
15.00
12.45
13.10
12.40
13.20
12.60
12.30
12.82
10.90
12.20
15.93
15.17
15.63
12.32
13.50
12.96
11.74
13.20
12.78
12.62
14.32
13.33
12.63
13.90
14.63
13.72
14.54
Inflow Rate
(mL/min)
3.040993E-02
2.401210E-02
1.905839E-02
1.433051E-02
1.660399E-02
1.701230E-02
1.130569E-02
1.054737E-02
1.490192E-02
9.459063E-03
1.109322E-02
1.300807E-02
1.070801E-02
1.211890E-02
5.390283E-03
9.401368E-03
9.705016E-03
5.182882E-03
9.158348E-03
4.311224E-03
1.039400E-02
9.252756E-03
4.043663E-03
1.016356E-02
9.604610E-03
4.017896E-03
1.124649E-02
9.755184E-03
4.600232E-03
9.885032E-03
3.848310E-03
4.492286E-03
9.668951E-03
1.053489E-02
2.865903E-03
1.550537E-02
2.510535E-03
Suction on
Bottom of
Plate (cm)
11.87
13.19
12.84
10.72
12.28
15.33
9.79
18.80
14.56
16.75
17.53
14.77
15.54
14.56
14.77
14.74
14.03
14.33
12.99
13.45
18.30
16.82
16.81
14.63
15.21
14.13
14.30
14.94
14.12
14.87
15.90
14.64
14.83
15.78
15.46
16.48
15.27
181
TABLE A.15 (continued)
FLOW TUBE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
Date
08/18/88
08/18/88
08/18/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/23/88
08/23/88
08/23/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
Time
09:50
10:05
11:15
10:25
10:30
11:40
09:40
10:40
11:15
10:12
10:42
11:55
10:20
09:50
12:00
12:05
13:00
12:10
09:35
10:07
11:07
10:12
10:14
11:26
Plate
Position
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
Total Head
on Top
Plate of Plate
Number
(-cm)
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
13.40
13.32
13.33
13.57
13.45
13.98
12.68
13.57
13.72
13.02
12.75
13.43
13.58
12.92
14.53
12.50
13.67
13.84
12.70
13.00
12.36
12.75
12.27
13.46
Inflow Rate
(mL/min)
Suction on
Bottom of
Plate (cm)
1.145015E-02
1.134170E-02
5.966680E-03
1.080063E-02
1.010518E-02
3.475964E-03
1.074487E-02
8.015565E-03
4.443197E-03
1.192724E-02
1.150952E-02
5.603811E-03
1.030874E-02
1.031500E-02
2.441698E-03
1.681365E-02
7.894549E-03
4.552248E-03
1.001146E-02
1.881586E-02
5.295211E-03
2.083406E-02
1.668344E-02
2.535113E-03
16.01
15.34
15.07
16.03
15.25
14.99
1.5.13
15.00
15.01
15.74
14.80
15.06
15.93
14.76
15.24
16.33
15.08
15.16
14.98
16.35
13.90
17.49
15.24
14.20
182
TABLE A.16
CONSTANT-HEAD RESERVOIR INFLOW SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
Date
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/09/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/14/88
08/14/88
08/14/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/17/88
Time
09:50
09:50
09:50
11:07
11:07
11:07
08:33
08:33
08:33
08:45
08:45
08:45
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:02
12:02
12:02
08:28
08:28
08:28
11:00
11:00
11:00
12:45
12:45
12:45
13:22
13:22
13:22
09:55
09:55
09:55
12:15
12:15
12:15
08:48
Total Head
on Top Inflow
Reservoir Plate of Plate Volume
(mL)
Number Number
(-cm)
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1- 8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
8.00
12.05
5.55
16.20
11.85
20.50
14.30
11.90
12.65
12.25
11.90
12.80
11.90
11.85
12.55
11.30
13.35
12.40
14.15
14.85
14.70
12.90
13.00
13.50
12.00
13.00
13.45
13.13
13.45
13.75
13.73
14.00
14.20
12.95
15.00
10.00
10.00
28.00
28.00
8.00
18.00
18.00
8.00
18.00
8.00
8.00
38.00
38.00
18.00
13.00
13.00
3.00
18.00
18.00
3.00
8.00
3.00
8.00
23.00
23.00
0.00
13.00
13.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
3.00
15.00
28.00
3.00
16.00
Suction
on Bottom
Flow Rate of Plate
(mL/min)
(cm)
1.412E-02
9.416E-03
1.017E-02
1.846E-02
1.846E-02
5.274E-03
1.400E-02
1.400E-02
7.820E-03
1.240E-02
5.510E-03
5.510E-03
2.274E-02
2.274E-02
1.077E-02
9.168E-03
9.168E-03
2.116E-03
1.468E-02
1.468E-02
2.447E-03
5.025E-03
1.884E-03
5.025E-03
1.489E-02
1.489E-02
--8.802E-03
8.802E-03
2.031E-03
6.488E-03
1.054E-02
2.433E-03
9.494E-03
1.772E-02
1.899E-03
1.298E-02
11.22
13.73
8.51
20.40
15.14
22.03
17.49
14.39
14.93
15.07
12.88
14.40
17.08
15.90
15.68
13.39
14.98
13.02
17.49
17.47
15.41
14.04
13.34
14.96
15.39
15.65
-14.61
15.33
14.46
15.89
17.16
14.75
15.90
133
TABLE A.16 (continued)
CONSTANT-HEAD RESERVOIR INFLOW SUMMARY
TEST BLOCK 2
Date
08/17/88
08/17/88
08/18/88
08/18/88
08/18/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/28/88
08/28/88
08/28/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
08/30/88
08/30/88
08/30/88
08/31/88
08/31/88
08/31/88
09/01/88
09/01/88
09/01/88
Time
08:48
08:48
09:00
09:00
09:00
11:45
11:45
11:45
10:20
10:20
10:20
16:15
16:15
16:15
17:00
17:00
17:00
11:22
11:22
11:22
16:41
16:41
16:41
08:59
08:59
08:59
11:20
11:20
11:20
08:04
08:04
08:04
08:04
08:04
08:04
Total Head
on Top Inflow
Reservoir Plate of Plate Volume
(mL)
Number Number
(-cm)
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-8
1-C
1-A
1-B
1-C
1-A
1-B
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
1
2
6
14.15
14.68
13.75
13.40
15.07
14.50
13.40
15.05
14.55
13.40
15.10
14.60
13.40
15.20
14.40
13.35
15.05
14.45
13.20
15.05
13.80
12.60
14.40
13.75
12.70
14.43
14.00
12.95
14.83
13.80
12.38
12.43
13.40
12.40
13.75
3.00
0.00
8.00
8.00
3.00
8.00
23.00
3.00
40.00
38.00
8.00
24.00
31.00
6.00
13.00
13.00
2.00
18.00
16.00
2.00
29.00
26.00
17.00
2.00
6.00
3.00
12.00
12.00
5.00
8.00
16.00
2.32
12.00
9.00
3.45
Suction
on Bottom
Flow Rate of Plate
(cm)
(mL/min)
2.433E-03
--5.510E-03
5.510E-03
2.066E-03
4.984E-03
1.433E-02
1.869E-03
9.445E-03
8.973E-03
1.889E-03
7.419E-03
9.583E-03
1.855E-03
8.754E-03
8.754E-03
1.347E-03
1.633E-02
1.452E-02
1.815E-03
9.065E-03
8.128E-03
5.314E-03
2.045E-03
6.135E-03
3.067E-03
7.590E-03
7.590E-03
3.163E-03
6.431E-03
1.286E-02
2.111E-03
8.059E-03
6.052E-03
2.318E-03
14.58
-15.00
14.38
15.67
15.64
15.95
15.59
16.70
15.00
15.65
16.29
15.11
15.74
16.39
14.91
15.44
18.17
15.79
15.58
15.86
14.05
15.95
14.22
13.79
15.32
15.73
14.30
15.75
15.26
14.67
13.04
15.24
13.48
14.42
184
TABLE A.17
WETTING FRONT DATA
TEST BLOCK 2
Depth to Wetting Front
at Given Locations
(cm from left of face)
Date
Time
Face
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/04/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/05/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/07/88
08/08/88
08/08/83
08/08/88
08/08/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/10/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/11/88
08/14/88
08/14/88
08/14/88
08/14/88
22:37
22:42
22:41
22:46
13:38
13:42
13:46
13:53
12:25
10:21
10:29
10:35
11:24
11:29
11:33
11:36
09:08
09:03
09:00
08:57
09:24
09:20
09:18
09:07
14:05
14:00
13:50
13:58
16:44
16:48
16:52
16:54
13:34
13:32
13:31
13:29
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
2
cm
0.0
0.9
1.6
2.3
0.0
1.6
4.3
5.2
0.7
3.3
6.4
7.0
2.0
4.5
7.9
9.2
3.2
6.1
9.1
12.0
6.6
6.9
10.4
10.8
8.6
10.1
11.1
12.5
9.9
11.2
13.1
17.3
11.6
11.7
15.2
19.0
6
cm
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.6
0.0
2.7
2.2
3.9
4.0
5.8
4.1
5.6
5.2
6.8
6.4
8.5
6.6
8.3
8.7
11.8
8.4
8.7
9.4
10.8
9.8
10.5
11.9
12.5
10.3
11.2
13.9
16.3
12.1
11.7
14.9
19.5
10
cm
2.0
0.0
1.2
2.2
4.1
2.0
3.6
4.2
5.8
4.0
8.4
5.6
7.3
6.6
10.3
8.6
8.0
7.7
10.5
10.0
10.0
8.8
11.3
10.8
11.0
10.9
11.8
12.5
12.3
11.2
13.3
14.0
13.5
11.7
14.4
16.4
14
cm
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
1.3
2.5
3.4
6.9
6.1
5.8
4.8
8.3
6.5
8.4
7.7
9.3
7.2
9.0
9.6
10.6
10.6
10.4
10.6
12.4
9.0
11.0
12.5
13.9
11.1
14.2
13.0
15.2
11.7
13.5
15.7
18
cm
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.5
5.3
0.0
1.7
4.6
6.6
3.0
4.6
5.8
8.6
3.5
5.7
8.6
9.6
4.7
7.2
8.9
10.6
6.5
8.3
10.3
13.5
8.6
10.4
12.5
15.1
9.7
11.3
12.5
17.0
11.7
12.7
15.5
185
TABLE A.17 (continued)
WETTING FRONT DATA
TEST BLOCK 2
Depth to Wetting Front
at Given Locations
(cm from left of face)
Date
Time
Face
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/16/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/22/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
08/29/88
09/01/88
09/01/88
09/01/88
09/01/88
13:11
13:07
13:09
13:05
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
14:43
14:45
14:46
14:47
12:02
11:39
11:43
11:47
09:08
09:06
09:02
08:59
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
10 cm
14 cm
18 cm
14.3
14.2
14.8
14.0
14.0
14.0
16.5
15.5
14.7
19.5
19.6
17.5
16.0
15.7
16.0
16.4
16.3
15.8
18.1
17.1
16.1
21.3
21.1
20.0
18.1
20.6
18.4
16.9
16.8
16.7
19.7
18.3
17.2
23.0
22.6
21.6
21.1
21.6
22.5
19.1
19.2
19.5
21.8
21.0
20.3
25.7
25.3
24.7
22.0
22.6
23.8
21.0
21.6
22.2
22.6
22.7
21.4
27.8
28.1
26.6
23.7
24.4
25.8
22.9
23.0
23.1
24.4
24.1
24.0
28.9
27.7
28.5
Note: Area of face 1 = 422.24 sq. cm
15.5
14.0
14.5
16.7
17.6
15.8
15.9
19.6
21.2
16.6
16.9
21.0
23.6
19.8
19.9
23.8
25.7
22.6
20.8
24.4
27.7
23.4
23.5
26.0
18.0
14.0
13.8
16.9
19.4
16.5
15.2
19.3
21.8
17.5
16.8
20.9
24.9
20.2
19.4
22.7
26.8
22.8
20.7
23.4
28.5
23.5
23.6
24.9
2 cm
6 cm
186
TABLE A.18
PHILLIP'S EQUATION WETTING FRONT ANALYSIS
TEST BLOCK 2
Wetting Front Analysis
(day) to Front (cm)
Date
(
cm)
Cum t
(cm/day)
1/(t**.5)
(1/day**.5)
0.1583
0.4555
0.8135
1.0967
1.3065
1.4882
1.7402
1.9874
2.2207
2.4336
2.7238
2.9843
3.4016
3.6629
3.9125
0.4502
0.4653
0.4367
0.3800
0.3454
0.3105
0.2490
0.2451
0.2024
0.1879
0.1697
0.1565
0.1478
0.1414
0.1359
1.6861
1.0107
0.7327
0.5887
0.5142
0.4568
0.3783
0.3512
0.3019
0.2778
0.2496
0.2290
0.2084
0.1965
0.1864
08/03/88
08/04/88
08/05/83
08/06/88
08/07/88
08/08/88
08/10/88
08/11/88
08/14/88
08/16/88
08/19/88
08/22/88
08/26/88
08/29/88
09/01/88
0.35
0.98
1.86
2. 8 9
3.78
4.79
6.99
8.11
10.97
12.95
16.05
19.07
23.02
25.90
28.78
Mean Depth
1.0
2.9
5.2
7.0
8.4
9.5
11.2
12.7
14.2
15.6
17.5
19.1
21.8
23.5
25.1
Inflow
I/t
137
TABLE A.19
PHILLIP'S EQUATION INFLOW ANALYSIS
TEST BLOCK 2
Mariotte Bottle Analysis
Cum t
Inflow
(cm)
(day)
0.35
0.98
1.86
2.89
3.78
4.79
6.99
8.11
10.97
12.95
16.05
19.07
23.02
25.90
28.78
0.1008
0.2744
0.3573
0.5088
0.6130
0.6936
0.9849
1.0772
1.2999
1.4656
1.6362
1.8398
2.1359
2.3324
2.5211
Sat'd
Front
(cm)
0.6
1.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.4
6.3
6.9
8.3
9.4
10.5
11.8
13.7
15.0
16.2
Flow Tube Analysis
rit1/(t".5) Inflow
(cm/day) (1/day".5) (cm)
0.2865
0.2803
0.1918
0.1763
0.1621
0.1447
0.1409
0.1329
0.1185
0.1131
0.1019
0.0965
0.0928
0.0901
0.0876
1.6861
1.0107
0.7327
0.5887
0.5142
0.4568
0.3783
0.3512
0.3019
0.2778
0.2496
0.2290
0.2084
0.1965
0.1864
0.1008
0.2744
0.3968
0.5103
0.6106
0.7156
0.8974
0.9858
1.2236
1.3813
1.6572
1.8982
2.2508
2.6001
lit1/(t".5)
(cm/day)(1/day".5)
0.2865
0.2803
0.2130
0.1768
0.1614
0.1493
0.1284
0.1216
0.1115
0.1066
0.1032
0.0995
0.0978
0.1004
Legend: I = inflow, measured as height of solution
t = time
Sat'd Front = mean distance to front if all pores
are saturated (porosity = 0.156)
1.6861
1.0107
0.7327
0.5887
0.5142
0.4568
0.3783
0.3512
0.3019
0.2778
0.2496
0.2290
0.2084
0.1965
188
TABLE A.20
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
OATA
A
Date
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/07/88
07/07/88
07/07/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
Time
01:12
01:30
01:46
02:17
02:36
02:58
01:10
01:50
02:20
01:14
01:38
02:03
03:00
03:19
03:37
12:21
01:34
02:52
01:05
01:30
01:45
02:05
02:20
02:50
03:15
03:30
12:02
12:59
01:15
01:40
02:10
02:40
08:46
10:02
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
Core
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
A4A
A4A
A4A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
(cm3/min)
(m3/sec)
0.12897
0.12552
0.12313
0.09970
0.09564
0.09213
0.06201
0.06209
0.06088
0.10556
0.10538
0.10511
0.12132
0.11879
0.11740
0.03059
0.02859
0.02769
0.11634
0.11503
0.11356
0.11291
0.11184
0.11085
0.11023
0.10993
0.08982
0.08615
0.08586
0.08498
0.08410
0.08355
0.04422
0.03891
0.03687
0.03884
0.03843
0.03838
0.03585
0.03628
2.150E-09
2.092E-09
2.052E-09
1.662E-09
1.594E-09
1.536E-09
1.033E-09
1.035E-09
1.015E-09
1.759E-09
1.756E-09
1.752E-09
2.022E-09
1.980E-09
1.957E-09
5.099E-10
4.765E-10
4.616E-10
1.939E-09
1.917E-09
1.893E-09
1.882E-09
1.864E-09
1.847E-09
1.837E-09
1.832E-09
1.497E-09
1.436E-09
1.431E-09
1.416E-09
1.402E-09
1.393E-09
7.371E-10
6.485E-10
6.145E-10
6.474E-10
6.406E-10
6.396E-10
5.976E-10
6.046E-10
(m)
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0506
0.0506
0.0506
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
0.0481
(m2)
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002539
0.002539
0.002539
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
0.002463
189
TABLE A.20 (continued)
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DATA
Date
07/23/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
Time
03:11
06:50
12:22
03:11
08:53
08:15
09:45
12:15
12:40
11:05
12:00
12:32
09:21
10:09
10:42
11:24
Core
PM
AM
PM
PM
PM
AM
AM
PM
PM
AM
PM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
FT-5-AA
FT-3-AA
FT-3-BB
A3A
B5A-1
B6A
B5A-2
Q
(cm3/min)
Q
(m3/sec)
0.02267
0.01705
0.01622
0.01514
0.01511
0.01349
0.01344
0.01334
0.01294
0.07558
0.13700
0.11665
0.06376
0.24598
0.04630
0.20685
3.778E-10
2.842E-10
2.704E-10
2.524E-10
2.519E-10
2.248E-10
2.241E-10
2.223E-10
2.157E-10
1.260E-09
2.283E-09
1.944E-09
1.063E-09
4.100E-09
7.716E-10
3.447E-09
L
(m)
A
(m2)
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0508
0.0543
0.0518
0.0516
0.0517
0.0504
0.0521
0.0504
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002498
0.002516
0.002507
0.002516
0.002588
0.002498
0.002503
0.002498
Legend: Q = volumetric flow rate through core
L = length of core in flow direction
A = cross-sectional area of core
190
TABLE A.21
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DETERMINATIONS
H
Date
07/06/38
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/07/88
07/07/88
07/07/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/08/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/11/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/12/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/13/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
Time
01:12
01:30
01:46
02:17
02:36
02:58
01:10
01:50
02:20
01:14
01:38
02:03
03:00
03:19
03:37
12:21
01:34
02:52
01:05
01:30
01:45
02:05
02:20
02:50
03:15
03:30
12:02
12:59
01:15
01:40
02:10
02:40
08:46
10:02
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
02:40
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
K
kw
Core
(m)
(m/sec)
(m2)
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
4.863
8.79E-09
8.56E-09
8.39E-09
6.80E-09
6.52E-09
6.28E-09
4.15E-09
4.16E-09
4.07E-09
7.20E-09
7.18E-09
7.17E-09
8.27E-09
8.10E-09
8.00E-09
2.09E-09
1.95E-09
1.89E-09
7.93E-09
7.84E-09
7.74E-09
7.70E-09
7.62E-09
7.56E-09
7.52E-09
7.49E-09
6.12E-09
5.87E-09
5.85E-09
5.79E-09
5.73E-09
5.70E-09
2.96E-09
2.60E-09
2.47E-09
2.60E-09
2.57E-09
2.57E-09
2.40E-09
2.43E-09
8.19E-16
7.97E-16
7.82E-16
6.33E-16
6.07E-16
5.85E-16
3.37E-16
3.87E-16
3.80E-16
6.70E-16
6.69E-16
6.68E-16
7.71E-16
7.55E-16
7.46E-16
1.95E-16
1.82E-16
1.76E-16
7.39E-16
7.31E-16
7.21E-16
7.17E-16
7.10E-16
7.04E-16
7.00E-16
6.98E-16
5.70E-16
5.47E-16
5.45E-16
5.40E-16
5.34E-16
5.31E-16
2.76E-16
2.43E-16
2.30E-16
2.42E-16
2.40E-16
2.39E-16
2.24E-16
2.26E-16
A4A
A4A
A4A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
FT-5-B
191
TABLE A.21 (continued)
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DETERMINATIONS
Date
07/23/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
07/25/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/24/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
08/25/88
Time
03:11
06:50
12:22
03:11
08:53
08:15
09:45
12:15
12:40
11:05
12:00
12:32
09:21
10:09
10:42
11:24
PM
AM
PM
PM
PM
AM
AM
PM
PM
AM
PM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
K
kw
Core
H
(m)
(m/sec)
(m2)
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
B4A
34A
B4A
FT-5-AA
FT-3-AA
FT-3-BB
A3A
B5A-1
B6A
B5A-2
4.853
4.853
4.853
4.853
4.853
4.848
4.848
4.848
4.848
5.112
5.109
5.101
5.110
5.108
5.108
5.107
1.58E-09
1.19E-09
1.13E-09
1.06E-09
1.05E-09
9.42E-10
9.39E-10
9.32E-10
9.04E-10
5.32E-09
9.22E-09
7.81E-09
4.15E-09
1.62E-08
3.14E-09
1.36E-08
1.47E-16
1.11E-16
1.05E-16
9.84E-17
9.82E-17
8.78E-17
8.75E-17
8.68E-17
8.42E-17
4.95E-16
8.59E-16
7.27E-16
3.87E-16
1.51E-15
2.93E-16
1.27E-15
Legend: H = total head on top of core
K = saturated hydraulic conductivity of core
kw = intrinsic permeability of core
192
TABLE A.22
MOISTURE RELEASE CURVES
Mass of Sample (g)
Sample Saturated
FT-3-A
283.10
Oven- Partially-
Dried
Saturated
260.37
FT-5-A
278.00
254.69
FT-5-B
276.40
256.23
FT-3-AA
296.94
274.30
FT-3-BB
298.73
276.41
FT-5-AA
315.98
292.81
A3A
299.29
279.89
A4A
295.06
275.31
283.13
282.91
281.83
275.64
--
276.96
276.68
275.81
268.82
--
276.12
276.01
275.25
270.80
--
296.82
296.56
295.75
289.83
--
298.60
298.39
297.58
291.35
--
316.03
315.96
315.31
309.21
--
298.74
298.66
298.25
293.80
--
294.69
294.59
Applied
Pressure
Water
Relative
(KPa) Content Saturation
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
0.187
0.187
0.185
0.176
0.125
0.193
0.185
0.183
0.175
0.117
0.171
0.169
0.168
0.161
0.124
0.175
0.174
0.172
0.166
0.120
0.173
0.172
0.170
0.164
0.115
0.170
0.170
0.170
0.165
0.120
0.146
0.141
0.141
0.138
0.104
0.154
0.151
0.151
1.000
1.001
0.992
0.944
0.672
1.000
0.955
0.943
0.906
0.606
1.000
0.986
0.981
0.943
0.722
1.000
0.995
0.983
0.947
0.686
1.000
0.994
0.985
0.948
0.669
1.000
1.002
0.999
0.971
0.708
1.000
0.972
0.968
0.946
0.717
1.000
0.981
0.976
193
TABLE A.22 (continued)
MOISTURE RELEASE CURVES
Mass of Sample (g)
Sample Saturated
Oven- Partially-
Saturated
Dried
B4A
286.92
267.16
B5A
283.01
260.71
B6A
300.40
281.43
294.25
290.21
-286.44
286.36
286.15
281.68
-283.03
282.88
280.98
274.00
-300.25
300.18
299.86
295.79
Applied
Pressure
Water
(KPa) Content
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
0.148
0.116
0.156
0.152
0.152
0.150
0.115
0.178
0.178
0.177
0.162
0.106
0.146
0.145
0.144
0.142
0.110
Relative
Saturation
0.959
0.754
1.000
0.976
0.972
0.961
0.735
1.000
1.001
0.994
0.909
0.596
1.000
0.992
0.988
0.972
0.757
194
TABLE A.23
ROCK
CHARACTERISTIC TESTS
Volume
(cc)
Effective
Bulk
Density
Porosity
(g/cc)
122.1000
125.5681
120.8000
123.7755
118.2000
121.0230
129.7469
129.7469
129.7034
129.7034
136.6226
136.6226
0.187
0.166
0.193
0.190
0.171
0.167
0.176
0.177
0.173
0.176
0.171
0.173
2.132
2.089
2.108
2.057
2.168
2.118
2.113
2.114
2.131
2.131
2.143
2.143
mean:
0.177
0.008
0.048
2.121
0.027
0.013
133.6546
133.6546
128.4403
128.4403
126.7897
126.7897
125.7904
125.7904
130.3934
130.3934
101.6503
103.1593
101.6511
102.9389
101.8489
0.141
0.145
0.152
0.156
0.157
0.160
0.177
0.181
0.143
0.150
2.094
2.094
2.144
2.143
2.107
2.107
2.072
2.073
2.159
2.158
2.190
2.146
2.152
2.126
2.196
mean:
0.156
0.013
0.081
Dry
Saturated
Rock
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sample
Mass (g)
Dry Mass
(9)
FT-3-A
FT-3-A
283.10
283.10
278.00
278.00
276.40
276.40
296.94
297.16
298.73
299.16
315.98
316.35
260.37
262.31
254.69
254.60
256.23
256.27
274.22
274.30
276.35
276.41
292.73
292.81
FT-5-A
FT-5-A
FT-5-8
FT-5-B
FT-3-AA
FT-3-AA
FT-3-BB
FT-3-BB
FT-5-AA
FT-5-AA
standard deviation:
coefficient of variation:
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
A3A
A3A
MA
A4A
B4A
B4A
B5A
B5A
B6A
B6A
Al
A2
A3
Bi
82
298.73
299.25
294.87
295.25
286.94
287.45
282.86
283.36
300.07
301.00
279.90
279.89
275.42
275.31
267.14
267.16
260.68
260.71
281.46
281.43
222.66
221.33
218.71
218.88
223.62
standard deviation:
coefficient of variation:
M. NM
,•••
2.133
0.037
0.017
APPENDIX B
DETAILED PROCEDURES
195
196
PROCEDURE 1
PREPARATION OF TEST BLOCK FOR EXPERIMENTATION
Equipment
1. Drill press.
2. Rotating drill assembly, with hose connection to water source.
3. Longyear diamond-edged coring bit, 1.91 cm (3/4-in.) outside
diameter (o.d.).
4. Level(s).
5. Wood blocks, planks, shims or similar support and wedging
implements.
6. Large clamps, 30 cm.
7. Flashlight.
8. Tygon tubing, 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) inside diameter (i.d.), 6.4-mm
(1/4-inch) o.d.
9. Suction pump, hand-held.
10. Syringe.
11. Metal wire.
12. Squirt bottle.
13. Chisel.
14. Hammer.
15. Test tube brush.
16. Rock Frame A (frame lying against rock surface), made of 1.59-cm
(5/8-inch) thick steel, with vertical rib.
17. Rock Frame B (frame holding rock above table), made of 3.2-mm
(1/8-inch) thick angle iron containing pre-drilled holes or
equivalent, with footing welded on each post.
18. Aluminum U-tubing, 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) thick, appropriately sized
to fit around rock frame A and instrumentation.
19. Galvanized steel, 2.54-cm (1-inch) wide, long enough to connect
rock frame B corner posts, with bolts to connect on aluminum Utubing.
20. Evaporation canopy frame, 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) diameter galvanized
steel, canopy dimensions large enough to contain test block and
instrumentation. Clear vinyl 0.36 mm (0.014-inches) thick to
cover frame.
21. Clear PVC tubing, 1.59-cm (5/8-inch) i.d., 1.91-cm (3/4-inch)
o.d., enough to reach each sampling port from the evaporation
canopy frame. Stoppers to fit tubing, caulking, light-weight
washers to fit over PVC tubing.
22. Approximately 2.75 meters (9 feet) of 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d.
tygon tubing, series R-3603 per porous plate.
23. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. glass "T" per porous plate.
24. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. Nalgene "T" per porous plate.
25. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. Nalgene "Y" per porous plate.
26. Two 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. Nalgene quick connects per porous
plate.
197
PROCEDURE 1 (continued)
27. One 1-liter Nalgene, wide-mouth bottle with screw lid or buret
with stopper and needle entry per porous plate.
28. One 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) o.d. hard plastic tube per porous plate.
29. One 1-ml graduated pipet (100 graduations) per porous plate.
30. One ringstand per porous plate.
31. One ring and one ringstand clamp per ringstand.
32. One meter stick with mm graduations per two porous plates.
33. Three to four plastic hose clamps per porous plate.
34. One rubber 9 mm septum.
35. Epoxy.
36. Whatman 42 filter paper, 2.5 pm retention rating.
37. Custom-built porous ceramic plates, appropriate size and number
to perform the desired experiment.
38. Thin all-threaded rod and couplings for holding porous plate to
test block.
Solutions
1. CaC12, 0.001 M, deaerated, with 0.1 g/L thymol.
Procedure
1. Attach rock frame A to the rock using the all-threaded rods and
nuts. The preferred method is to attach the frame while the rock
is lying with the fracture parallel to the table. To ensure that
the frame load is evenly distributed across the rock face, use
brass shim or other non-corroding material to build up low spots
on the rock surface. This procedure may require standing the
rock up.
2. Using a torque wrench, tighten bolts to a torque not exceeding
the initial testing torque. Be sure that the torque is enough to
prevent the rock from separating or moving along the fracture.
3. Drill the ports which extend to the fracture surface:
a. Attach the coring bit to the rotating drill assembly and then
attach both to the drill press. Connect the hose to the
water source.
b. Position the rock so the coring bit is directly over the
intended port. Level the rock such that the port is
perpendicular to the face parallel with the fracture plane.
(Note: This is important because the port should not be
sloping. Such sloping may result in preferential flow to one
end of the circular cylindrical port should the test solution
flow into the cavity during flow and transport tests.) Use
wood blocks, planks, shims or other similar implements to
accomplish this.
198
PROCEDURE 1 (continued)
C. Measure the exposed fracture plane to approximate the
required depth of drilling. Plan to drill to a "safe" depth,
up to 1.0 cm to 1.5 cm shy of the required depth at faster
speeds, e.g., 5 to 7 on the speed dial. Mark the length
corresponding to the "safe" depth and required depth on the
coring bit with a waterproof marker.
d. Clamp the rock down to avoid movement during drilling.
e. Drill, with the water on, until the "safe" depth while
constantly watching for any unusual change in the amount of
water flushing cuttings out of the port. A sudden decrease
of the water flow usually means the fracture plane has been
reached and drilling should cease immediately. Raise the
coring bit and observe any drop in water level in the port
for several minutes, e.g., 5 minutes.
f. Beyond the "safe" depth, drill slowly and at no more than
two-tenths of a centimeter at a time at first, and then onetenth of a centimeter as the required depth is approached.
Raise the coring bit and repeat the water-level check in the
port each time.
g. Check that the required depth is reached by draining the port
of the drilling water which may be laden with cuttings with
the tygon tubing and the syringe. Fill the port back up with
water and watch for changes in the water level. Also check
the port visually with a flashlight, as well as by feel, with
a metal wire down the walls of the port for the fracture
plane. Examine the rock core drilled for evidence that the
fracture plane is reached.
h. After drilling, move the rock to a well-lit area to clean the
port. Use a chisel to chip out any rock pieces still
attached to the end of the port which may obstruct flow and
impede sampling. Flush the port repeatedly with the test
solution in a squirt bottle and bail with the test tube brush
cleaner to remove cuttings. Turn the rock as necessary to
ensure the rock bits and cuttings are flushed out completely.
Watch for wetting of the fracture trace. If several ports
are drilled, observe the influence of the
ports on each other by filling the ports in appropriate
patterns.
4. Drill the ports which end in the rock matrix:
a. Repeat Section 3, Steps a and b above. Mark the length
corresponding to the required depth of the port on the coring
bit with a waterproof marker.
b. Repeat Section 3, Step d above and drill at faster speeds,
slowing down when the required depth is approached.
c. Move the rock to a well-lit area to clean the port by
chiselling and flushing with the test solution.
199
PROCEDURE 1 (continued)
5. Drill the holes in which the LVDT posts will be glued as in
section 4.
6. Clean test block using test solution and a soft bristle brush,
removing any silt or clay accumulated in the shaping and port
drilling.
7. Install the LVDT posts:
a. Use Depend Adhesive only, allowing the posts to be removed at
a later date.
b. Apply the activator to the aluminum post set to be placed in
the rock. One male and one female post constitute a set.
Squeeze in enough adhesive to fill the volume of hole not to
be occupied by the post.
c. Quickly position both posts in the holes, and place both the
LVDT core and coil into their respective posts, checking the
fit of the entire setup.
d. Allow to dry at least 48 hours. The curing time of the glue
varies with how much is used and how the posts are installed.
Be sure the glue is dry before obtaining an initial LVDT
reading.
8. Install the test block and frame A in frame B. This is best
accomplished by standing the block in its testing position on top
of blocks of wood. Stand it such that it is at its testing
elevation. Stand up the corner posts of frame B. Cut the
aluminum U-tube into short lengths (about 5 cm long), and drill
holes in them to accept the bolts. Assemble the galvanized cross
pieces and U-tube pieces, and slide them under the bolts holding
together frame A. Bolt the crossmembers onto the cornerposts.
Ensure that there is no slack beneath the frame A bolts. The wood
blocks may then be pulled out from underneath the rock.
9. Position the entire setup in its testing location.
10. Attach the vinyl to the evaporation canopy frame. Use Weld On
1909 vinyl adhesive to seal the seams. Leave off the top until
the plates have been put on and are operating smoothly.
11. Cut the sampling port PVC tubing to fit each port, and epoxy a
rim on the front end of the tube to hold against the port.
Position the PVC tubing in the sampling port and through the
canopy. Caulk the tubing-canopy interface, using the washers to
provide permanent support. Always keep a stopper in the end of
the sampling port access tube.
12. Connect the LVDTs, and tape the bottom of the vinyl canopy to the
table, sealing off the airspace inside of the evaporation canopy.
13. Start taking LVDT readings.
14. See Figures 1.1, 4.5, and 4.6 for setup.
15. Make sufficient test solution to start experiment.
16. Set up the Mariotte (constant head) reservoirs:
200
PROCEDURE 1 (continued)
a. Drill holes on the bottom and top of the reservoir if a
nalgene bottle is used and epoxy quick connect fittings,
nipple side out. Mark graduations on side of reservoir.
b. Drill hole for air entry tube, insert tube through hole, and
epoxy, if necessary, in place.
c. Position Mariotte reservoir on ringstand or on pegboard.
d. Attach 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d. tygon tubing, at least one
meter in length, from the bottom nipple of the reservoir,
fill reservoir, and clamp off.
17. Set up the flow tube:
a. Break off small end of pipet using a file.
b. Trim one arm and one leg of the nalgene "Y" so that tygon
tubing will just fit over it. Connect leg of "Y" to the
uncut end of the pipet. Attach a nipple over the cut arm of
the "Y", using a small piece of tygon tubing if necessary.
Be sure that a syringe with a bent needle can be inserted
through the needle into the pipet. Attach the free end of
tygon from the reservoir to the free arm of the "Y".
c. Attach a short piece of tygon tubing from the free end of the
pipet to the leg of the "T". Attach a 20-cm length of tygon
tubing to the upper arm of the "T", clamping off the free
end, and connect a long (at least one meter) piece of 6.4-mm
(1/-inch) i.d. tygon tubing to the remaining arm.
d. Wire the flow tube assembly to a white backing on the
pegboard, with both the nipple and the bubble trap facing up.
18. Set up the porous plate:
a. Cut a piece of Whatman 42 filter paper to fit the ceramic
side of the plate.
b. Soak the filter paper in test solution, and then position the
filter paper on the bottom of the plate.
c. Place the plate on rock in desired location.
d. Elevating reservoir, fill tubing with test solution. Clamp
off tubing, and then connect the free end up to the plate.
Use a short piece of tubing and a clamp to clamp off the
other end of the plate.
e. Take off clamps blocking flow through tubing and allow test
solution to displace the air in the plate backing. Carefully
observe the base of each nipple for air bubbles that might be
caught. A flashlight is helpful for this. This procedure
could also be carried out before the plate is positioned on
the test block.
f. Once all of the air is out of the plate backing, reclamp the
exit tube from the plate.
g. Using thin all-threaded rod and corresponding threaded
couplings, tighten the plate to the rock. Use galvanized
steel bolted to the top of frame B as a reaction for the
tightening rod.
201
PROCEDURE 1 (continued)
h. Temporarily tape vinyl over the top of the evaporation
canopy. Leave no air passages around the edges.
i. Make sure there is good contact between the porous plate
(including the filter paper) and the top of the rock. Extra
strips of filter paper should be used to fill in low spots on
the rock surface.
j. Keep track of all volumes of test solution flowing through
the plate. This is especially difficult at the beginning of
an experiment due to adjustments that need to be made to
flush out bubbles.
k. Begin experiment measurements.
202
PROCEDURE 2
PREPARATION OF CALCIUM CHLORIDE TEST SOLUTION
Equipment
1. Weighing scale, with accuracy to milligrams (minimum 0.1 gram).
2. Weighing paper.
3. Spatula.
4. Volumetric flask, 2000 mL.
5. Beaker, 2000 mL.
6. Graduated cylinder, 100 mL.
7. Watch glass, 7 in.
8. Stirring plate.
9. Stir bar.
10. Hot plate.
11. Saran Wrap.
12. Rubber bands.
Chemicals
I. Calcium chloride, CaC12-2H20
2. Thymol chips.
Procedure
1. If the 0.1 M calcium chloride (CaC12-2H20, FW=147.02) solution is
used as stoEk solution, make up 2000 mL by weighing out 29.404 g
of the chemical and transfer to a 2000-mL volumetric flask. Fill
the flask up to the mark with distilled water. Stir to dissolve
crystals completely. Transfer and store in an appropriately
labelled container. Proceed to Step 5 below.
2. If the 0.1 M calcium chloride solution is used as test solution,
make up 2000mL by weighing out 29.110 g of the chemical and
transfer to a 2000-mL volumetric flask. Fill the flask up to the
mark with distilled water. Stir to dissolve crystals completely.
3. Transfer the solution to a 2000-mL beaker and add 0.2 g of thymol
to the solution. Cover the beaker with a watch glass and heat
the solution to a boil. Continue to boil the solution for an
additional two minutes to allow for sufficient deaeration. Watch
that the solution does not boil over by lifting the watch glass
occasionally. (Note: During boiling, approximately two percent of
the water will be lost due to evaporation.)
4. Remove the beaker from the hot plate and replace the watch glass
with plastic Saran wrap. Secure the Saran wrap cover with a
rubber band. Allow the solution to cool sufficiently, e.g.
overnight, before transferring to an appropriately labelled
container.
203
PROCEDURE 2 (continued)
Note:
0.01 M and 0.001 M calcium chloride test solutions are
made (71 p using the "serial dilution" method to minimize
error.
-
5. Make up 2000 mL of 0.01 M calcium chloride solution by measuring
out 198.0 mL of 0.1 M solution and transfer to a 2000-mL
volumetric flask. Fill with distilled water and transfer the
solution to a 2000-mL beaker. Add 0.2 g of thymol to the
solution and follow the procedures detailed in Steps 3 and 4
above.
6. Make up 2000 mL of 0.001 M calcium chloride solution by measuring
out 198.0 mL of 0.01 M solution and transfer to a 2000-mL
volumetric flask. Fill with distilled water and transfer the
solution to a 2000-mL beaker. Add 0.2 g of thymol to the
solution and follow the procedures detailed in Steps 3 and 4
above.
204
PROCEDURE 3
POROUS PLATE CONDUCTANCE MEASUREMENT
Equipment
1. Approximately 2.7 meters (9 feet) of 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) inside
diameter (i.d.) tygon tubing, series R-3603.
2. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) outside diameter (o.d.) glass "T".
3. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. nalgene "T".
4. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. nalgene "Y".
5. Two 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) o.d. nalgene quick connects.
6. One 1-liter nalgene, wide-mouth bottle with screw lid.
7. One 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) o.d. hard plastic tube.
8. One 1-ml graduated pipet (100 graduations).
9. One ringstand.
10. One ring and one ringstand clamp.
11. One meter stick with mm graduations.
12. Three to four plastic hose clamps.
13. Small level.
14. One 3-ml disposable syringe.
15. One calibrated stopwatch.
16. Laboratory recording book and pen.
18. One rubber, 9 mm septum.
19. Epoxy.
Solution
1. CaCl2, 0.001M, with 0.1 g/L thymol.
Procedure
1. Set up the porous plate, tubing, pipet flow tube, manometer, and
Mariotte bottle as described in the procedure for setting up the
rock and supporting equipment. Instead of placing the porous
plate on a rock block, place it in the plastic tub, ceramic side
down. Support the plate off of the bottom of the tub with
washers or stoppers, and use rock cores to hold the plate down.
Make sure that the plate is level. Install a second manometer to
the tub, allowing measurement of the pressure head on the bottom
of the plate. Add enough solution to the tub to cover the plate.
2. Fill the system with solution, and work out any air bubbles. A
flashlight may be helpful in determining if any air is caught in
the plate nipples.
205
PROCEDURE 3 (continued)
3. Set the Mariotte bottle such that the manometer recording the
pressure head on the top of the plate is 5 cm above the manometer
recording the pressure head on the bottom of the plate, that is,
Ah is 5 cm. Allow the flow system to equilibrate. This may be
hastened by using the syringe to extract solution through the
septum until a bubble is forced from the air entry tube in the
Mariotte bottle.
4. Set up an appropriate recording table in the lab book.
5. Record the manometer level(s) prior to injection of the test
bubble.
6. Inject a bubble through the septum into the nalgene "Y". Inject
enough air to create a bubble about 1 to 2 ml in the pipet.
7. When the test bubble has passed beyond the injection arm of the
nalgene "Y", extract enough air and solution to force an air
bubble through the air inlet tube of the Mariotte bottle. This
ensures that the pressure in the system is not overly elevated
due to the injection of the test bubble. Be sure the test bubble
has not been sucked into the injection arm of the nalgene "Y".
8. Start the stopwatch when either the front or the back of the test
bubble has crossed the first graduation. Make sure that the
entire test bubble is in the pipet when a measurement is being
made.
9. Record the times at which the test bubble crosses the 0.2, 0.4,
0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 ml graduations and the manometer heads at these
times. This allows analysis of the bubble movement if desired
and the ability to calculate a time-weighted average Ahp.
10. Repeat the above procedure at least once at the same Ahp after
the test bubble has passed into the trap. Variation will occur
from reading to reading.
11. After two to three runs have been performed at the lowest Ahp,
raise the Mariotte bottle about 5 cm to 10 cm and repeat the
test. This process should be repeated through a Ahp of about 50
cm.
Calculations
1. Average flow rate over 1 mL = 1.0 mL divided by the 1.0 mL time
in minutes. Flow rate is then in cm 3 /min.
2. Average head at the bottom of the plate is calculated by:
Hb p = AH - (Q/C),
where
Hbp = average head at the bottom of the plate in
CFR
AH = total head drop across the plate in cm, which can
also be expressed as Ah p + 0.7 cm, also in cm,
Q = flow rate in cm 3 /min, and
C = plate conductance in cm2/min.
206
PROCEDURE 4
FLOW MEASUREMENT AND HEAD CONTROL
Equipment
1. Small level.
2. One 3-ml disposable syringe.
3. One calibrated stopwatch.
4. Laboratory recording book and pen.
Solution
1. CaCl2, either 0.001M or 0.1 11, saturated with thymol.
Procedure
Note:
1. Flow
a.
b.
See Procedure 1 for setup of test block and instrumentation.
measurement using a pipet flow tube:
Set up an appropriate recording table in the lab book.
Record the manometer level(s) prior to injection of the test
bubble. Measure the manometer from the bottom of the plate;
it will then read total head at the top of the plate.
c. Inject a bubble through the septum into the nalgene "Y".
Inject enough air to create a bubble about 1 to 2 ml in the
pipet.
4
When the test bubble has passed beyond the injection arm of
the nalgene "Y", extract enough air and solution to force an
air bubble through the air inlet tube of the Mariotte
bottle. This ensures that the pressure in the system is not
overly elevated due to the injection of the test bubble. Be
sure the test bubble has not been sucked into the injection
arm of the nalgene "Y".
e. Start the stopwatch when either the front or the back of the
test bubble has crossed the first graduation. Choose the
front or the back of the test bubble to measure such that
the test bubble will always be in the pipet when a
measurement is being made. Record the time and date when
the test was started, that is when the bubble passes the
first graduation.
f. Record the times at which the test bubble crosses the 0.2,
0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 ml graduations. This allows analysis
of the bubble movement if desired.
g. Also record the variations in manometer levels during the
test and a rough time-weighted average level.
h. If one desires to obtain another flow reading, repeat the
above procedure once the test bubble has passed into the
trap. Variation will occur from reading to reading.
2. Flow measurement using Mariotte reservoir:
a. Set up an appropriate recording table in the lab book.
207
PROCEDURE 4 (continued)
b. Record the manometer level(s).
c. Measure the test solution level in the Mariotte reservoir.
d. Record the time and date when the above measurements were
taken.
3. Head control:
a. Adjust the Mariotte reservoir up or down according to the
desired head to be maintained at the top of the test block.
b. When additional test solution is added to the reservoir,
first record the test solution level, clamp off the exit
tube from the reservoir, fill the bottle or buret, unclamp
the exit tube, and reestablish equilibrium by extracting
solution through the septum until an air bubble enters the
reservoir through the air entry tube. Make sure to record
the amount of solution extracted and take it into account
when using the second method of flow rate measurement.
Calculations
1. Flow measurement when pipet flow tube is used:
a. Average flow rate over 1 mL = 1.0 mL divided by the 1.0 mL
time in minutes. Flow rate is then in cm 3 /min.
b. Average pressure head at the bottom of the plate is
calculated by:
hp = Ht
where
(Q/C),
hp = average head at the bottom of the plate
in cm;
Ht = average total head at the top of the plate in
cm, if measured from the bottom of the plate;
Q = flow rate in cm 3 /min;
C = plate conductance in cm 2 /min.
2. Flow measurement when Mariotte reservoir is used:
a. Average flow rate in the time period since the previous
Mariotte reservoir level was taken is just the drop in
reservoir level in cm 3 divided by the time between readings
in minutes.
b. Calculate the average head at the bottom of the plate as in
section lb above.
C. Use an average of the Ht's measured at the two measuring
times used in the calculation.
208
PROCEDURE 5
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER CALIBRATION
Equipment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
MICRO SWITCH 140PC series or 160PC series pressure transducer.
Water manometer and mercury manometer.
Vacuum pump.
About 2.7 meters (9 feet) of 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) inside diameter
(i.d.) tygon, or similar, tubing.
About 1.22 meters (4 feet) of 4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tygon, or
similar tubing.
One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) outside diameter (o.d.) nalgene "T".
Three 6.4- mm (1/4-inch) i.d. hose clamps.
Une 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d. quick-connect.
One 8-volt regulated power supply.
One voltmeter.
One ribbed tygon tubing connector (the type used to connect tygon
tubing to swagelock fittings).
Procedure
1. Divide the 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d. tubing into two pieces, and
connect each piece onto an arm of the nalgene "T" with a hose
clamp. Using the quick-connect, attach the remaining end of one
of the pieces of tubing to the vacuum pump. Fit the free end of
the second section of tubing onto the water manometer, preferably
with a water trap in the line.
2. Connect the 4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tubing onto the remaining arm
of the nalgene "T" with a hose clamp. Fit the other end of the
4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tubing into the swagelock connector and
then over one of the two pressure ports. Attach the tubing to
the port designated to be the low pressure side of the chip. See
the instruction sheet enclosed with the transducer or the MICRO
SWITCH catalog A15, issue 2.
3. Hook up the regulated power supply and the voltmeter to the
pressure transducer in the configuration specified in the
instruction sheet. Note: If correct input and output
connections are not made, the unit may be damaged. It is
recommended that any connecting wires not be soldered directly to
the leads protruding from the transducer, but that they be
soldered to a removable multi-prong plate that can be held onto
the transducer with a rubber band.
209
PROCEDURE 5 (continued)
4. Prior to applying a partial vacuum to the transducer, turn on the
power supply and voltmeter. Verify that the input to the
transducer is 8 volts dc. Measure the voltage output with no
pressure differential across the chip, that is, between the two
pressure ports. This reading should be stable to at least two or
three decimal points. Since this reading is very important, take
it a number of times during the calibration.
5. Using the vacuum pump, carefully apply a small suction to the
transducer, and measure the output when stable. Increase the
suction slightly, and measure the output again. Continue this
process until the limit of either the manometer or the transducer
has been reached. The upper limit of the linear output of the
162PCO1D transducer is 27.68 inches of water pressure across the
cnip. Under no circumstances should greater than 5 psi
differential pressure be applied across the chip. Therefore,
only the water manometer should be used with this unit. The
upper limit of the linear output of the 142PC150 unit is 15 psi
differential pressure. Twenty psi differential pressure should
never be exceeded using this transducer. Once the limit of the
water manometer has been reached with the 142PC15D transducer,
the mercury manometer should be used to apply differential
pressures up to 15 psi.
6. Repeat step 5 at least once.
Calculations
1. Determine a mean (arithmetic) zero-pressure voltage (zpv) for
readings taken when no partial vacuum was applied across the
chip, i.e., P1 - p2
O.
2. Determine a "corrected" output voltage by subtracting this value
from each of the output voltages obtained when suctions were
applied to the transducer.
3. Calculate a mean (arithmetic) pressure/corrected output voltage
ratio (p/v).
4. To determine the pressure represented by a given output voltage:
Pressure (cm H20) = (ov - zpv)(p/v),
where
ov = measured output, volts,
zpv = mean zero-pressure voltage,
p/v = mean corrected pressure/voltage
ratio, cm H20/volt.
210
PROCEDURE 6
MICROTENSIOMETER CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, AND USE
Equipment
1. One Soilmoisture Equipment 1-bar porous ceramic cup, 10.2 cm (4
inches) in length, 11.1-mm (7/16-inch) outside diameter (o.d.),
and 7.1-mm (9/32-inch) inside diameter (i.d.).
2. One Whatman pure cotton cellulose extraction thimble, 10 mm i.d.,
either single-wall or double-wall thickness.
3. One two foot length of 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) o.d. stainless steel
tubing.
4. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) length piece of 12.7-mm (1/2-inch) diameter
solid aluminum rod.
5. One Al solid rubber stopper with a 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) diameter
hole drilled through the center of the stopper, lengthwise (1/8inch diameter drill bit used).
6. Short length of A22 copper wire.
7. Epoxy.
8. One connection assembly, consisting of a 2.9-cm (1-1/8-inch)
length of 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d. vacuum hose, two small hose
clamps, one 7.9-mm (5/16-inch) i.d. ribbed, swagelock tubing
coupling, and various short lengths of 2.4-mm (3/32-inch) i.d.
and 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) i.d. tygon tubing.
9. One calibrated MICRO SWITCH 140PC series or 160PC series pressure
transducer.
10. One saturation assembly, consisting of a saturation chamber,
pressure gauge, vacuum pump and delivery hoses.
11. One disposable 3 mm syringe.
12. 8-volt regulated power supply with attached, precise voltage
regulator.
13. Hewlett Packard (HP) 41CV calculator, with ROMPAC, HPIL, and time
modules or sensitive voltmeter.
14. HP 3421 Data Aquisition unit or sensitive voltmeter.
15. Appropriate lengths of shielded A18-A22 wire.
16. One constant head reservoir/flow tube setup (see Procedure 1).
17. One plywood evaporation control box, large enough to contain one
20.2 cm by 8.6 cm porous ceramic plate. Two access tubes placed
10 cm apart.
18. One porous ceramic plate, 8.6 cm by 20.2 cm, saturated with test
solution.
If the pressure transducer requires that the high side of the
chip be the wet side, the following will also be needed:
19. Water manometer and mercury manometer.
20. Hand-operated vacuum pump.
21. About 2.7 meters (9 feet) of 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) inside diameter
(i.d.) tygon, or similar, tubing.
211
PROCEDURE 6 (continued)
22. About 1.22 meters (4 feet) of 4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tygon, or
similar tubing.
23. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) outside diameter (o.d.) nalgene "T".
24. Three 6.4- mm (1/4-inch) i.d. hose clamps.
25. One 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) i.d. quick-connect.
26. One ribbed tygon tubing connector (the type used to connect tygon
tubing to swagelock fittings).
Reagents
1. Sufficient amount of deaerated, distilled water to cover the
porous cup in the saturation chamber.
2. Test solution: 10 -3 M CaC12, with 0.1 g/L thymol.
Procedure
1. Microtensiometer construction and assembly:
a. Cut enough of the stainless steel tubing to allow the
tensiometer to reach the fracture from the outside of the
evaporation canopy.
b. Drill a 3.2-mm (1/8-inch) diameter hole through the center
of the flat edge of the aluminum rod.
c. Epoxy the stainless steel tube through the hole in the
aluminum rod with one end of the steel tube flush with edge
of the aluminum rod.
d. Cut the rounded, 6.4-mm (1/4-inch) end of the porous ceramic
cup off with a hacksaw and epoxy the remaining cup onto the
flush edge of the aluminum rod.
e. Fit the Al stopper over the open end of the stainless steel
tubing.
1. Cut the cotton cellulose extraction thimble to fit snugly
over the porous cup, and tie the thimble onto the cup with a
small piece of A22 copper wire.
g. Assemble the vacuum tubing connector that will join the
stainless steel tube to the pressure transducer by inserting
the ribbed, swagelock tubing connector into the vacuum
tubing and sliding this end of the connector over the
pressure transducer. Insert hose clamps over the free end
of the vacuum tubing.
h. Place the tensiometer into the saturation chamber, and
evacuate the chamber for at least 24 hours.
i. Turn off the vacuum pump, and introduce the deaerated,
distilled water into the chamber. Cover at least the entire
cup and aluminum rod of the tensiometer. Let the
tensiometer fill with the distilled water for at least 8
hours.
212
PROCEDURE 6 (continued)
j. If the tensiometer was not completely covered by distilled
water in the saturation chamber, fill the remainder of the
tensiometer stem by applying a suction with a hand vacuum
pump to the open end of the stainless steel tubing.
1. Using a syringe, fill the pressure transducer port and
vacuum tubing connector with deaerated, distilled water.
m. Gently join the vacuum tubing connector and the open end of
the stainless steel tubing. Tighten the hose clamps on both
ends of the vacuum tubing connector.
n. Store the assembled tensiometer under deaerated, distilled
water or in the rock, against the fracture.
2. Microtensiometer calibration:
a. Assemble the porous ceramic plate in the evaporation control
box with the ceramic side of the plate facing the access
tubes.
b. Fill the Mariotte reservoir and tubing, connecting up the
plate to the tubing. Bleed all air from the system as
described in Procedure I.
c. Use the microtensiometer in the access ports as described in
sections 3 and 4 below. Take readings from both the upper
and lower ports at various applied heads.
d. Prepare a calibration curve or develop a correction factor
to allow use of the microtensiometer in the test blocks.
3. To use the microtensiometer if the low pressure side of the
transducer chip is the wet side:
a. Hook up the regulated power supply and the voltmeter to the
pressure transducer in the configuration specified in the
instruction sheet. Note: If correct input and output
connections are not made, the unit may be damaged. If the
HP system is used, be sure to turn off the calculator when
the data aquisition unit is being hooked up. The system is
rather delicate. It is recommended that any connecting
wires not be soldered directly to the leads protruding from
the transducer, but that they be soldered to a removable
multi-prong plate that can be held onto the transducer with
a rubber band.
b. Place the tensiometer assembly in the access tube leading to
the sampling port in which a reading is desired. Adjust the
stopper such that the tip of the tensiometer lies against
the back end of the sampling port.
c. Monitor the pressure transducer output until a stable
reading is obtained. The microtensiometer may take a while
to equilibrate, especially if much water is moving in or out
through the porous cup. Apply the correction factor or
calibration curve obtained in section 2 to obtain the
suction in the sampling port.
d. Repeat steps a through d for additional sampling ports.
213
PROCEDURE 6 (continued)
4. To use the microtensiometer if the low pressure side of the
transducer chip is the dry
( side:
a. Divide the 6.4-mm 1/4-inch) i.d. tubing into two pieces,
and connect each piece onto an arm of the nalgene "T" with a
hose clamp. Using the quick-connect, attach the remaining
end of one of the pieces of tubing to the vacuum pump. Fit
the free end of the second section of tubing onto the water
manometer, preferably with a water trap in the line.
b. Connect the 4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tubing onto the
remaining arm of the nalgene "T" with a hose clamp. Fit the
other end of the 4.8-mm (3/16-inch) i.d. tubing into the
swagelock connector and then over one of the two pressure
ports. Attach the tubing to the port designated to be the
low pressure side of the chip. See the instruction sheet
enclosed with the transducer or the MICRO SWITCH catalog
number 15, issue 2.
c. Using the vacuum pump apply a partial vacuum to the
transducer, and proceed as described in section 3a through
3e. Remember, the upper limit of the linear output of the
162PCO1D transducer is 27.68 inches of water pressure across
the chip. Under no circumstances should greater than 5 psi
differential pressure be applied across the chip.
Therefore, only the water manometer should be used with this
unit. The upper limit of the linear output of the 142PC15D
unit is 15 psi differential pressure. Twenty psi
differential pressure should never be exceeded using this
transducer. Once the limit of the water manometer has been
reached with the 142PC15D transducer, the mercury manometer
should be used to apply differential pressures up to 15 psi.
214
PROCEDURE 7
LVDT CALIBRATION
Equipment
1. TRANS•TEK 0242-0000 linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT).
2. 15-volt regulated power supply with attached, precise voltage
regulator.
3. Hewlett Packard (HP) 41CV calculator, with ROMPAC, HPIL, and time
modules or sensitive voltmeter.
4. HP 3421 Data Aquisition unit or sensitive voltmeter.
5. Appropriate lengths of shielded .618-622 wire.
6. Partially welded or welded tuff sample with two 1.91 cm (3/4inch) holes drilled 7.62cm (3 inches) apart and about 5.08 cm
deep.
7. Mitutoyo 0-25 mm micrometer with hole tapped in end to receive
the threaded end of the LVDT core.
8. Two aluminum LVDT holders with female heads.
9. One 1.91 cm (3/4-inch) outside diameter (o.d.) aluminum ring.
Inside diameter (i.d.) should be 1.20 cm (0.473 inches) to fit
over the front end of the micrometer.
10. Loctite brand Depend Adhesive.
11. Blowtorch if aluminum LVDT holders are to be removed from rock.
Procedure
1. At least two days prior to calibration, glue the LVDT holders
into the rock. Ensure that the LVDT coil will line up in the
holders.
2. Slip the aluminum ring over the front end of the micrometer, and
screw the LVDT core into the micrometer.
3. Slip the ring and micrometer into one of the LVDT holders, and
tighten the screws to secure the assembly. Advance the
micrometer to about half of its length.
4. Place the LVDT coil into the other LVDT holder, making sure that
the core slides freely inside of the coil. Do not yet tighten
the screws on the coil holder.
5. Connect the electronics according the TRANS*TEK instruction sheet
and the instruction sheets to the HP system or the voltmeter. If
the HP system is used to measure voltage, be sure that the
calculator is off prior to hooking up the calculator to the data
aquisition unit. The system is rather delicate.
6. Connect the power supply according to the TRANS*TEK instructions.
7. Find the zero point (the point at which the core is evenly spaced
between the two output coils of the coil assembly, giving a zero
output) by gently sliding the coil towards or away from the
micrometer. Once this point has been found, tighten the screws
holding the coil.
215
PROCEDURE 7 (continued)
8. Record the exact voltage reading at the zero point.
9. Since the TRANS*TEK 0242-0000 has a working range of 0.635 cm
(0.25 inches) on either side of the zero point, take 6 readings
on each side of the zero point, each reading 1 mm farther out
from the last. Advance the micrometer, take a reading, and
record the exact values of both the voltage and the micrometer
distance. Occasionally, check the input voltage to ensure
stability of the input.
Calculations
1. Prepare a graph of the results by plotting the micrometer
readings (y-axis) versus the output voltage (x-axis). The output
should fall along a straight line if the LVDT is working
correctly. Using the least squares method, determine the slope
of the line.
2. Use the slope, in mm/volt or micrometers/mvolt, to interpret the
relative movement of the LVDT during actual use.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Chuang, Y., 1988, Solute Transport Measurement by Ion-Selective
Electrodes in Fracture Tuff, M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona.
Davis, S.N., and R.J.M. De Wiest, 1966, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and
Sons, 463 pp.
de Marsily, G., 1986, Quantitative Hydrogeology, Groundwater Hydrology
for Engineers, Academic Press, Inc., 440 pp.
Engelder, T., and C.H. Scholz, 1981, Fluid Flow Along Very Smooth
Joints at Effective Pressure up to 200 Megapascals, in Mechanical
Behavior of Crustal Rocks, Geophysical Monograph Series, AGU,
24:147-152.
Evans, D.D., 1988, Unsaturated Flow and Transport Through Fractured
Rock Related to High-level Waste Repositories, NRC 04-86-114
Progress Report.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
604 pp.
Gale, J.E., 1982, The Effects of Fracture Type (Induced Versus Natural)
on the Stress-Fracture Closure-Fracture Permeability
Relationships, in Proceedings at 23rd Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Berkeley, CA, 290-298.
Gale, J.E., A. Rouleau, and L.C. Atkinson, 1985, Hydraulic Properties
of Fractures, in International Association of Hydrogeologists
Memoires of Congress on Hydrology of Rocks of Low Permeability,
Tucson, AZ, 17(1):1-16.
Glover, R.E., 1953, Flow from a Test-hole Located Above Groundwater
Level, in Theory and Problems of Water Percolation, U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation Engineering Monograph No. 8, 66-71.
Hillel, D., 1971, Soil and Water, Physical Principles and Processes,
Academic Press, Inc., 288 pp.
Hillel, D., 1980, Fundamentals of Soil Physics, Academic Press, Inc.,
413 pp.
216
217
SELECTED REFERENCES (continued)
Iwai, K., 1976, Fundamental Studies of Fluid Flow Through a Single
Fracture, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
Kilbury, R.K., 1984, Water Intake at the Atmosphere-Earth Interface in
a Fractured Rock System Near Patagonia, Arizona, M.S. Thesis,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Kilbury, R.K., T.C. Rasmussen, D.D. Evans, and A.W. Warrick, 1986,
Water and Air Intake of Surface-Exposed Rock Fractures in Situ,
Water Resources Research, 22(10):1431-1443.
Klute, A., and C. Kirksen, 1986, Hydraulic Conductivity and
Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods, in Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, American Society of
Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Number 9, pp. 687-734.
Lomize, G.M., 1951, Flow in Fracture Rocks (in Russian),
Gosenergoizdat, Moscow, U.S.S.R., 127pp.
Louis, C., 1969, A Study of Groundwater Flow in Jointed Rock and Its
Influence on the Stability of Rock Masses, Rock Mechanics
Research Report 10, Imperial College, London, England, 90 pp.
Peterson, D.W., 1961, Dacitic Ash-Flow Sheet Near Superior and Globe,
Arizona, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.
Peterson, D.W., 1968, Zoned Ash-Flow Sheet in the Region Around
Superior, Arizona, in Southern Arizona Guidebook III, Geological
Society of America, pp. 215-222.
Philip, J.R., 1969, Theory of Infiltration, Advances in Hydroscience,
5:216-296.
Philip, J.R., 1985, Approximate Analysis of the Borehole Permeameter in
Unsaturated Soil, Water Resources Research, 21(7):1025-1033.
Rahi, K.A., 1986, Hydraulic Conductivity Assessment for a VariablySaturated Rock Matrix, M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona.
Rasmussen, T.C., 1988, Fluid Flow and Solute Transport Modeling Through
Three-Dimensional Networks of Variably Saturated Discrete
Fractures, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
218
SELECTED REFERENCES (continued)
Rasmussen, T.C., and D.D. Evans, 1987, Unsaturated Flow and Transport
Through Fractured Rock Related to High-Level Waste Repositories,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., NUREG/CR-4655.
Rasmussen, T.C., and D.D. Evans, 1988, Fluid Flow and Solute Transport
Modeling Through Three-Dimensional Networks of Variably Saturated
Discrete Fractures, Nuclear Regulatory commission, Washington,
D.C., NUREG/CR-5239.
Reda, D.C., and G.R. Hadley, 1986, Saturated Permeability Measurements
On Pumice and Welded-Tuffaceous Materials, Environ. Geol. Water
Sci., 8(3):137-145.
Reginato,
and C.H.M. Van Bavel, 1964, Soil Water Measurement with
Gamma Attenuation, Soil Sci. Soc. Proc., 28:721-724.
Schrauf, T.W., 1984, Relationship Between the Gas Conductivity and
Geometry of a Natural Fracture, M.S. Thesis, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Schrauf, T.W., and D.D. Evans, 1986, Laboratory Studies of Gas Flow
Through a Single Natural Fracture, Water Resources Research,
22(7):1038-1050.
Sharp, J.C., 1970, Fluid Flow Through Fissure Media, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of London, Imperial College of Science
and Technology, London, England.
Smith, L., C.W. Mase, and R.W. Schwartz, 1987, Estimation of Fracture
Aperture Using Hydraulic and Tracer Tests, in 28th U.S. Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, AZ, 453-463.
Smith, S., 1987, Geologic Isolation of High-Level Radioactive Waste:
Putting It Away Forever, Water Well Journal, 41(4):31-39.
Trautz, R.C., 1984, Rock Fracture Aperture and Gas Conductivity
Measurements In Situ, M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
Tsang, Y.W., 1984, The Effect of Tortuosity on Fluid Flow Through a
Single Fracture, Water Resources Research, 20(9):1209-1215.
Tsang, Y.W., 1987, Channel Model of Flow Through Fractured Media, Water
Resources Research, 23(3):467-479.
219
SELECTED REFERENCES (continued)
Wang, J.S.Y., and T.N. Narasimhan, 1985, Hydrologic Mechanisms
Governing Fluid Flow in a Partially Saturated, Fractured, Porous
Medium, Water Resources Research, 21(12):1861-1874.
Weber, D.S., 1987, Stable Isotopes of Authigenic Minerals in VariablySaturated Fractured Tuff, M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement