Eignung verschiedener Durchlässigkeitsversuche

Heitfeld, Michael; Mohrdieck, Peter; Schetelig, Kurt

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58851-8_11

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lugeon or water pressure tests (WD-test from German "Wasserdruck-") are mainly used in hydropower dam and tunnel projects and give a rough estimate of the hydromechanical properties of single fractures and [Denzel et al, 1997;Heitfeld et al, 1998;Prinz and Strauß, 2012;Sievänen, 2001;Snow, 1979;Steiner et al, 2006], roughly agreeing with the compiled data (Tables 1 and 2).…”

Section: Sampling Bias and Limitations Of The Test Methods Consideredsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…These tests are short term with a maximum depth of some hundred meters. Permeabilities are approximated by empirical solutions and are reported to range between 1E−18 and 1E−8 m 2 [ Denzel et al , ; Heitfeld et al , ; Prinz and Strauß , ; Sievänen , ; Snow , ; Steiner et al , ], roughly agreeing with the compiled data (Tables and ).…”

Section: Technical Factors Controlling Permeability Distributionsmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Based on high-quality flow rate and pressure monitoring data, diagnostic plots and heterogeneous flow models with various types of inner and outer boundary conditions [Horne, 1995;Kruseman and de Ridder, 1991] can be applied to the analysis of such packer test data. Thus, packer test results can have a very high accuracy and cover a wide permeability range, as shown by the compiled data set [ Table 1; Almén et al, 1986;Clauser, 1991;Heitfeld et al, 1998;Lee et al, 1982;Leech et al, 1984;Prinz and Strauß, 2012;Steiner et al, 2006].…”

Section: Sampling Bias and Limitations Of The Test Methods Consideredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Controls on site‐scale permeabilities can be roughly separated into technical and geological factors. Technical factors relate to the measurement method [e.g., Butler and Healey , ; Heitfeld et al , ; Prinz and Strauß , ; Scibek et al , ; Steiner et al , ], the tested interval length and its orientation, the radius of influence, or the tested rock volume [e.g., Clauser , ; Follin and Stigsson , ; Guéguen et al , ; Illman and Tartakovsky , ; Mattila and Tammisto , ; Nastev et al , ; Rumble , ; Schulze‐Makuch et al , ; ; Shapiro et al , ; Winkler and Reichl , ; Zimmermann et al , ; Zlotnik et al , ]. The nature and distribution of fractures is the most important geological factor determining permeability distribution at site scale in crystalline basement, as fractures provide secondary porosity and connectivity [e.g., Long et al , ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A new global database to improve predictions of permeability distribution in crystalline rocks at site scale

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive worldwide permeability data set has been compiled consisting of 29,000 in situ permeabilities from 221 publications and reports and delineating the permeability distribution in crystalline rocks into depths of 2000 meters below ground surface (mbgs). We analyze the influence of technical factors (measurement method, scale effects, preferential sampling, and hydraulic anisotropy) and geological factors (lithology, current stress regime, current seismotectonic activity, and long‐term tectonogeological history) on the permeability distribution with depth, by using regression analysis and k‐means clustering. The influence of preferential sampling and hydraulic anisotropy are negligible. A scale dependency is observed based on calculated rock test volumes equaling 0.6 orders of magnitude of permeability change per order of magnitude of rock volume tested. Based on the entire data set, permeability decreases as log(k) = −1.5 × log(z) − 16.3 with permeability k (m2) and positively increasing depth z (km), and depth is the main factor driving the permeability distribution. The permeability variance is about 2 orders of magnitude at all depths, presumably representing permeability variations around brittle fault zones. Permeability and specific yield/storage exhibit similar depth trends. While in the upper 200 mbgs fracture flow varies between confined and unconfined, we observe confined fracture and matrix flow below about 600 mbgs depth. The most important geological factors are current seismotectonic activity (determined by peak ground acceleration) and long‐term tectonogeological history (determined by geological province). The impact of lithology is less important. Based on the regression coefficients derived for all the geological key factors, permeability ranges of crystalline rocks at site scale can be predicted. First tests with independent data sets are promising.

show abstract

Section: Sampling Bias and Limitations Of The Test Methods Consideredsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Technical Factors Controlling Permeability Distributionsmentioning

confidence: 55%