Fig. 1. Solid angle, dΩ, in an upper hemisphere to estimate fracture tensor.
Fig. 2. Comparison between directional block conductivity(k(p)) and connected fracture tensor component(CFTC) for different joint configurations of selected DFN systems; (a) & (b) D-1-1-*, (c) & (d) D2-2-*, (e) & (f) L1-3-*.
Fig. 3. Relation between CFTC and directional conductivity factor(Kf) for DFN systems.
Fig. 4. Effect of the first invariant(F0) of connectedfracture tensor on ER.
Fig. 5. Relation between block conductivity factor and the first invariant of connected fracture tensor for DFN systems.
Fig. 6. The connected flow network on a square window of size 20 m showing (a) before and (b) after correction using the first invariant of 2-D fracture tensor.
Table 1. Summary of input parameters for the generated DFN systems having different joint orientation, density and size.(after Han et al., 2017)
Table 2. An example of fracture geometry before and after correction using the first invariant of 2-D fracture tensor
Table 3. Estimated directional block conductivity in different direction and average block conductivity for the DFN systems having fracture geometry in Table 2