arxiv: v1 [math.na] 9 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 A simple embedded discrete fracture-matrix model for a coupled flow and transport problem in porous media Lars H. Odsæter a,, Trond Kvamsdal a, Mats G. Larson b a Department of Matematical Sciences, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Tecnology, Alfred Getz vei 1, 7491 Trondeim, Norway b Department of Matematics and Matematical Statistics, Umeå University, SE Umeå, Sweden arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 9 Mar 2018 Abstract Accurate simulation of fluid flow and transport in fractured porous media is a key callenge in subsurface reservoir engineering. Due to te ig ratio between its lengt and widt, fractures can be modeled as lower dimensional interfaces embedded in te porous rock. We apply a recently developed embedded finite element metod (EFEM) for te Darcy problem. Tis metod allows for general fracture geometry, and te fractures may cut te finite element mes arbitrarily. We present ere a velocity model for EFEM and couple te Darcy problem to a transport problem for a passive solute. Te main novelties of tis work is a locally conservative velocity approximation derived from te EFEM solution, and te development of a lowest order upwind finite volume metod for te transport problem. Tis numerical model is compatible wit EFEM in te sense tat te same computational mes may be applied, so tat we retain te same flexibility wit respect to fracture geometry and mesing. Hence, our coupled solution strategy represents a simple approac in terms of formulation, implementation and mesing. We demonstrate our model by some numerical examples on bot syntetic and realistic problems, including a bencmark study for single-pase flow. Despite te simplicity of te metod, te results are promising. Keywords: Discrete fracture-matrix model, Embedded interface, Finite element metod, Finite volume metod, Porous media flow 1. Introduction Modeling fluid flow in fractured porous media is an important yet callenging problem in subsurface engineering. Fractures are caracterized as tin layers wit eiter very ig or low conductivity. Tey can terefore act as preferential pats or barriers and be essential to te fluid flow. Te fracture widt is typically several orders of magnitude smaller tan any oter caracteristic sizes in te reservoir, and te flow rate can be orders of magnitude larger or smaller tan in te surrounding matrix. Tis pose great callenges to te fracture model and te numerical metod. In tis work we consider a discrete fracture-matrix (DFM) model, were te fractures are modeled as lower dimensional interfaces embedded in te rock matrix. We assume Darcy flow bot in te matrix and te fracture, and we only consider te case were te permeability in te fractures are orders of magnitude larger tan in te matrix. As flow model we consider incompressible single-pase flow governed by conservation of mass and Darcy s law. Te flow problem is ten coupled to a transport problem for a passive solute. A common strategy to represent fractures in a DFM model is by averaging te governing equations across te fractures. Te fracture widt is ten modeled as a coefficient in te equations rater tan a geometrical property, and suitable coupling conditions between te fracture and matrix equations are applied. Common terminologies for suc approximations are mixed-dimensional, ybrid-dimensional or reduced models. A Corresponding autor address: lars.odsater@gmail.com (Lars H. Odsæter)

2 metod for te ig permeability case was presented in [2, 1], were te flow equations on mixed form are averaged over te interface assuming a continuous pressure. Tis model was later generalized by [16] and [30] to also andle te low permeability case, were a Robin type condition on te pressure at te interface is enforced. More recent DFM models similar to [16, 30] can be found in, e.g., [4, 20, 19, 39, 17, 8]. To account for more general fracture sapes, te model in [2, 1] was extended to curved fractures in [33, 13]. Tese models are derived by considering te asymptotic limit in te weak formulation as te fracture widt tends to zero and te fracture permeability tends to infinity. In tis limit, te condition of a continuous pressure follows. We mention tat tis model was extended to allow for pressure jumps across te interface in [13]. An embedded finite element metod (EFEM) for te model in [13] was derived in [11]. Fractures are allowed to cut troug te elements arbitrarily, and te fracture solution is represented by te restriction of te basis functions for te iger dimensional matrix elements. Contributions from te fracture to te fluid flow is included by superposition. A great advantage of tis metod is tat it andles very general fracture geometry, including curved interfaces, bifurcations and intersections, and it is also easy to implement. Te assumption of a continuous pressure along te fracture interface is a key ingredient as it allows for continuous elements. However, te normal flux is discontinuous across te fracture interface leading to loss of regularity, wic can be resolved by local refinement close to te fractures based on an a priori error estimate. In tis work, we apply EFEM for te pressure problem. For te family of lower dimensional DFM models were te pressure is not assumed to be continuous, a great variety of numerical metods are suggested. We mention for instance finite element metods [27, 30, 3], finite volume metods [4, 9, 28], discontinuous Galerkin metods [5], mimetic finite difference metods [6, 40] and virtual element metods [21], all of wic require a conforming mes across te fracture interface. Different scemes wit mortar coupling tat allows for non-conforming meses are presented in, e.g., [20, 8], but still te mes needs to explicitly represent te fractures. Fully non-conforming discretizations ave been realized troug extended finite elements [14, 25, 39, 13]. Te embedded DFM (EDFM) introduced by [29] is anoter approac were te fractures are allowed to cut arbitrarily troug te iger dimensional mes, see also [24, 32, 38, 37, 15] for newer contributions. EDFM is based on te two-point flux approximation (TPFA) were te fracture-fracture and fracture-matrix transmissibilities are approximated from geometrical quantities. Similar to EFEM, tey are only valid for ig permeability fractures, but te recently introduced projection-based EDFM (pedfm) [41, 26] are also able to andle low permeability fractures. An important difference to EFEM is tat te fractures are represented by teir own lower dimensional elements along te fracture interface. A compreensive comparison of several DFM models for single-pase flow was conducted in a recent bencmark study [18]. We follow up on tis study and evaluate EFEM on a selection of tese bencmark problems. Te transport problem is also modeled by a reduced (or mixed-dimensional) model, see e.g., [1, 22, 21], were a coupling term models flow between te fracture and te matrix. We assume advection dominated flow since we are primarily interested in te coupling wit te flow problem. In tis work we present a novel discretization tat is compatible wit EFEM in te sense tat te same computational mes can be applied. Tis ensures tat we ave te same flexibility in terms of fracture geometry and mesing for te coupled solution strategy as is te case for EFEM. More specifically, we apply a zerot order upwind finite volume metod (FVM), were te fracture solution is represented by elements cut by te fracture, and were te coupling term is approximated in a non-standard way by evaluating te normal velocity (flux) on te boundary of suc elements. We mention ere tat an alternative approac is to use te CutFEM tecnology, see [12] for a stationary convection problem and [10] for a general introduction to CutFEM. For compatibility of te numerical solvers, we must require te velocity approximation from te flow problem to be locally conservative. Tis is not directly obtained by EFEM, but is acieved troug a postprocessing step [35]. We mention tat combining FEM and FVM for eterogeneous and fractured porous media ave been studied before, e.g., te finite element finite volume metod [23, 36], were FEM is used for te flow problem and a node-centered finite volume metod is used for transport. Tis metod was extended in [34] to allow for a discontinuous solution across interfaces for te transport problem. However, tis approac requires 2

3 fractures to me aligned wit element boundaries and uses a dual mes for te transport solver. Tis paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe te discrete fracture-matrix models and te governing equations for te coupled flow and transport problem. Next, in Section 3, we define te numerical metods. Tis includes EFEM for te flow problem, FVM for te transport problem, and te velocity approximation wic couples te two subproblems. In Section 4 some numerical results are presented, including a realistic problem wit a complex fracture network. Finally, we make some concluding remarks in Section Model formulation As model problem we consider incompressible single-pase flow wit advective transport of a concentration in a fractured porous media. Let Ω R d, wit d = 2, 3, be a convex polygonal domain wit an embedded interface Γ representing te fractures. Te bulk domain Ω\Γ will be referred to as te matrix. We denote by κ and φ te symmetric positive definite permeability tensor and porosity of te matrix, respectively. Te fracture permeability is assumed to be isotropic and is denoted κ Γ. We denote by w and φ Γ te fracture aperture and te porosity of te fractures, respectively. Moreover, k Γ = wκ Γ is te effective (scaled by fracture aperture) fracture permeability. Next, q and q Γ denotes source or sink terms in te matrix and fractures, respectively. Te primary unknowns are te fluid pressure p, from wic we can derive te fluid velocity u, and te concentration c. For te flow problem, te boundary Ω is partitioned into a Diriclet and Neumann part, denoted Ω d and Ω n, respectively. For te transport problem, we let Ω in := {x Ω u n < 0} denote te inflow boundary, and Ω out := {x Ω u n 0} denote te outflow boundary, were n is te outward pointing unit normal. We use te standard notation H s (ω) for te Sobolev space of order s on ω wit te special cases L 2 (ω) = H 0 (ω) and H0 1 (Ω) = {v H 1 (Ω) : v ΩD = 0}. Te space of continuous functions on ω is denoted C(ω). For a normed vector space V, we let V denote te norm on V. For V = L 2 (ω), we use te notation L2 (ω) = ω, and denote by (, ) ω te L 2 scalar product. In te following, we restrict tis presentation to te two dimensional case, i.e., d = 2, but most of te teory and metods considered erein can by extended to tree dimensions in a straigt forward manner Fracture representation We allow for bifurcating fractures and represent Γ as a grap wit nodes N = {x i } i In and edges G = {Γ j } j Ig, were I n and I g are finite index sets, and eac Γ j is a curve between two nodes wit indices I n (j). For eac i I n, we let I g (i) be te set of indices corresponding to curves for wic x i is an end point. Furtermore, let {Ω i } n d i=1 be a partition of Ω into n d subdomains defined by Γ. See Fig. 1a. We fix an orientation of eac Γ j suc tat te positive direction is from te node wit lowest index towards te node wit igest index. Ten we define n Γ to be te unit normal on Γ pointing from te left side towards te rigt wen facing te positive direction of Γ, see Fig 1b. For a scalar function v, possibly discontinuous at Γ, we define te jump as were v = v + v, on Γ, (2.1) v + (x) = lim Γ), ɛ 0 + x Γ, (2.2) v (x) = lim Γ), ɛ 0 + x Γ. (2.3) For a vector valued function v, we define te jump in te normal component across Γ as v n = v + n + + v n, (2.4) were n + = n Γ and n = n Γ. 3

4 x 1 Ω 1 Γ 4 x 3 Γ 2 Γ3 x 4 Γ 1 x 2 Ω 2 x 6 Ω 3 Γ 5 Γ 6 x 5 x 7 Ω 4 Γ 7 x 8 (a) We ave for instance I n(5) = {4, 6} and I g(2) = {1, 2, 3}. Γ 3 t Γ5 t Γ4 x4 n Γ n Γ 5 Γ 4 t Γ3 + x 6 n + (b) Exterior unit tangents at x 4 and interface orientation for Γ 5. Figure 1: Illustration of domain and fracture representation Pressure problem Te fractures are modeled as embedded surfaces wit ig permeability. Our model is essentially te same as te one presented in [1, 13]. It was furter studied in [11], were it was extended to bifurcating cracks. Te embedded model is derived as te asymptotic limit in te weak formulation as te fracture aperture goes to zero and te fracture permeability goes to infinity. We refer to [1, 13] for furter details. Boundary value problem. Te governing equations for te pressure problem are (κ p) = q, in Ω, (2.5a) Γ (k Γ Γ p) = q Γ + (κ p) n, on Γ, (2.5b) p = 0, on Γ, (2.5c) were Γ = P is te tangential gradient wit P = I n Γ n Γ. Te first equation (2.5a) is te standard Darcy equation for single-pase flow describing conservation of mass. Eq. (2.5b) governs conservation of mass in te fractures, were te last term on te rigt and side represents a coupling term for te normal velocity across Γ. Te last equation (2.5c) is anoter coupling term, and represents a reasonable assumption for ig conductive fractures. Te model can also be extended to a non-zero pressure jump [13]. We equip te governing equations wit Diriclet and Neumann boundary conditions, i.e., p = p d, on Ω d, (2.5d) (κ p) n = u n, on Ω n. (2.5e) Furtermore, we enforce continuity of pressure at te interface nodes, p Γk (x i ) = p Γl (x i ), k, l I g (i), i I n, (2.5f) and apply te Kircoff condition ((k Γj Γj p Γj ) t Γj ) xi = 0, i I n \ I n,n, (2.5g) j I g(i) ((k Γj Γj p Γj ) t Γj ) xi = wu n, i I n,n, (2.5) were t Γj is te exterior unit tangent to Γ j (see Fig. 1b) and I n,n I n is te set of indices wose corresponding nodes belong to Ω n. We remark tat Eq. (2.5g) ensures mass balance at te interface nodes, wile Eq. (2.5) is a Neumann condition for te part of Γ tat intersects wit Ω N, and were te fracture 4

5 widt w is taken into account. Observe tat Eq. (2.5g) implies a omogeneous Neumann condition at te fracture tip if te tip is in te interior of Ω. Tis is a natural approximation tat is commonly used, see e.g., [4, 20, 19, 8]. Te fluid velocity is defined by Darcy s law as u = κ p. We note tat u Γ = k Γ Γ p gives te flow rate troug te cross section of te fracture rater tan te velocity. Weak formulation. We define te following function spaces, V Γ (Γ) = {v C(Γ) : v H 1 (Γ j ), j I g }, (2.6) V 0 (Ω) = {v H 1 0 (Ω) : v Γ V Γ (Γ)}, (2.7) V d (Ω; v d ) = {v H 1 (Ω) : v Ωd = v d, v Γ V Γ (Γ)}. (2.8) Ten multiply (2.5a) by a test function v V 0 (Ω), integrate over Ω and apply Green s formula on eac subdomain Ω i, to obtain n d (q, v) Ω = ( (κ p), v) Ωi i=1 n d ( ) = (κ p, v)ωi ((κ p) n i, v) Ωi i=1 = (κ p, v) Ω ( (κ p) n, v) Γ (u N, v) Ωn = (κ p, v) Ω (q Γ, v) Γ ( Γ (k Γ Γ p), v) Γ (u n, v) Ωn. (2.9) Notice tat n i denotes te unit normal pointing out of Ω i. Ten apply Green s formula on Γ and use te Kircoff conditions, Eq. (2.5g) (2.5), to obtain ( Γ (k Γ Γ p), v) Γ = j I g ( Γj (k Γj Γj p), v ) Γ j = j I g ( kγj Γj p, Γj v ) Γ j j I g = (k Γ Γ p, v) Γ i I n = (k Γ Γ p, v) Γ j I g(i) i I n(j) ( (kγj Γj p) t Γj, v ) x i ( (kγj Γj p) t Γj ) xi v(x i ) i I n,n wu n (x i )v(x i ). (2.10) Combing tese equations we get te following weak formulation. Find p V d (Ω; p d ) suc tat were a(p, v) = l(v), v V 0 (Ω), (2.11) a(u, v) = (κ u, v) Ω + (k Γ Γ u, v) Γ, (2.12) l(v) = (q, v) Ω + (q Γ, v) Γ (u N, v) Ωn i I n,n wu n (x i )v(x i ). (2.13) Observe tat te contribution from te fractures are included by superposition, i.e., by evaluating lower dimensional integrals along Γ. Remark 2.1. Wen applying Green s formula in Eq. (2.9), we assume tat tere are no interfaces Γ j tat terminates in te interior of Ω (as is te case for Γ 2 in Fig. 1a). In suc cases we can divide in two te domains Ω i wit a terminating node suc tat te two new domains, denoted Ω ia and Ω ib, are separated by 5

6 te interface wit te terminating node and an artifical line connecting te terminating node wit eiter Ω or anoter interface. We can ten replace te contribution from Ω i by te sum of te contributions from Ω ia and Ω ib in Eq. (2.9). For te situation in Fig. 1a, we may for instance divide Ω 1 into two subdomains, Ω 1a and Ω 1b, separated by Γ 2 and a line connecting x 3 wit te upper left corner of Ω. We mention tat a similar approac was used in [4] Transport problem Advective transport in te fractured domain is modeled by a reduced (or mixed-dimensional) model, see e.g., [1, 22, 21], φ c + (uc) = f(c), in Ω (0, T ], (2.14a) t wφ Γ c Γ t + Γ (u Γ c Γ ) u nc = f Γ (c Γ ), in Γ (0, T ], (2.14b) Initial and boundary conditions are given as c = c 0, on Ω {0}, (2.14c) c Γ = c Γ,0, on Γ {0}, (2.14d) c = c b, on Ω in (0, T ], (2.14e) c Γ = c Γ,b, on Γ in (0, T ]. (2.14f) Here c 0 and c Γ,0 are te initial concentrations in te matrix and fractures, respectively, wile c b and c Γ,b are te inflow concentrations for te matrix and fractures, respectively. Te rigt and sides denote source terms, defined as { qc, if q 0, f(c) = ˇqc + ˆqc w = (2.15a) qc w, if q > 0, { q Γ c Γ, if q Γ 0, f Γ (c Γ ) = ˇq Γ c Γ + ˆq Γ c w = (2.15b) q Γ c w, if q Γ > 0, were ˇq = min(q, 0) and ˆq = max(q, 0), and c w is te inflow concentration from te source term. Te tird term in te fracture equation (2.14b), u nc, is a coupling term tat models flow between te fracture and matrix. Here, c is interpreted as { c c ±, if (u n) ± 0, ± = on Γ (0, T ]. (2.16) c Γ, oterwise, Observe tat te transport problem is coupled to te pressure problem troug te velocities u and u Γ. 3. Numerical metods 3.1. Preliminaries Domain discretization. Let K be a partition of Ω, and denote by K K an element of te partition. We let K K be open suc tat K K K = Ω. Te diameter of K is denoted K, wile is te maximum diameter of all elements. We assume K to be regular and quasi-uniform. By regular we mean tat all elements are convex and tat tere exists ρ > 0 suc tat eac element K K contains a ball of radius ρ K in its interior. Furtermore, K is quasi-uniform if tere exists τ > 0 suc tat / K τ for all K K. We denote by F te set of all element faces. Tis set is ten divided into te set of interior faces, F,i, and boundary faces, F,b. We assume tat eac face in F,b is eiter completely on te Diriclet or 6

7 Neumann part of te boundary, suc tat F,b can be split into F,d and F,n, i.e., te sets of faces on te Diriclet and Neumann boundary, respectively. Similarly, let F,in and F,out be te set of boundary faces on te inflow and outflow boundary, respectively. For eac face F F we coose an orientation and let n F denote te unit normal in tis direction. Te unit normal vector on F F,b is cosen to coincide wit te outward unit normal. Furtermore, n K denotes te unit normal pointing out of K. We will also use te notation K for te measure of K, and similarly F for te measure of F. For te transport solver, we furter divide K into two subsets, K m and Kf, were Kf contains all fractured cells, K f = {K K : K Γ }, and K m = K \ K f, see Fig. 2a. Te set of interior faces, F,i are ten partitioned into tree subsets, F,i f, F,i m and F,i fm, were F,i f are te set of faces between two fractured elements, F,i m fm is te set of faces between two matrix elements, and F,i are te sets of faces between a fracture and a matrix element. Remark 3.1. In te situation were Γ coincides wit an element face F = K K + F,i, we need to coose wic of te neigboring elements tat belong to K f. One possibility is to coose te element for wic n Γ is exterior, i.e., K. For te numerical examples presented in Section 4 we ave avoided tis situation. Jump and average operators. We define te jump operator over a face F F in te same way as we did for te jump over Γ, see Eq. (2.1) and (2.4), were n F now defines te orientation. Furtermore, we denote by { } θ te weigted average operator on F, defined as {{v}} θ = θ F v + (1 θ F )v +, (3.1) were θ F = θ F and 0 θ 1. For θ = 1 2 we simply write { } witout any subscript. For F F,b we define te jump and average operators as te one sided value, i.e., v = {v } θ = v. (3.2) Finite dimensional function spaces. In our implementation we work wit quadrilateral elements, but te all numerical metods can equally well be formulated on oter elements, e.g., triangular. Denote by ˆK = (0, 1) 2 te reference element wit coordinates (ξ, η), and by M K te mapping from ˆK to K. Wit tis, we denote by ˆQ r ( ˆK) te tensor product of polynomial spaces of degree less tan or equal to r in eac spatial direction, i.e., ˆQ r ( ˆK) { = v H 1 ( ˆK) : v = ( r i=0 a iξ i) ( r i=0 b iη i) }, a i, b i R. (3.3) Next, Q r (K) denotes te reference element functions mapped to te actual element K, Q r (K) = {ˆv M 1 K : ˆv ˆQ r ( ˆK)}. (3.4) We may now define te following function spaces of piecewise polynomials of order r > 0, Q r (K ) = {v C(Ω) : v K Q r (K), K K }, (3.5) Q r,d (K ; v d ) = {v Q r (K ) : v Ωd = v d }. (3.6) Moreover, we define te following spaces of piecewise constant functions (r = 0), Q 0 (K ) = {v L 2 (Ω) : v K = a K, a K R, K K }, (3.7) Q 0 (F ) = {v L 2 (F ) : v F = a F, a F R, F F }. (3.8) Finally, we denote by (, ) K and (, ) F te broken L 2 scalar products, i.e., (u, v) K = (u, v) K, (u, v) F = (u, v) F. (3.9) K K F F 7

8 3.2. Pressure problem We follow [11] and approximate te pressure solution wit piecewise bilinear functions by restricting te weak formulation (2.11) to te finite dimensional subspace Q 1,d (K ; p d ) V D (Ω; p d ). Find p Q 1,d (K ; p d ) suc tat a(p, v) = l(v), v Q 1,d (K ; 0). (3.10) Te following a priori error estimate for te pressure approximation was proved in [11]. Let N (K) K be te set of all elements wic are node neigbors of K, and let Γ denote te mes parameter in te vicinity of Γ suc tat K Γ for all K N (K f ). Ten it olds tat ( nd ) p p Ω + p p Γ ( Γ + 2 ) p H 2 (Ω i) + 2 Γ p H 2 (Γ). (3.11) As a consequence, one sould refine locally around te fractures until Γ 2 to obtain te optimal order of convergence in terms of. Remark 3.2. Te estimate (3.11) was proved in [11] for te simple geometry were Γ is a smoot embedded interface in te interior of Ω witout boundary. It can be extended to te case were Γ is represented as a grap. However, depending on te geometry of Γ, we may loose some regularity of te solution (tis is especially te case for terminating nodes in te interior of Ω, e.g., x 2 in Fig. 1a), so tat we must replace te term ( Γ + 2 ) by ( Γ + s ) for some s [1, 2]. Yet, te condition Γ 2 is still sufficient to obtain te optimal convergence in terms of since refinement around Γ also means refinement around te interface nodes Transport problem We approximate te concentration solution by piecewise constants c Q 0 (K ), and let c on K f represent te concentration in te fractures, and c on K m represent te concentration in te matrix. We use an upwind approximation of te concentration on element faces. Te numerical sceme can be formulated as a zerot order finite volume metod (FV), or equivalently as a zerot order Discontinuous Galerkin metod (DG). We only express te FV formulation ere, and refer to Appendix A.1 for te DG formulation. FV formulation. We integrate te matrix equation (2.14a) over K K m to obtain te integral formulation φ c t + u n K c = f(c), K K. m (3.12) K K Similarly, for K K f, we integrate te fracture equation (2.14a) over K Γ to obtain c Γ wφ Γ t + u Γ n K Γ c Γ u nc = f Γ (c Γ ), K K. f (3.13) K Γ (K Γ) Te lowest order finite volume metod is ten obtained by replacing c by c Q 0 (K ). We use an upwind approximation on K, i.e., { u n K c K, if u n K 0, u n K c F = K K = (3.14a) u n K c K, if u n K < 0, i=1 K K Γ K Γ were K is a neigbor element of K. If F K is a boundary face, we ave { u n K c K, if u n K 0, u n K c F = K Ω = u n K c b, if u n K < 0. (3.14b) 8

9 An equivalent upwind approximation of c is used on (K Γ). Recall te definition of te vector valued jump in Eq. (2.4). Te coupling term in Eq. (3.13), wit c replaced by c, can be written as u nc = (u n Γ c ) (u n Γ c ) +, on K Γ. (3.15) Given a velocity approximation tat is continuous in te interior of an element, we see tat u nc vanis as long as Γ is not aligned wit te element faces. Tis would result in no coupling between te fracture and te matrix. To overcome tis, we approximate te flow between matrix and fracture by evaluating (u n Γ c ) ± on te part of te element boundary tat borders to matrix elements, i.e., u nc u n K c, (3.16) K Γ K K m K K were te upwind sceme (3.14) applies. Since c on K K f represents te approximation in te fracture, (3.16) is compatible wit te condition (2.16). Given te low order metod, te approximation (3.16) seems reasonable wen combined wit local refinement around Γ. We apply te implicit Euler (IE) metod as time integrator. For simplicity, we use constant time steps t, and let c n denote te approximation at t = n t, wit c0 = Q 0c 0, were Q 0 is a projection operator from L 2 (Ω) to Q 0 (K ). To sum up, te FV-IE sceme can be formulated as follows. Find c n+1 Q 0 (K ) suc tat K Γ φ cn+1 c n K t c n+1 c n wφ Γ + t + u n K c n+1 = f n+1 (c n+1 K K u Γ n K Γ c n+1 (K Γ) = K K m K Γ K K ), K K m, (3.17a) u n K c n+1 f n+1 Γ (c n+1 ), K K f. (3.17b) Interpretation of solution. In te numerical metod, c K Γ, for K K f, is represented by te value c K. However, K also contains subdomains belonging to te matrix, wose concentration solution we represent by te solution in te neigboring matrix elements, see Fig. 2 for an illustrative example. For a single fracture te matrix concentration in K to te left/rigt of Γ is given by te solution in te left/rigt-neigboring matrix elements. For cells K wit intersecting or bifurcating fractures, tis interpretation is sligtly more complex, as Γ divides K into more tan two subdomains. We refer to Appendix A.2 for a well-defined interpretation Velocity model We observe from te transport model, Eq. (3.17), tat we need te flux (normal velocity) over te element faces. We denote te flux by U and define it as ( ) κ p n F, on F F \ F,i f F,n, U = 1 F k Γ Γ p t Γ,F, on F F,i f, (3.18) u n, on F F,n, were t Γ,F is te unit tangent to Γ oriented in te same direction as n F. Recall tat k Γ = wκ Γ so tat k Γ Γ p t Γ gives te flow rate rater tan te velocity. Te reason for multiplying by 1/ F for faces F F,i f 9

10 (a) Partition of K into matrix (K m ) and fracture (b) Original numerical concentration solution, c Q 0 (K (K f ) elements. ). (c) Interpreted concentration solution on fracture elements K K f. Figure 2: Syntetic example of partition into matrix and fracture elements, and corresponding interpretation of concentration solution. Te interpreted solution on interface elements K Γ is visualized wit a fixed (exaggerated) tickness. is tat we want to work directly on F so tat wen U is integrated over F we get te total flow rate troug F. Wit tis definition of U we can simplify two terms in Eq. (3.17b), u Γ n K Γ c n+1 u n K c n+1 = Uc n+1 n K n F. (3.19) (K Γ) K K m K K Te term n K n F is eiter plus or minus 1 depending on te orientation of F. For te coupled flow and transport problem, te velocity is derived from te pressure approximation p. Te pressure gradient, p, is not continuous across element faces, so a naive flux approximation is to use te average value, ( ) {{κ p n F } ϑ, on F F \ F,i f F,n, U = 1 F {{k Γ Γ p t Γ }, on F F,i f, (3.20) u n, on F F,n. Recall te definition of te average operator in Eq. (3.1). As weigts we follow [35] and use weigts equal to te normal component of te permeability of te neigboring cell. Hence, δ + Kn ϑ F = δ + Kn +, δ ± δ Kn = n F (κ ± n F ), (3.21) Kn were κ ± are te permeabilities of te two cells saring F. For a fractured cell we use κ = κ Γ I, and for F F,b, ω F = 1/δ Kn. In te case of isotropic permeability, i.e., κ = κi, observe tat ϑ F = κ + /(κ + + κ ) suc tat U = {κ p n F }} ϑ = κ +κ κ + + κ ( p ) n F κ κ + κ + + κ ( p ) + n F = k e { p n F }, (3.22) were k e = 2κ+κ κ ++κ is te effective face permeability (armonic average). We say tat a flux approximation U on F is locally conservative if U (n K n F ) = q, K K. (3.23) K As reported in [35], Eq. (3.20) does not define a locally conservative flux approximation. If coupled to te transport sceme one may get unpysical solutions due to artificial sinks and sources. To deal wit tis, we apply te postprocessing metod presented in [35]. Tis metod was sown to preserve accuracy of te velocity solution and was demonstrated to be especially beneficial for igly eterogeneous media. 10 K K

11 Variationally consistent postprocessing of fluxes. Te core idea of te postprocessing metod is to add a piecewise constant correction to U under te constraint tat te correction is minimized in a weigted L 2 norm, v ω,f = (ωv, v) F, (3.24) were ω are positive and bounded weigts. We define te weigt on F F as te inverse of te effective normal component of te permeability, ω F = δ+ Kn + δ Kn 2δ +. (3.25) Kn δ Kn Tese weigts were demonstrated to be a good coice for eterogeneous permeability as low permeable interfaces are better preserved compared to minimizing in te standard L 2 norm (ω = 1) [35]. Next, we define a residual operator, R : L 2 (F ) Q 0 (K ), measuring te discrepancy from local conservation, { 1 ( K K q K Un ) F n K, K K m, R(U) K = 1 K ( K Γ q Γ K Un F n K ), K K f. Wit tis we define te postprocessed flux, V, as follows. { U + ω 1 y, on F F \ F,n, V = u n, on F F,n, (3.26) (3.27) were y Q 0 (K ) is te unique solution to ( ω 1 y, w ) = (R(U F \F ), w),n K, w Q 0 (K ). (3.28) For furter details on te postprocessing metod, we refer to [35]. Coupled formulation. Applying Eq. (3.19) and using V as an approximation to U, te FV-IE sceme, Eq. (3.17), can be formulated as follows. Find c n+1 Q 0 (K ) suc tat φ cn+1 c n + V c n+1 n K n F = f n+1 (c n+1 ), K K K t, m (3.29a) K K c n+1 c n wφ Γ + V c n+1 n K n F = f n+1 Γ (c n+1 ), K K f t. (3.29b) K Γ K Note tat te second term in Eq. (3.29b) contains bot te flux along te fracture and te coupling term, cf. Eq. (3.19). K Γ 4. Numerical results In tis section we demonstrate te numerical metods presented in Section 3. First, in Section 4.1, we consider a pure transport problem were te velocity is given explicitly and te exact solution is known. Tis is to verify our transport model, Eq. (3.29), and in particular our approximation of te coupling term, see Eq. (3.16). Next, in Section 4.2, we consider two bencmark cases for te pure pressure problem presented in [18]. Te first case is a regular fracture network, wile te second problem is a realistic case wit a complex fracture network. Te aim is to compare EFEM, Eq. (3.10), to oter DFM models for single-pase flow. Finally, in Section 4.3, we solve te coupled pressure and transport problem on te same cases as in Section 4.2. Tis will reveal te capabilities of our solution approac. 11

12 (1, 1) (1, 1) (0, 0) (a) Inflow case. (0, 0) (b) Outflow case. Figure 3: Pure transport problem: Description of te two cases. Arrows describe te velocity field. All implementation of te numerical metods are based on te open-source software deal.ii [7]. We only consider 2D problems, but our fracture model and numerical metods can be applied to 3D problems as well. All meses are built up of quadrilateral elements. Te meses may be locally refined by recursively dividing selected elements in four, but we allow for no more tan one anging node per element face. Te number of degrees of freedom are denoted N dof Pure transport problem We consider first a pure transport problem wit an explicitly given velocity field. Let Ω = (0, 1) 2 and Γ = (0, 1) {0.5}. Te fracture velocity, u Γ = u Γ (1, 0) = 10, and we consider two cases for te matrix velocity, u. Eiter u = (0, 1) for y < 0.5 and u = (0, 1) oterwise, or u = (0, 1) for y < 0.5 and u = (0, 1) oterwise. Te two cases are depicted in Fig. 3 and are denoted inflow and outflow, respectively. In bot cases we set w = 1 and use initial and boundary conditions c 0 = 0 and c b = 1. Te 1D advective transport equation describing te fracture concentration, c Γ, is given as w c Γ t + u c Γ Γ x u nc = 0, on Γ, (4.1a) c Γ = 1, at x = 0. (4.1b) For te inflow case we ave c = c, and for te outflow case c = c Γ. Bot cases are solved on uniform N N meses wit time steps dt = 0.001, and te simulations are run until a steady-state solution is reaced. Inflow case. For te inflow case te concentration front from te top and bottom boundary moves wit speed 1, so tat u nc = 2c wit c = 0 for t < 0.5 and c = 1 for t > 0.5. Hence, te exact solution for t < 0.5 reads { 1, x < u Γ c Γ (x, t) = w t, 0, x u (4.2) Γ w t. At steady-state, c = 1 in te matrix, and te exact steady-state solution is c ss Γ (x) = 1 + 2w u Γ x. (4.3) Te approximation, c, along te fracture is plotted at t = 0.05 and t = 1.5 (steady-state) in Fig. 4 and compared to te exact solution. 12

13 1 N= N=101 Concentration N=201 N=401 Exact Concentration x (a) t = N=25 N=101 1 Exact x (b) Steady-state solution, t = 1.5. Figure 4: Pure transport problem inflow case: Fracture concentration on uniform N N meses compared to exact solution N=25 N=101 Exact N=25 N=101 Exact Concentration Concentration x (a) t = x (b) Steady-state solution, t = 1.5. Figure 5: Pure transport problem outflow case: Fracture concentration on uniform N N meses compared to exact solution. Outflow case. For te outflow case, u n Γ c = 2c Γ, so tat te exact solution reads { exp{ 2 c Γ (x, t) = u Γ x}, x < u Γ t, 0, x u Γ t. (4.4) Te approximation, c, along te fracture is plotted at t = 0.05 and t = 1.5 (steady-state) in Fig. 5 and compared to te exact solution. We observe tat we get te correct steady-state solution in bot cases, and tat te velocity of te concentration front is correct. Due to te low order metod we get significant numerical diffusion as expected, but we see tat te front gets sarper as N increases Bencmark cases for te pure pressure problem In tis section we consider two of te bencmark cases defined in [18] for te pure pressure problem. We only consider te cases were all fractures ave iger permeability tan te surrounding matrix as our model only applies to suc problems. We employ te exact same problem setup as [18] and compare 13

14 Table 1: List of te participating metods in te bencmark paper [18]. Metod Box TPFA MPFA EDFM Flux-Mortar P-XFEM D-XFEM Description Vertex-centered finite-volume metod Control volume finite difference metod wit two-point flux approximation Control volume finite difference metod wit multi-point flux approximation Embedded discrete fracture-matrix model Mortar discrete fracture-matrix model Primal extended finite element metod Dual extended finite element metod y u n = 0 ( 3 4, 3 4) ( 3 8, 3 8) u n = 1 ( 1 2, 1 2) p = 1 u n = 0 (a) Problem description. x (b) Reference pressure solution. Figure 6: Bencmark 1 (pressure problem). our results wit tose given terein 1. Te six metods considered in tis study are listed in Table 1. We only give a very brief description of tese metods ere, and refer to [18] and references terein for furter details. Our metod will be denoted EFEM Bencmark 1: Regular fracture network Bencmark 1 is a regular fracture network embedded in te unit square, Ω = (0, 1) 2, see Fig. 6a. Te top an bottom boundary faces ave omogeneous Neumann conditions (no flow); te left boundary face as a constant inflow flux, u n = 1; and te rigt boundary face as Diriclet condition p d = 1. Te rock properties are κ = I, κ Γ = 10 4 and w = A reference solution is obtained in [18] by using a mimetic finite difference (MFD) metod on a very fine reference mes were te fractures are resolved by 10 elements in teir normal direction. Te reference mes is coarser away from te fractures and as a total of elements. Hence, te fractures are not modeled as a lower dimensional embedding, but as a continuous model wit κ = κ Γ I in te fracture elements. We denote by K ref te reference elements and by p ref te reference solution. Te reference solution is displayed in Fig. 6b. 1 All results reported in [18] are public available at ttps://git.iws.unistuttgart.de/bencmarks/fracture-flow. 14

15 Figure 7: Bencmark 1 (pressure problem). Locally refined meses wit N dof equal to 932, 4532 and 19579, respectively. Fractures are included as red lines. We avoid fractures along element faces. To measure te error in te pressure solution, we define two error functions, err m and err f, measuring te error in te matrix and fractures, respectively, err 2 m = err 2 f = 1 Ω ( p ref ) 2 1 Γ ( p ref ) 2 f=k ref K e=(k ref K) Γ f (p fm p ref Kref ) 2 e (p em p ref Kref ) 2 1 Ω ( p ref ) 2 p p ref 2 L 2 (Ω), (4.5) 1 Γ ( p ref ) 2 p p ref 2 L 2 (Γ), (4.6) were p ref = max Ω p ref min Ω p ref and f m and e m denotes te midpoints of f and e, respectively. Observe tat tese are L 2 errors were te integrals are approximated by te midpoint rule. We solve te pressure problem on bot uniform N N meses wit N = {19, 37, 73, 139}, denoted UMRN, and tree locally refined meses, denoted LRi, for i = 1, 2, 3, were te local refinement is based on te a priori estimate (3.11) suc tat Γ 2 were Γ is te element size in te vicinity of te fractures. Te LR meses are sown in Fig. 7. Te errors ares plotted against N dof in Fig. 8. We see tat te error for te uniform meses as convergence order N 1/2 dof in accordance wit te error estimate, wile te error is lower and converge faster for te LR meses. In Table 2 we compare our results wit te ones reported in [18], and we observe tat te results are in good agreement. Furtermore, in Fig. 9 te pressure along te lines y = 0.7 and x = 0.5 are plotted, similarly to te results reported in [18]. We observe a good matc wit te reference solution, and in particular we see tat te LR mes gives better accuracy close to te fractures. Remark 4.1. We would like to point out tat te error functions in [18] are defined in a similar way, but instead of using p directly, te projection of p onto piecewise constant functions on te computational mes is used. In te case were te pressure approximation is piecewise constant tis is equivalent to wat we do. However, for iger order polynomial approximations, te error functions used in [18] would give unfavorable results Bencmark 4: A realistic case We consider next bencmark 4 in [18]. Te geometry represents a real set of fractures from an interpreted outcrop in te Sotra island, near Bergen in Norway, see [18] for more details. For tis case Ω = (0, 700) (0, 600) and Γ is te union of 64 straigt fractures in a complex pattern, see Fig. 10. Te matrix permeability is set to κ = I m 2. All fractures ave permeability κ Γ = 10 8 m 2, and aperture w = 10 2 m. We apply omogeneous Neumann boundary conditions (no flow) on te top and bottom boundary faces, p d = Pa on te left face, and p d = 0 Pa on te rigt face. 15

16 0.01 err M UMR err F UMR err M LR Relative L 2 error /2 err F LR Box TPFA MPFA EDFM N dof -1-3/4 Flux-Mortar P-XFEM D-XFEM Figure 8: Bencmark 1 (pressure problem). Errors against N dof. Solid lines denote te matrix error err m, and dased lines denote te fracture error err f for UMR (blue) and LR (red) meses. Black dased lines are straigt lines of labeled slope. Filled squares and triangles denote err m and err f, respectively, for te metods reported in [18]. Table 2: Bencmark 1 (pressure problem). Comparison wit te results in [18] for error, matrix density (nnz denotes number of non-zero entries in te system matrix) and matrix condition number. No. of elements for te metods in [18] are listed as matrix elements plus fracture elements. In ligt of Remark 4.1 we would like to point out tat Box and EDFM ave continuous pressure approximation, so tat te errors associated wit tese would likely be smaller. Metod N dof No. of elements err m err f nnz/ndof 2 2 -cond EFEM UMR e-3 1.3e-3 5.9e-3 3.3e4 EFEM LR e-3 1.1e-3 7.0e-3 1.1e4 Box e-2 1.9e-4 1.1e-2 2.2e3 TPFA e-2 4.4e-3 2.7e-3 4.8e4 MPFA e-2 4.5e-3 8.0e-3 5.8e4 EDFM e-3 4.0e-3 3.3e-3 5.6e4 Flux-Mortar e-2 6.9e-3 1.8e-3 2.4e6 P-XFEM e-2 7.3e-3 8.0e-3 9.3e9 D-XFEM e-3 8.9e-3 1.3e-3 1.2e6 16

17 UMR37 LR1 reference UMR37 LR1 reference Pressure Pressure x y (a) Line y = 0.7. (b) Line x = 0.5. Figure 9: Bencmark 1 (pressure problem). Pressure solution along two lines. Table 3: Bencmark 4 (pressure problem). DoF, number of elements, matrix density (nnz denotes number of non-zero entries in te system matrix) and matrix condition number for EFEM on different meses compared to te corresponding metods in [18]. No. of elements for te metods in [18] are listed as matrix elements plus fracture elements. Metod N dof No. of elements nnz/ndof 2 2 -cond EFEM M e-3 3.5e5 EFEM M 2,r e-4 9.3e6 EFEM M e-4 1.5e7 EFEM M 4,r e-4 6.4e7 Box e-3 9.3e5 TPFA e-4 5.3e6 MPFA e-3 4.9e6 EDFM e-3 4.7e6 Flux-Mortar e-4 2.2e17 Estimate of te 1-norm condition number based on MATLABs condest command. Denote by M 0 te 7 6 base mes wit = 100. Ten let M j i be te mes were M 0 is first refined globally i times, and ten recursively refined locally around te fractures j times. Wit tis min = (i+j) and max = i. Some of te fractures are very close witout intersecting. It is important to resolve tis geometrical aspect so tat eac vertex patc only see one fracture unless te fractures are connected. We denote by M j,r i te mes were M j i is furter locally refined to resolve close non-connected fractures. Te DoFs and number of elements are reported in Table 3, along wit te corresponding numbers for te metods considered in [18]. Fig. 11 displays two of te meses and illustrates te effect of resolving te geometry. Fig. 12 sows te pressure approximation on four different meses. Observe tat we ave some unstabilities in te solution in te upper rigt corner tat vanis as we refine. Tis is due to te fact tat one of te fractures cuts te corner and tat we ave zero Diriclet condition at te rigt end of tis fracture. Figs. 13 and 14 plots te pressure approximation along te lines y = 500 and x = 625. Results on te igly refined mes M 6 6, were all geometry is sufficiently resolved, are included as a reference solution. We clearly see te effect of resolving te geometry, and we observe similar results to te ones reported in [18]. 17

18 u n = 0 (700, 600) p = p = 0 (0, 0) u n = 0 Figure 10: Bencmark 4 (pressure problem). Problem description wit boundary conditions. Te red lines represent fractures, te blue lines represent te lines for wic te solution is plotted along in Figs. 13 and 14, and te small black box represents te box plotted in Fig. 11. Figure 11: Bencmark 4 (pressure problem). Computational meses, M 2 2 [left] and M2,r 2 [rigt]. Te top row displays te wole domain Ω, wile te bottom row displays te mes on te small rectangle in te middle of Fig

19 (a) M22. (b) M2,r 2. (c) M42. (d) M4,r Pressure (106) Pressure (106) Figure 12: Bencmark 4 (pressure problem). Pressure approximations EFEM M22 EFEM M42 EFEM M2,r 2 EFEM M4,r 2 EFEM M Box 6.0 TPFA MPFA EDFM Flux-Mortar EFEM M2,r 2 EFEM M4,r 2 EFEM M x x Figure 13: Bencmark 4. Pressure solution along te line y = 500. Te solution on M66 is considered as a reference solution. 19

20 Pressure (10 6 ) EFEM M 2 4 EFEM M 2 2,r EFEM M 2 EFEM M 2 4,r EFEM M 6 6 Pressure (10 6 ) Box TPFA MPFA EDFM Flux-Mortar EFEM M 2 2,r EFEM M 2 4,r EFEM M y x Figure 14: Bencmark 4 (pressure problem). Pressure solution along te line x = 625. Te solution on M 6 6 is considered as a reference solution Coupled problems We now couple te bencmark cases wit te transport problem and solve for concentration. Te coupled problem was not considered in [18] Bencmark 1: Regular fracture network For te transport problem we set c 0 = 0, apply a boundary concentration c b = 1 on te inflow boundary (x = 0), and let T = 0.5. We consider te same computational meses as for te pressure problem. In addition, we construct a reference mes wit elements were te fractures are fully resolved, i.e., = w at te fractures and 16w away from te fractures. A reference solution is ten obtained by a standard FV metod on a continuous fracture model (no lower dimensional embedding), i.e., Eq. (3.29a) wit K m = K and κ = κ Γ I in te elements in te fracture domain. Time steps for te reference solution is t = Fig. 15 sows te velocity approximations in eac of te six fractures for te different meses. We see a very good agreement, in particular for te LR meses. Tis is as expected since te velocity is derived from te pressure solution, wic was sown earlier to ave iger accuracy wen refining around te fractures. For te transport problem, we define a quantity of interest, QOI, as te flux of concentration out of te two fractures on te rigt boundary face, QOI 1 (t) = (u Γ nc) x=(1.0,0.5), QOI 2 (t) = (u Γ nc) x=(1.0,0.75). (4.7a) (4.7b) For te reference solution, tese quantities are calculated as QOI ref 1 (t) = QOI ref 2 (t) = 0.5+ w w 2 w w 2 (u nc) x=1 dy, (4.8a) (u nc) x=1 dy. (4.8b) First, we solve te coupled problem on te four uniform meses wit t = , , , and , respectively, and on te tree LR meses wit t = , , and , respectively. Te concentration solution on te finest meses are displayed in Figs. 16 and 17, wile QOI is plotted against time for all meses in Fig. 18. We observe similar solutions for all meses. At early times and in fracture 1 (y = 0.5), we ave te best results on te LR meses. However, te LR meses are relatively coarse in te matrix. Tis causes large 20

21 Fracture velocity UMR19 UMR UMR73 UMR LR1 LR2 500 LR3 reference x Fracture velocity UMR19 UMR UMR73 UMR139 LR LR2 LR3 reference x Fracture velocity UMR19 UMR UMR73 UMR139 LR LR2 LR3 reference x (a) Fracture 1 (y = 0.5) (b) Fracture 3 (y = 0.75) (c) Fracture 5 (y = 0.625) Fracture velocity UMR19 0 UMR37 UMR UMR139 LR LR2 LR3 reference y Fracture velocity UMR19 UMR37 UMR73 UMR139 LR1 LR2 LR3 reference y Fracture velocity UMR19 UMR UMR73 UMR139 LR1 200 LR2 LR3 reference y (d) Fracture 2 (x = 0.5) (e) Fracture 4 (x = 0.75) (f) Fracture 6 (x = 0.625) Figure 15: Bencmark 1 (coupled problem): Fracture velocities for te different meses. numerical diffusion and wit time te concentration front in te matrix reaces te first vertical fracture (x = 0.5). Tis explains wy te solution on te LR meses becomes inaccurate at large times. A better mesing for te coupled problem would be to refine bot close to te fractures and in te left alf of Ω. At last, we ran a series of simulations on te UMR meses wit t = 10 4 and compared to te reference solution by a L 2 norm over te fractures, see Fig. 19. We get a iger convergence tan wat is expected from te lowest order FV metod Bencmark 4: A realistic case We now couple bencmark 4 to te transport problem, were c 0 = 0 and an inflow concentration c b = 1 is set on te left boundary face. Suc problem was also considered in [21], but wit different permeabilities. We set te end time for te simulations to T = 100 years 2. First, we set t = 1 our (36500 time steps), and consider te meses M j,r 2. Concentration solutions in te fractures are displayed in Fig. 20. Furtermore, convergence of te concentration in te fractures is demonstrated in Fig. 21. Due to te ig fracture permeability, nearly all transport take place in te fractures, and ence we do not display te matrix solution. We observe tat we get reasonable good results even for te coarsest mes. Furtermore, te results for M 4 2 clearly illustrates te importance of resolving te geometry, as te solution is far off in some of te fractures, even compared to M 2,r 2 wic as muc less DoFs. Convergence is rater slow due to te low order metod. Next, we ran a series of simulations on M 2,r 2 wit t = {20, 50, 100, 365} days and compared to te solution wit t = 1 our on te same mes. Te L 2 error over Ω at t = T is plotted against ( t) 1 in Fig. 22, and we observe linear convergence in time as expected. 2 1 year = 365 days. 21

22 (a) Reference solution, t = 0.1. (b) Reference solution, t = 0.5. (c) UMR139, t = 0.1. (d) UMR139, t = 0.5. (e) LR3, t = 0.1. (f) LR3, t = 0.5. Figure 16: Bencmark 1 (coupled problem). Concentration solution. Te fractures are visualized wit a fixed exaggerated widt. Number of degrees of freedom, N dof, is for te reference solution (continuum model), for UMR139, and for LR3. 22

23 Concentration t=0.10 t=0.50 reference UMR139 LR3 Concentration t=0.10 t=0.50 reference UMR139 LR t= t= x (a) Line y = x (b) Line y = Figure 17: Bencmark 1 (coupled problem). Concentration solution along two lines at different times. QOI UMR UMR37 UMR73 UMR LR1 LR2 LR3 reference t QOI UMR19 UMR37 UMR73 UMR139 LR1 LR2 LR3 reference t Figure 18: Bencmark 1 (coupled problem). Quantity of interest, QOI i, i = 1, 2, as functions of time. 1 Relative L 2 error N dof Figure 19: Bencmark 1 (coupled problem). Relative concentration error in fractures, c ref c L 2 (Γ) c ref L 2 (Γ), at t = T against N dof. Te reference solution is compared against te solution on te UMR meses wit t = Te black reference line as slope

24 (a) M2,r 2, t = 15 years. (b) M2,r 2, t = 100 years. (c) M4,r 2, t = 15 years. (d) M4,r 2, t = 100 years. (e) M42, t = 15 years. (f) M42, t = 100 years. Figure 20: Bencmark 4 (coupled problem). Concentration solutions in fractures. Te fractures are displayed wit a fixed (exaggerated) widt. Regions were te results on te non-resolved mes M42 deviates substantially from te oter two meses are marked wit green dased ellipses. 24