TOUGH2 software qualification

Modifications and additions to selected TOUGH2 modules

“…The formal structure and architecture of the different modules, functional requirements of the software and the implementation details are discussed in detail in Wu et al (1996). Considerations of code design, structure, logic, data structure and flow, performance requirements and design constraints of the TOUGH2 code is given in Pruess et al (1996).…”

“…Considerations of code design, structure, logic, data structure and flow, performance requirements and design constraints of the TOUGH2 code is given in Pruess et al (1996).…”

“…In the dual-permeability model, the fractured blocks interact with the matrix blocks according to the interface area between the two connecting blocks and their respective state variables. In the previous qualified version (Pruess et al, 1996), the complete fracture-matrix interface area was available by the setting isotropic parameter, ISOT=l, for each fracture-matrix connection. However, there is evidence that fracture-matrix interaction in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountah is limited due to fingering flow in fractures (Glass et al, 1996) and mineral coatings on the fracture surfaces, and in fact there may be only part of fracturematrix interface areas that contributes fracture-matrix inter flow.…”

“…The Validation Test Plan for the TOUGH2 modules consists of the TOUGH2 Validation Test Plan described in Pruess et al (1996) and the verification test runs conducted to check the performance specifications listed above. Based on the Software Life Cycle approach, software verification refers to the checking procedure to ensure that implementation fulfiis the requirements of the design stage, whereas validation means that the operational code satisfies all the provisions specified in the requirements stage.…”

“…The acceptance criteria for these TOUGH2 modules are similar to those used for standard TOUGH2 (Pruess et., 1996;Wu et al, 1996). The acceptance criteria used in the previous studies ( W u et al, 1996) was the demonstartion that the results for the TOUGH2 simulation and the analytical solution differed by five percent or less (95% or better agreement).…”