<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ADGEO</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Advances in Geosciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ADGEO</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Adv. Geosci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7359</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/adgeo-56-117-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Evaluating Flow in Fractal-Fracture Networks:
<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Effect of Variable Aperture</article-title><alt-title>Evaluating Flow in Fractal-Fracture Networks</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Evaluating Flow in Fractal-Fracture Networks}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A. K. Sahu and A. Roy}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>Sahu</surname><given-names>Ajay K.</given-names></name>
          <email>akumarsahu@iitkgp.ac.in</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Roy</surname><given-names>Ankur</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Deysarkar Centre of Excellence in Petroleum Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, 721302, India</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Ajay K. Sahu (akumarsahu@iitkgp.ac.in)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>November</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>56</volume>
      <fpage>117</fpage><lpage>128</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>June</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>2</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>20</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Ajay K. Sahu</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021.html">This article is available from https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e84">While fractal models are often employed for describing the
geometry of fracture networks, a constant aperture is mostly assigned to all
the fractures when such models are flow simulated. In nature however, almost
all fracture networks exhibit variable aperture values and it is this
fracture aperture that controls the conductivity of individual fractures as
described by the well-known cubic-law. It would therefore be of practical
interest to investigate flow patterns in a fractal-fracture network where
the apertures scale in accordance to their position in the hierarchy of the
fractal. A set of synthetic fractal-fracture networks and two well-connected
natural fracture maps that belong to the same fractal system are used for
this purpose. A set of dominant sub-networks are generated from a given
fractal-fracture map by systematically removing the smaller fracture
segments with narrow apertures. The connectivity values of the
fractal-fracture networks and their respective dominant sub-networks are
then computed. Although a large number of fractures with smaller aperture
are eliminated, no significant decrease is seen in the connectivity of the
dominant sub-networks. A streamline simulator based on Darcy's law is used
for flow simulating the fracture networks, which are conceptualized as
two-dimensional fracture continuum models. A single high porosity value is
assigned to all the fractures. The permeability assigned to fractures within
the continuum model is based on their aperture values and there is nearly no
matrix porosity and permeability. The recovery profiles and time-of-flight
plots for each network and its dominant sub-networks at different time steps
are compared. The results from both the synthetic networks and the natural
data show that there is no significant decrease in fluid recovery in the
dominant sub-networks compared to their respective parent fractal-fracture
networks. It may therefore be concluded that in the case of such
hierarchical fractal-fracture systems with scaled aperture, the smaller
fractures do not significantly contribute to connectivity or fluid flow. In
terms of decision making, this result will aid geoscientists and engineers
in identifying only those fractures that ultimately matter in evaluating the
flow recovery, thus building models that are computationally less expensive
while being geologically realistic.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e96">Fluid flow and transport characteristics in fractured media are controlled
by connectivity and conductivity of fracture networks. The effect of
connectivity on flow behavior of fracture networks is well studied by many
researchers (Robinson, 1983; Berkowitz and Balberg, 1993; Berkowitz, 1995; de
Dreuzy et al., 2002; Sahu and Roy, 2020). However, when it comes to simulating
flow in such networks, an average value of aperture is assigned in most
cases (Min et al., 2004; Hardebol et al., 2015; Chen, 2020) even though it
has been recognized that such assumption of constant fracture aperture is an
oversimplification (Odling and Roden, 1997). Aperture is the void space
between two surfaces of a fracture. They vary in size from micrometres to
centimetres as they result not only from mechanical misfit of fracture walls
but also from chemical dissolution, and overburden pressure (Bonnet et al.,
2001). Hence, the characterization of aperture distribution is important as
it controls the rock mass hydro-mechanical properties of fracture networks
(Kaulatilake et al., 2006). Neretnieks et al. (1982) experimentally
illustrated that flow channelling occurs in individual fractures and mostly
through highly preferential pathways in fracture networks. Cacas et al. (1990a, b) showed that broad distribution of fracture conductivities
(apertures) is the main cause of high degree of flow channelling. Berkowitz (2002) pointed<?pagebreak page118?> out that even a well-connected fracture network can display
sparse preferential flow paths if the distribution of fracture aperture is
significantly wide. Klepikova et al. (2014) showed that inversion of
borehole temperature profiles under predefined pumping conditions can be
applied for the detection of main permeable fractures. Although this
approach of using temperature tomography does not identify all flowing
fractures, it allows the detection of the most transmissive ones. A study on
fracture insertion and deletion based on DFN transdimensional inversion
using reversible jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo (rjMCMC) algorithm was
carried out by Somogyvari et al. (2017). One interesting conclusion of this
research is that no breakthrough is observed in fractures with smaller
apertures within the simulated time. However, there is limited information
in the literature that help researchers in realistically assigning a
distribution of apertures in fracture network models.</p>
      <p id="d1e99">In many cases, such fracture aperture distribution is observed to follow a
power law in naturally fractured reservoirs (Bour and Davy, 1997) and hence,
the occurrence of smaller fractures with narrow aperture is more frequent
than fractures of longer length with broader aperture (Somogyvari et al.,
2017). The fluid flow behavior in each individual fracture element is
controlled by the hydraulic aperture and length of the fractures (Bour and
Davy, 1997; de Dreuzy et al., 2002; Darcel et al., 2003; Baghbanan and Jing,
2007). Therefore, the characterization of aperture distribution in fracture
networks and its effect on flow behaviour is crucial in identifying the
dominant fractures that serve as preferential pathways in fracture networks.</p>
      <p id="d1e102">This research investigates how aperture distribution affects the
connectivity and fluid flow in fractal-fracture networks and whether
fractures with smaller apertures contribute significantly in terms of the
overall flow recovery. One of the objectives of this study is to aid
modellers in their decision-making process on how much of information (data)
should be incorporated in building fracture models that are geologically
realistic, i.e., the smallest apertures that can be eliminated from models
without significantly affecting the flow while being computationally less
expensive. In order to meet this objective, dominant sub-networks have been
identified that are generated by the elimination of smaller fractures from a
parent fractal-fracture network but nonetheless, have very similar fluid
recovery to that of the latter. Fractures are assumed to have clean
openings, that is, those that have the entire fracture width available for
flow. In other words, we consider the hydraulic aperture (Snow, 1969; Neuzil
and Tracy, 1981; Barton et al., 1985).</p>
      <p id="d1e105">The connectivity and flow behavior of a set of synthetic fractal-fracture
networks, both deterministic and random (Roy et al., 2007), and their
dominant sub-networks, where apertures scale in accordance to their position
in the hierarchy of a fractal model, are studied. A dominant sub-network is
obtained by systemically eliminating fractures with smaller aperture from
the parent network (Gong and Rossen, 2017). In order to simulate flow, a
fracture continuum (FC) model is considered which is similar to those used
by Langevin (2003), Neuman (2005), Svensson (2001a, b) and Tsang et al. (1996).
Cells in the FC model are assigned porosity and permeability values
depending on whether they represent fracture or matrix. A high porosity
value is assigned to all the cells that represent fractures. Permeability
values of “fracture cells” are computed based on the cubic law (aperture)
and there is nearly no matrix porosity or permeability. Trace3D, a Darcy
based streamline simulator (Datta-Gupta and King, 2007) is used for
modelling fluid flow in the FC models. The concept thus developed, is then
applied to a natural fracture map (Odling, 1997) and its dominant
sub-network to demonstrate that in case of real data, fractures with smaller
apertures may be excluded from the flow model without significantly
affecting recovery. The dominant sub-network in this case has been generated
from a lower resolution map of original fracture map which captured only the
thick and longer fractures.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Method Development</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Generation of fractal-fracture networks and their dominant sub-networks</title>
      <p id="d1e123">Fractal-fracture networks can serve as useful models for quantitative
evaluation of heterogeneity and complexity of reservoir rocks. These models
can be used to study properties like scaling of fractures, aperture
distribution and fracture network geometry that affect the fluid flow
behavior in a fracture system (Berkowitz and Hadad, 1997). In this study,
fractal-fracture networks are modeled as deterministic and random Sierpinski
lattices composed of self-similar segments in two dimensions. These are
generated using three parameters: the scale factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the iteration level,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the initial number of un-fractured blocks, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as described in Roy et al. (2007). In order to investigate the effect
of aperture on fluid flow in such networks, rather than using a constant
value, the fracture apertures are assigned a distribution such that they
scale in accordance with their hierarchy in the network as described in
Eq. (1). It may be noted that there exists a positive correlation
between the length of the fractures and their aperture values in this model.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M7" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the scale factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aperture of a fracture segment that
was generated at the iteration, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum number of
iterations used for generating the entire fractal-fracture network. In this
case, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e274">A set of dominant sub-networks (Fig. 1) are generated from a given parent
fractal-fracture network by systematically eliminating fractures with
smaller apertures from the latter (Gong and Rossen, 2017). This is done in
order to test<?pagebreak page119?> whether fractures with such smaller apertures significantly
contribute to the connectivity and flow in such networks. It helps in
understanding whether the sub-networks (left after removing the smaller
apertures) carry most of the injected fluids. Further, it also addresses the
importance of these sub-networks in characterization of flow in fractured
reservoirs.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e279"><bold>(a–c)</bold> Deterministic fractal-fracture network <bold>(a)</bold> and its dominant
sub-network-I <bold>(b)</bold> and dominant sub-network-II <bold>(c)</bold>. <bold>(d–f)</bold> Random fractal-fracture network <bold>(d)</bold> and its dominant
sub-network-I <bold>(e)</bold> and dominant sub-network-II <bold>(f)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e313">As the dominant sub-networks are obtained by removing fractures with smaller
aperture, it is important to keep count of the numbers of fractures
eliminated at each step. A MATLAB toolbox, FracPaQ (Healy et al., 2017) is
used for this and the results are shown in Fig. 2. Compared to that of the
parent fractal-fracture network, the number of fractures decreases by 75 %
in dominant sub-network-I and by 85 % in dominant sub-network-II.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e318">Number of fracture segments vs. aperture for a fractal-fracture
network and its dominant sub-networks-I and -II.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e327">In Fig. 2, it is seen that the parent fractal-fracture network (red bars)
consists of apertures of all values, i.e., 100 to 3200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m.
Dominant sub-network-I (green bars) is generated by removing the 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m apertures from the parent network and has apertures ranging from 200 to 3200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. Dominant sub-network-II (purple bars) is generated by
removing both the 100 and 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m apertures. It therefore, has
apertures ranging from 400 to 3200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. Figure 2 is applicable to
both deterministic and random fractal-fracture networks as they have the
same length and aperture distributions but differ only in the spatial
distribution of the fracture segments.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Connectivity of fractal-fracture networks and their dominant
sub-networks</title>
      <p id="d1e378">The connectivity of a fracture network is an important factor in determining
flow and transport characteristics (Robinson, 1983; Berkowitz and Balberg,
1993; Berkowitz, 1995; de Dreuzy et al., 2002; Sahu and Roy, 2020). Topological
graph theory uses the relative abundance of three types of nodes in a
fracture network to define the connectivity (Sanderson and Nixon, 2015; Sanderson et al.,
2019). These nodes are: X (cross-cutting), Y (abutting) and I (isolated) as
shown in Fig. 3. The relative abundance of these different types of nodes in
fractal-fracture networks and their respective dominant sub-networks are
estimated by FracPaQ, a MATLAB tool box for quantification of fracture
patterns from 2D images (Healy et al., 2017).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e383">Schematic fracture network showing three different types of nodes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e392">Manzocchi (2002) defines the topological connectivity of fracture networks
in terms of a single parameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as in Eq. (2):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M20" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the proportions of I (isolated)
nodes, Y (abutting) nodes and X (crosscutting) nodes respectively. The sum
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">I</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is always equal to 1.</p>
      <p id="d1e515">The connectivity values of the deterministic and random fractal-fracture
networks and, their respective dominant sub-networks, are shown in Table 1.
It is no surprise that the connectivity of the dominant sub-networks
decreases because these are generated by eliminating a large number of
smaller aperture fractures from the parent network. However, in the case of
deterministic network, this decrease is only about 12 % in dominant
sub-network-I and 25 % in dominant sub-network-II. For the random
fractal-fracture network, it is decreased by 10 % in dominant sub-network-I and 23 % in dominant sub-network-II. It may be noted that the
connectivity does not decrease by more than 25 %, even after elimination
of a large number of smaller fractures. This is because, elimination of the
smaller fractures from a parent fractal-fracture network results in a
decrease in all three types of nodes by a similar proportion to what is
present in the parent network, thus keeping the proportion of nodes almost
same in the resultant, dominant sub-network.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e521">Connectivity values of different fracture networks and
their dominant sub-networks.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Connectivity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Deterministic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Random</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Natural</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fractal-Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fractal-Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parent Network</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.6562</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.8193</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.657</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dominant Sub-Network-I</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.7166</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.9421</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.218</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dominant Sub-Network-II</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.6941</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.0229</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Flow simulation in fractal-fracture networks and their dominant
sub-networks</title>
      <p id="d1e626">Simulating flow through fracture networks with variable aperture is
computationally demanding, especially when it comes to using DFN models
(Schwartz and Smith, 1988; Parney and Smith, 1995; Benke and Painter, 2003; Painter
and Cvetkovic, 2005; Leung et al., 2012). Fracture continuum (FC) models on
the other hand, are computationally efficient while preserving the network
details and fracture properties. FC models have been widely used for
numerical flow simulations in fractured rocks (Langevin, 2003; Neuman, 2005;
Svensson, 2001b; Tsang et al., 1996; McKenna and Reeves, 2006; Botros et al.,
2008; Reeves et al., 2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e629">In FC models, discrete fractures are modelled as permeability structures on
a grid as shown in Fig. 4. In this study, the synthetic fractal-fracture
patterns and their dominant sub-networks are modelled as grids of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cells, such that each pixel of the network's image (raster data) is
represented by a cell. The details of the fracture network are preserved by
the use of a very small cell size, while a high permeability contrast
between fractures and matrix can restrict the flow only within the former.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e650">Illustration of finite difference representation of a hypothetical
rock fracture network (modified from Reeves et al., 2008).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e660">Following the footsteps of Sarkar et al. (2004) the permeability, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, of
cells representing fractures, is assigned based on the well-known “cubic law”
(Snow, 1969) as in Eq. (3):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M29" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the hydraulic aperture. The values of fracture permeability
calculated for given fracture apertures are shown in Table 2. Cells that
represent matrix (white cells in Fig. 4) are assigned negligible
permeability and porosity such that the flow mainly occurs in the fractures.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e706">Fracture aperture and permeability values.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fracture Aperture</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Permeability</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Permeability</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(md)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.44</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33.74</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">400</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">135.07</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">540.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">213.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">216.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">853.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">864.61</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1022">The fractal-fracture networks and their respective dominant sub-networks are
flow simulated using Trace3D (Dutta-Gupta and King, 2007). It is a
streamline simulator which represents fluid flow in a reservoir by
implementing Darcy's law and mass conservation equations. In this simulator,
approximate changes in pressure and saturation distribution with time are
obtained by solving pressure and saturation/conservation equations (Al-Najem et al., 2012). Such an<?pagebreak page120?> approach is well-suited for the analysis of fluid
flow characteristics with recovery curves and time of flights (TOFs) as
outputs. The IMPES (implicit pressure explicit saturation) method allows the
pressure equations to be solved implicitly, i.e., pressures at all grid
nodes are computed simultaneously by solving a system of linear equations at
every time step. On the other hand, IMPES computes saturations explicitly,
i.e., one grid block at a time without any matrix solution. The solution of
the pressure and saturation generates the fluid recovery values and also
maps the advancement of fluid front at different time steps represented by
TOFs. The details of all the governing equations used in Trace3D can be
found in Datta-Gupta and King (2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e1025">An injection and a production well are placed at diagonally opposite corners
of the model grid (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to obtain a total areal sweep
of the fractured rock volume. Flow simulation is performed at a reservoir
pressure of 2480 psia with the assumption of constant boundary reservoir
conditions. The fluid injection rate is maintained at 500 bbl/day for a
simulation time period of 700 d. The entire fluid volume is considered to
be stored in the fractures and therefore, a porosity value of 95 % is
assigned to cells that represent fractures. The permeability of “fracture
cells” is<?pagebreak page121?> assigned depending on their apertures as discussed earlier and
shown in Table 2. The porosity and permeability of “matrix cells” are
assigned as 0.05 % and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively, such that
flow through the matrix is negligible.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and Discussion: Synthetic Fractal-Fracture Networks</title>
      <p id="d1e1088">Fluid recovery can serve as a parametric estimation of flow characteristics
in any fracture network. Figure 5 shows the recovery curves for the
deterministic and random fractal-fracture networks and their respective
dominant sub-networks. For the deterministic network (solid lines in Fig. 5)
it can be seen that the dominant sub-networks are almost indistinguishable
from their parent network in terms of recovery. A similar behavior is seen
for the random network (dashed lines in Fig. 5), although some differences
exist in the dominant sub-networks in this case. This indicates that even
though the parent fractal-fracture networks and their dominant sub-networks
have very different number of fractures (Fig. 2), they have almost similar
fluid flow characteristics. It is also seen from the figure that the
response from dominant sub-network-I of the deterministic pattern actually
coincides with that of the parent network of the random pattern. As because
the random and deterministic patterns have the same length distribution it
may be conjectured that the parent fractal-fracture network is very similar
to the sub-networks in terms of recovery.</p>
      <p id="d1e1091">The overall recovery values thus obtained for all fracture networks studied
are shown in Table 3. Fluid recovery for dominant sub-network-I is about
96 % and 93 % to that of the parent network for the deterministic and
random patterns respectively. In case of dominant sub-network-II, these
values are about 85 % and 83 %. Hence, it may be hypothesized that
while modelling such fracture networks, eliminating a large number fractures
with smaller apertures will not significantly affect the fluid flow.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1096">Recovery curves of deterministic and random fractal-fracture
networks along with their respective dominant sub-networks.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1109">Overall fluid recovery values of different fracture
networks and their dominant sub-networks.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Overall Recovery</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Deterministic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Random</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Natural</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fractal-Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fractal-Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Fracture Map</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parent Network</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2372</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2067</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.2254</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dominant Sub-Network-I</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2272</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1934</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.1978</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dominant Sub-Network-II</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1718</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1206">Time of flight (TOF) is an important parameter for visualizing the fluid
velocity at a given location within the flow domain. The TOF can be defined
as a spatial coordinate representing the distance along streamline to where
the reservoir will be contacted at that instance of time. It is worth
mentioning that along preferential flow paths, the TOFs show higher
resolution as the streamline's tends to cluster along the high permeability
streaks. The TOF's depicting fluid-front through the deterministic and
random fractal-fracture network along with their dominant sub-networks at
different time steps (500, 1500 and 3000) are shown in Fig. 6. It<?pagebreak page122?> is
observed that flow patterns are almost similar for the parent
fractal-fracture network and their dominant sub-networks. The TOFs clearly
show flow channelling through fractures with larger apertures of the
dominant sub-networks in both deterministic and random fractal-fracture
networks. It can be visually seen from Fig. 6 that these fractures serve as
preferential pathways for conduit of major amount of fluid in the reservoir
and is in agreement with the experimental analysis of Neretnieks et al. (1982). The time of flight for fractures with larger apertures are much
smaller than those with smaller apertures hence, fluid movements are faster
in the former. This results in almost similar recovery in the original
fractal-fracture network and its dominant sub-networks which contain only
the larger fractures.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1211"> </p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f06-part01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1222"><bold>(a)</bold> TOFs at different time periods of deterministic fractal-fracture
network (top), its dominant sub-network-I (centre) and -II (bottom). <bold>(b)</bold> TOFs at different time periods of random fractal-fracture
network (top), its dominant sub-network-I (centre) and -II (bottom).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f06-part02.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Application to Natural Fracture Networks</title>
      <p id="d1e1244">A subset of natural fracture networks is chosen from a set of seven nested
fractal-fracture maps gathered from the Devonian Sandstones of Hornelen
basin, Norway (Odling, 1997). These maps have been studied by many
researchers in relation to the characterization of various statistical and
geometrical properties of fracture networks in the last three decades
(Bonnet et al., 2001; Bour et al., 2002; Odling and Roden, 1997; Roy et al.,
2007, 2010). Hence, they may serve as good outcrop analogs for
fractured reservoirs. They cover areas from 18  to 720 m across at a range
of resolutions forming a nested series. Each map represents a “window” or
sub-sample of the fracture trace population with a lower bound controlled by
the resolution and an upper bound controlled by the size of the region
observed (Bour et al., 2002; Odling, 1997; Roy et al., 2007). The scale,
resolution and the height of observation of these maps along with the
mapping technique are described in Odling (1997). We chose map 1 and map 2
from the set such that the latter contains the former but, at a lower
resolution as shown in Fig. 7. The aperture of the natural fracture map is
scaled considering the trace-length distribution of individual maps which
follows a power law (Odling, 1997).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1249">Illustration of mapping technique of natural fracture map and its
dominant sub-network map (modified from Odling, 1997).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page124?><p id="d1e1258">A dominant sub-network of map-1 is generated by considering a smaller
section from map-2 that represents map-1 (at a lower resolution) and
rotating it to match its orientation with the latter. Thus, the dominant
sub-network of map-1 retains only the longer fractures (with large
apertures) as the shorter fractures (with smaller apertures) are “lost”
due to decrease in resolution. The count of fractures in both the maps is
estimated using FracPaQ and the dominant sub-network contains only about
15 % of the fracture segments from the original parent fracture network.
The natural fracture network (map-1) and its sub-dominant network are shown
in Fig. 8.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1264">Natural fracture map (left) and its dominant sub-network (right)
(modified from Odling, 1997).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1273">The proportion of X, Y and I nodes present in the natural fracture map and
its dominant sub-network are estimated using FracPaQ and their connectivity
values are calculated from Eq. (2). The connectivity of the dominant
sub-network is observed to decrease by 15 % of that of its parent fracture
map as shown in Table 2. The natural fracture map and its dominant
sub-network are modeled as grids of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1042</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1042</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cells invoking the
fracture continuum (FC) concept as before. Similar to our approach in
Sect. 2.3, the permeability of cells that represent fractures are
calculated from the cubic law, and a single high porosity of 95 % is
assigned to all cells representing fractures. As with the models, matrix
porosity and permeability values are assigned as 0.05 % and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively, such that flow through the matrix is
negligible. The other inputs used in the simulator are also kept the same as
mentioned in Sect. 2.3. The fracture maps are flow simulated using
Trace3D, with an injection and a production well placed at diagonally
opposite corners of the model grid (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1042</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1042</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
recovery plots of the natural fracture map and its dominant<?pagebreak page125?> sub-network are
shown in Fig. 9. Their TOFs that represent fluid movement at different time
steps (500, 1500 and 3000) are shown in Fig. 10.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1345">Recovery profile of scaled natural fracture map and its dominant
sub-network.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1356">TOFs at different time steps (500, 1500 and 3000) of natural
fracture map <bold>(a–c)</bold> and its dominant sub-network <bold>(d–f)</bold>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://adgeo.copernicus.org/articles/56/117/2021/adgeo-56-117-2021-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1371">The overall recovery values of each of the two maps are shown in Table 3.
The fluid recovery value for the dominant sub-network is almost 88 % of
that of the original map although the former retains only 15 % of the
fractures from that of the latter. This clearly indicates that fractures
with smaller aperture have a rather negligible contribution to the overall
fluid flow. The TOFs for the natural fracture map and its dominant
sub-network show almost no difference at least up to 1500 time steps. Some
minor differences are observed between the two networks at 3000 time steps.
This shows that the smaller fractures present in the original map (and those
that are captured only in high resolution data) actually do not
significantly contribute to the flow. From a modelling perspective, this
observation is very helpful because geoscientists need not include data on
smaller fractures in their models as they do not significantly affect the
connectivity and overall fluid recovery.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Concluding Remarks</title>
      <p id="d1e1383">The influence of aperture distribution on connectivity and fluid flow in
fractal-fracture networks has been explored by studying a set of model
networks, a natural map and their respective dominant sub-networks. Although
the dominant sub-networks were generated by removing a large number of
smaller aperture fractures from the parent networks, the connectivity was
observed to decrease only by about 10 %–25 %. The networks were then
flow simulated in Trace3D invoking the FC model. It was seen that in
networks with a broad distribution of aperture, most of the fractures with
smaller apertures can be eliminated without any significant reduction of
overall fluid recovery. This is because dominant subnetworks containing only
about 15 % of the total fracture segments from their respective parent
networks yielded recovery values nearly 85 % of that of the latter.</p>
      <p id="d1e1386">The same strategy was applied to a natural fracture map where smaller
fractures were removed by comparing it to its lower-resolution version such
that only the long and wide fractures that appeared in the latter were
retained. Here, the<?pagebreak page126?> connectivity and fluid recovery of the dominant
sub-network map was found to be around 84 % and 88 % of the parent
network respectively. Thus, the results from this experiment proved to be
very similar to what was obtained from the study of model fractal-fracture
networks. It may therefore be concluded that even in a well-connected
fracture network, fluid flow may be unequally distributed based on the
aperture distribution and most of the network can be excluded, 85% in
this particular case, without significantly affecting its fluid recovery.</p>
      <p id="d1e1389">In terms of decision making, this result will aid geoscientists in
eliminating smaller fractures from the data that do not contribute
significantly to the flow thus, building fracture models that are
computationally less expensive. The implications of this finding for
characterization of fractured rock mass can prove useful in primary as well
as enhanced methods of fluid recovery, where the dominant sub-network
fractures are the one that carry most of the produced and injected fluids as
the larger aperture fractures provide preferential pathways for fluid flow.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1396">The two open-source softwares used in this research can be downloaded,
TRACE3D: <uri>https://mceri.engr.tamu.edu/software.html</uri> (Department of Petroleum Engineering et al., 2021),
FracPaQ: <uri>https://www.fracpaq.com/download.html</uri> (Healy and Rizzo, 2021).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1408">The fractal-fracture maps and natural maps analysed in this research can be directly downloaded from the figures enclosed with the article.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e1414">AKS implemented the workflow and carried out the simulation cases.
AR provided ideas for the case design and all critical suggestions
also reviewed the final work. All authors contributed to writing the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e1420">The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-author has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e1426">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1432">This article is part of the special issue “European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2021, EGU Division Energy, Resources &amp; Environment (ERE)”. It is a result of the EGU General Assembly 2021, 19–30 April 2021.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e1438">The authors would like to acknowledge IIT Kharagpur for funding the
Quantitative Fractured Reservoir<?pagebreak page127?> Research Initiative Lab (QFRRI), a facility
that was used for carrying out the entire research work. We express our
heartfelt thanks to Akhil Datta Gupta who personally helped us learn Trace3D
in our lab during his visit to IIT Kharagpur. In addition, Dave Healy is
also thanked for developing and providing FracPaQ as an open-source MATLAB
toolbox that was also used in this research. Ankur Roy would like to
acknowledge Noelle Odling for kindly providing the original encapsulated
postscript files of the Hornelen fracture maps which have been used in our
analysis in Sect. 4. We also acknowledge contributions from Mauro Cacace
and one anonymous reviewer in terms of evaluating the manuscript whose
suggestions helped us in focusing on our most substantive results.</p></ack><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1443">This paper was edited by Michael Kühn and reviewed by Mauro Cacace and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Al-Najem, A. A., Siddiqui, S., Soliman, M., and Yuen, B.: Streamline Simulation
Technology: Evolution and Recent Trends, Society Petrol. Eng. J.,
SPE-160894-MS, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2118/160894-MS" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2118/160894-MS</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baghbanan, A. and Jing, L.: Hydraulic properties of fractured rock masses with
correlated fracture length and aperture, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 44,
704–719, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.11.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.11.001</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Barton, N., Bandis, S., and Bakhtar K.: Strength, Deformation and
Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 22, 121–140, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9</ext-link>, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Benke, R. and Painter, S.: Modeling conservative tracer transport in
fracture networks with a hybrid approach based on the Boltzmann transport
equation, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1324, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR001966" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003WR001966</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berkowitz, B.: Analysis of fracture network connectivity using percolation
theory, Math Geol., 27, 467–483, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02084422" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF02084422</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berkowitz, B.: Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological
media: a review, Adv Water Res., 25, 861–884,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berkowitz, B. and Balberg, I.: Percolation theory and its application to
groundwater hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 29, 775–794,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02707" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/92WR02707</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berkowitz, B. and Hadad, A.: Fractal and multifractal measures of natural
and synthetic fracture networks, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
12205–12218, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JB00304" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97JB00304</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bonnet, E., Bour, O., Odling, N. E., Davy, P., Main, I., Cowie, P., and
Berkowitz, B.: Scaling of fracture system in geological media, Rev.
Geophys., 39, 347–383, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000074" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999RG000074</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Botros, F., Hassan, A., Reeves, D., and Pohll, G.: On mapping fracture
networks onto continuum, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08435, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006092</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bour, O. and Davy, P.: Connectivity of random fault networks following a
power law fault length distribution, Water Resour. Res., 33, 1567–1583, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR00433" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96WR00433</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bour, O., Davy, P., Darcel, C., and Odling, N. E: A statistical scaling model
for fracture network geometry, with validation on a multiscale mapping of a
joint network (Hornelen Basin, Norway), J. Geophys. Res.,
107, ETG 4-1–ETG 4-12, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000176" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JB000176</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cacas, M. C., Ledoux, E., de Marsily, Tillie, G. B., Barbreau, A., Durand, E., Feuga, B., and Peaudecerf, P.: Modeling fracture flow with a
stochastic discrete fracture network: calibration and validation: 1. The
flow model, Water Resour. Res., 26, 479–489,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00479" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR026i003p00479</ext-link>, 1990a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cacas, M. C., Ledoux, E., de Marsily, G., Barbreau, A., Calmels, P., Gaillard, B., and Margritta, R.: Modeling fracture flow with a
stochastic discrete fracture network: calibration and validation: 2. The
Transport Model, Water Resour. Res., 26, 491–500,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00491" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR026i003p00491</ext-link>, 1990b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chen, T.: Equivalent Permeability Distribution for Fractured Porous Rocks:
The Influence of Fracture Network Properties, Geofluids, 2020, 6751349, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6751349" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1155/2020/6751349</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Darcel, C., Bour, O., Davy, P., and de Dreuzy, J. R.: Connectivity properties
of two-dimensional fracture networks with
stochastic fractal correlation, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1272,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001628" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002WR001628</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Datta-Gupta, A. and King, M. J.: Streamline Simulation: Theory and Practice,
Textbook Series 11, ISBN 978-1-55563-111-6, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, TX, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Dreuzy, J. R., Davy, P., and Bour, O.: Hydraulic properties of
two-dimensional random fracture networks following power law distributions
of length and aperture, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1–9,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR001009</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Department of Petroleum Engineering, Dwight Look College of Engineering, and  Texas A&amp;M University: Model Calibration and Efficient Reservoir Imaging (MCERI), TRACE3D, available at: <uri>https://mceri.engr.tamu.edu/software.html</uri>, last access: 11 November 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gong, J. and Rossen, W. R.: Modeling flow in naturally fractured reservoirs:
effect of fracture aperture distribution on dominant sub-network for flow,
Pet. Sci., 14, 138–154, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-016-0132-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s12182-016-0132-3</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hardebol, N. J., Maier, C., Nick, H., Geiger, S., Bertotti, G., and Boro, H.:
Multiscale fracture network characterization and impact on flow: A case
study on the Latemar carbonate platform, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 120,
12, 8197–8222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB011879" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JB011879</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Healy, D. and Rizzo, R.: FracPaQ – Fracture Pattern Quantification, available at: <uri>https://www.fracpaq.com/download.html</uri>, last access: 11 November 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Healy, D., Rizzo, R. E., Cornwell, D. G., Farrell, N. J. C., Watkins, H.,
Timms, N. E., Gomez-Rivas, E., and Smith, M.: FracPaQ: A MATLAB™ toolbox
for the quantification of fracture patterns, J. Struct. Geol.,
95, 1–16, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.003</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kaulatilake, P. H. S. W., Park, J., Balasingam, P., and Morgan, R.: Natural rock
joint roughness quantification through fractal techniques, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 24, 1181–1202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-005-1219-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10706-005-1219-6</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Klepikova, M. V., Borgne, L. T., Boura, O., Gallagher, K., Hochreutener, R., and Lavenant, N.: Passive temperature tomography experiments to
characterize transmissivity an<?pagebreak page128?>d connectivity of preferential flow paths in
fractured media, J. Hydrol., 512, 549–562, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.018</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langevin, C. D.: Stochastic ground water flow simulation with a fracture
zone continuum model, Ground Water, 41, 587–601, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02397.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02397.x</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Leung, C. T. O., Hoch, A. R., and Zimmerman, R. W.: Comparison of discrete
fracture network and equivalent continuum simulations of fluid flow through
two-dimensional fracture networks for the DECOVALEX2011 project,
Mineral. Mag., 76, 3179–3190, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2012.076.8.31" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1180/minmag.2012.076.8.31</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Manzocchi, T.: The connectivity of two-dimensional networks of spatially
correlated fractures, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1162, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000180" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000WR000180</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
McKenna, S. A. and Reeves, P. C.: Fractured continuum approach to stochastic
permeability modelling, in:
Stochastic modelling and geo-statistics: principles, methods and case
studies, edited by: Coburn, T. C., Yarus, J. M., and Chambers, R. L.,  Vol. II, AAPG Comput. Appl. Geol. 5. AAPG, Tulsa, Okla,
173–186, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Min, K. B., Jing, L., and Stephansson, O.: Determining the equivalent
permeability tensor for fractured rock masses using a stochastic REV
approach: method and application to the field data from Sellafield, UK,
Hydrogeol. J., 12, 497–510, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0331-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10040-004-0331-7</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., and Tahtinen, P.: Tracer movement in a single
fissure in granitic rock – some experimental results and their
interpretation, Water Resour. Res., 18, 849–858,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i004p00849" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR018i004p00849</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Neuman, S. P.: Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and
transport through fractured rocks, Hydrogeol. J., 13, 124–147, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Neuzil, C. E. and Tracy, J. V.: Flow Through Fractures, Water Resour. Res.,
17, 192–199, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR017i001p00191" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR017i001p00191</ext-link>, 1981.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Odling, N. E.: Scaling and connectivity of joint systems in sandstones from
western Norway, J. Struct. Geol., 19, 1257–1271, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00041-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00041-2</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Odling, N. E. and Roden, J. E.: Contaminant transport in fractured rocks with
significant matrix permeability, using natural fracture geometries, J. Contam. Hydrol., 27, 263–283, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00096-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00096-4</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Painter, S. and Cvetkovic, V.: Upscaling discrete fracture network
simulations: An alternative to continuum transport models, Water Resour.
Res., 41, W02002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003682" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004WR003682</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Parney, R. W. and Smith, L.: Fluid velocity and path length in fractured
media, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1437–1440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95gl01494" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95gl01494</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reeves, D. M., Benson, D. A., and Meerschaert, M. M.: Transport of
conservative solutes in simulated fracture networks: 1. Synthetic data
generation, Water Resour. Res., 44, W05404, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006069" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006069</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Robinson, P.: Connectivity of fracture systems: a percolation theory
approach, J. Phys. A, 16, 605, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/16/3/020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0305-4470/16/3/020</ext-link>,
1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Roy, A., Perfect, E., Dunne, W. M., and McKay, L. D.: Fractal
characterization of fracture networks: An improved box-counting technique,
J. Geophys. Res., 112, B12201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004582" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JB004582</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Roy, A., Perfect, E., Dunne, W. M., Odling, N., and Kim, J. W.: Lacunarity
analysis of fracture networks: Evidence for scale-dependent clustering,
J. Struct. Geol., 32, 1444–1449, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X14400039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1142/S0218348X14400039</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sahu, A. K. and Roy, A.: Clustering, Connectivity and Flow Responses of Deterministic Fractal-Fracture Networks, Adv. Geosci., 54, 149–156, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-54-149-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/adgeo-54-149-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sanderson, J. D. and Nixon, W. C.: Topology, connectivity and percolation in
fracture networks, J. Struct. Geol., 115, 167–177,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.07.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jsg.2018.07.011</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sanderson, D. J., Peacock, D. C., Nixon, C. W., and Rotevatn, A.: Graph theory and
the analysis of fracture networks, J. Struct. Geol., 125, 155–165., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Sarkar, S., Toksoz, M. N., and Burns, D. R.: Fluid flow modeling in
fractures, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Earth
Resources Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA, Corpus ID: 14317982, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Snow, D. T.: Anisotropic Permeability of Fractured Media, Water Resour.
Res., 5, 1273–1289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR005i006p01273" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR005i006p01273</ext-link>, 1969.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Somogyvári, M., Jalali, M., Parras, S. J., and Bayer, P.: Synthetic fracture network characterization with
transdimensional inversion, Water Resour. Res.,
53.3, 5104–5123, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020293" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016WR020293</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Svensson, U.: A continuum representation of fracture networks. Part I: method
and basic test cases, J. Hydrol., 250, 170–186, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00435-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00435-8</ext-link>, 2001a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Svensson, U.: A continuum representation of fracture networks. Part II:
application to the Äspö Hard Rock laboratory, J. Hydrol., 250,
187–205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00436-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00436-X</ext-link>, 2001b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schwartz, F. W. and Smith, L.: A continuum approach for modeling mass
transport in fractured media, Water Resour. Res., 24, 1360–1372, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i008p01360" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/WR024i008p01360</ext-link>, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tsang, Y. W., Tsang, C. F., Hale, F. V., and Dverstorp, B.: Tracer transport
in a stochastic continuum model of fractured media, Water Resour. Res., 32,
3077–3092, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR01397" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96WR01397</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Evaluating Flow in Fractal-Fracture Networks:  Effect of Variable Aperture</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Al-Najem, A. A., Siddiqui, S., Soliman, M., and Yuen, B.: Streamline Simulation
Technology: Evolution and Recent Trends, Society Petrol. Eng. J.,
SPE-160894-MS, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2118/160894-MS" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2118/160894-MS</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baghbanan, A. and Jing, L.: Hydraulic properties of fractured rock masses with
correlated fracture length and aperture, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 44,
704–719, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.11.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.11.001</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Barton, N., Bandis, S., and Bakhtar K.: Strength, Deformation and
Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 22, 121–140, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9</a>, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Benke, R. and Painter, S.: Modeling conservative tracer transport in
fracture networks with a hybrid approach based on the Boltzmann transport
equation, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1324, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR001966" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR001966</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B.: Analysis of fracture network connectivity using percolation
theory, Math Geol., 27, 467–483, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02084422" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02084422</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B.: Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological
media: a review, Adv Water Res., 25, 861–884,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B. and Balberg, I.: Percolation theory and its application to
groundwater hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 29, 775–794,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02707" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02707</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B. and Hadad, A.: Fractal and multifractal measures of natural
and synthetic fracture networks, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
12205–12218, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JB00304" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97JB00304</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bonnet, E., Bour, O., Odling, N. E., Davy, P., Main, I., Cowie, P., and
Berkowitz, B.: Scaling of fracture system in geological media, Rev.
Geophys., 39, 347–383, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000074" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000074</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Botros, F., Hassan, A., Reeves, D., and Pohll, G.: On mapping fracture
networks onto continuum, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08435, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006092" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006092</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Bour, O. and Davy, P.: Connectivity of random fault networks following a
power law fault length distribution, Water Resour. Res., 33, 1567–1583, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR00433" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR00433</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bour, O., Davy, P., Darcel, C., and Odling, N. E: A statistical scaling model
for fracture network geometry, with validation on a multiscale mapping of a
joint network (Hornelen Basin, Norway), J. Geophys. Res.,
107, ETG 4-1–ETG 4-12, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000176" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000176</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cacas, M. C., Ledoux, E., de Marsily, Tillie, G. B., Barbreau, A., Durand, E., Feuga, B., and Peaudecerf, P.: Modeling fracture flow with a
stochastic discrete fracture network: calibration and validation: 1. The
flow model, Water Resour. Res., 26, 479–489,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00479" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00479</a>, 1990a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Cacas, M. C., Ledoux, E., de Marsily, G., Barbreau, A., Calmels, P., Gaillard, B., and Margritta, R.: Modeling fracture flow with a
stochastic discrete fracture network: calibration and validation: 2. The
Transport Model, Water Resour. Res., 26, 491–500,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00491" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00491</a>, 1990b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, T.: Equivalent Permeability Distribution for Fractured Porous Rocks:
The Influence of Fracture Network Properties, Geofluids, 2020, 6751349, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6751349" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6751349</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Darcel, C., Bour, O., Davy, P., and de Dreuzy, J. R.: Connectivity properties
of two-dimensional fracture networks with
stochastic fractal correlation, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1272,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001628" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001628</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Datta-Gupta, A. and King, M. J.: Streamline Simulation: Theory and Practice,
Textbook Series 11, ISBN 978-1-55563-111-6, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, TX, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
de Dreuzy, J. R., Davy, P., and Bour, O.: Hydraulic properties of
two-dimensional random fracture networks following power law distributions
of length and aperture, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1–9,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001009</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Dwight Look College of Engineering, and  Texas A&amp;M University: Model Calibration and Efficient Reservoir Imaging (MCERI), TRACE3D, available at: <a href="https://mceri.engr.tamu.edu/software.html" target="_blank"/>, last access: 11 November 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Gong, J. and Rossen, W. R.: Modeling flow in naturally fractured reservoirs:
effect of fracture aperture distribution on dominant sub-network for flow,
Pet. Sci., 14, 138–154, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-016-0132-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-016-0132-3</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hardebol, N. J., Maier, C., Nick, H., Geiger, S., Bertotti, G., and Boro, H.:
Multiscale fracture network characterization and impact on flow: A case
study on the Latemar carbonate platform, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 120,
12, 8197–8222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB011879" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB011879</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Healy, D. and Rizzo, R.: FracPaQ – Fracture Pattern Quantification, available at: <a href="https://www.fracpaq.com/download.html" target="_blank"/>, last access: 11 November 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Healy, D., Rizzo, R. E., Cornwell, D. G., Farrell, N. J. C., Watkins, H.,
Timms, N. E., Gomez-Rivas, E., and Smith, M.: FracPaQ: A MATLAB™ toolbox
for the quantification of fracture patterns, J. Struct. Geol.,
95, 1–16, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.003</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kaulatilake, P. H. S. W., Park, J., Balasingam, P., and Morgan, R.: Natural rock
joint roughness quantification through fractal techniques, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 24, 1181–1202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-005-1219-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-005-1219-6</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Klepikova, M. V., Borgne, L. T., Boura, O., Gallagher, K., Hochreutener, R., and Lavenant, N.: Passive temperature tomography experiments to
characterize transmissivity and connectivity of preferential flow paths in
fractured media, J. Hydrol., 512, 549–562, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.018</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Langevin, C. D.: Stochastic ground water flow simulation with a fracture
zone continuum model, Ground Water, 41, 587–601, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02397.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02397.x</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Leung, C. T. O., Hoch, A. R., and Zimmerman, R. W.: Comparison of discrete
fracture network and equivalent continuum simulations of fluid flow through
two-dimensional fracture networks for the DECOVALEX2011 project,
Mineral. Mag., 76, 3179–3190, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2012.076.8.31" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2012.076.8.31</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Manzocchi, T.: The connectivity of two-dimensional networks of spatially
correlated fractures, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1162, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000180" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000180</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
McKenna, S. A. and Reeves, P. C.: Fractured continuum approach to stochastic
permeability modelling, in:
Stochastic modelling and geo-statistics: principles, methods and case
studies, edited by: Coburn, T. C., Yarus, J. M., and Chambers, R. L.,  Vol. II, AAPG Comput. Appl. Geol. 5. AAPG, Tulsa, Okla,
173–186, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Min, K. B., Jing, L., and Stephansson, O.: Determining the equivalent
permeability tensor for fractured rock masses using a stochastic REV
approach: method and application to the field data from Sellafield, UK,
Hydrogeol. J., 12, 497–510, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0331-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0331-7</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., and Tahtinen, P.: Tracer movement in a single
fissure in granitic rock – some experimental results and their
interpretation, Water Resour. Res., 18, 849–858,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i004p00849" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i004p00849</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Neuman, S. P.: Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and
transport through fractured rocks, Hydrogeol. J., 13, 124–147, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Neuzil, C. E. and Tracy, J. V.: Flow Through Fractures, Water Resour. Res.,
17, 192–199, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR017i001p00191" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR017i001p00191</a>, 1981.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Odling, N. E.: Scaling and connectivity of joint systems in sandstones from
western Norway, J. Struct. Geol., 19, 1257–1271, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00041-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00041-2</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Odling, N. E. and Roden, J. E.: Contaminant transport in fractured rocks with
significant matrix permeability, using natural fracture geometries, J. Contam. Hydrol., 27, 263–283, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00096-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00096-4</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Painter, S. and Cvetkovic, V.: Upscaling discrete fracture network
simulations: An alternative to continuum transport models, Water Resour.
Res., 41, W02002, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003682" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003682</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Parney, R. W. and Smith, L.: Fluid velocity and path length in fractured
media, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1437–1440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95gl01494" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95gl01494</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Reeves, D. M., Benson, D. A., and Meerschaert, M. M.: Transport of
conservative solutes in simulated fracture networks: 1. Synthetic data
generation, Water Resour. Res., 44, W05404, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006069" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006069</a>, 2008.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Robinson, P.: Connectivity of fracture systems: a percolation theory
approach, J. Phys. A, 16, 605, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/16/3/020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/16/3/020</a>,
1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Roy, A., Perfect, E., Dunne, W. M., and McKay, L. D.: Fractal
characterization of fracture networks: An improved box-counting technique,
J. Geophys. Res., 112, B12201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004582" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004582</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Roy, A., Perfect, E., Dunne, W. M., Odling, N., and Kim, J. W.: Lacunarity
analysis of fracture networks: Evidence for scale-dependent clustering,
J. Struct. Geol., 32, 1444–1449, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X14400039" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X14400039</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sahu, A. K. and Roy, A.: Clustering, Connectivity and Flow Responses of Deterministic Fractal-Fracture Networks, Adv. Geosci., 54, 149–156, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-54-149-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-54-149-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Sanderson, J. D. and Nixon, W. C.: Topology, connectivity and percolation in
fracture networks, J. Struct. Geol., 115, 167–177,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.07.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.07.011</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Sanderson, D. J., Peacock, D. C., Nixon, C. W., and Rotevatn, A.: Graph theory and
the analysis of fracture networks, J. Struct. Geol., 125, 155–165., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Sarkar, S., Toksoz, M. N., and Burns, D. R.: Fluid flow modeling in
fractures, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Earth
Resources Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA, Corpus ID: 14317982, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Snow, D. T.: Anisotropic Permeability of Fractured Media, Water Resour.
Res., 5, 1273–1289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR005i006p01273" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR005i006p01273</a>, 1969.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Somogyvári, M., Jalali, M., Parras, S. J., and Bayer, P.: Synthetic fracture network characterization with
transdimensional inversion, Water Resour. Res.,
53.3, 5104–5123, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020293" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020293</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Svensson, U.: A continuum representation of fracture networks. Part I: method
and basic test cases, J. Hydrol., 250, 170–186, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00435-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00435-8</a>, 2001a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Svensson, U.: A continuum representation of fracture networks. Part II:
application to the Äspö Hard Rock laboratory, J. Hydrol., 250,
187–205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00436-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00436-X</a>, 2001b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Schwartz, F. W. and Smith, L.: A continuum approach for modeling mass
transport in fractured media, Water Resour. Res., 24, 1360–1372, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i008p01360" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i008p01360</a>, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, Y. W., Tsang, C. F., Hale, F. V., and Dverstorp, B.: Tracer transport
in a stochastic continuum model of fractured media, Water Resour. Res., 32,
3077–3092, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR01397" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR01397</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
