Working Report 2002-22

Fracture Maooing from Olkiluoto

Borehole Image Data, 2001
Eveliina Tammisto
Tomas Lehtimaki
Jorma Palmen
Pirjo Hella
Eero Heikkinen
Fintact Oy

May 2003

Working Reports contain information on work in progress

or pending completion.

The conclusions and viewpoints presented in the report

are those of author(s) and do not necessarily
coincide with those of Posiva.

TEKIJAORGANISAA TIO:
Fintact Oy
Hopeatie 1 B
00440 Helsinki

TILAAJA:
Posiva Oy
Toolonkatu 4
00100 Helsinki

TILAUSNUMEROT:
Fin tact Oy: 9646/0 1/HH

TILAAJAN YHDYSHENKILO:

Heikki Hinkkanen
Posiva Oy

TEKIJAORGANISAATION YHDYSHENKILO:

TYORAPORTTI 2002-22
FRACTURE MAPPING FROM OLKILUOTO BOREHOLE
IMAGE DATA, 2001

TEKIJAT:

Eveliina Tammisto, Tomas Lehtimaki, Jorma Palmen, Pirjo Hella, Eero

Heikkinen

TARKASTAJA:

Henry Ahokas
Fintact Oy

Tammisto, E., Lehtimaki, T., Palmen, J., Hella, P. & Heikkinen, E. 2002. Fracture
mapping from Olkiluoto borehole image data, 2001. Working Report 2002-22. Posiva
Oy, Helsinki. 109 p.
ABSTRACT

As a part of the complementary site investigations for the underground disposal of spent
nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto site, fracture mapping from optical imaging data was done in
boreholes KR1, KR2, KR4, KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14. The data contained BIP
imaging, carried out in 1996, from sparsely fractured sections in KR1, KR2 and KR4
that have not been included into previous interpretation (745 m), and OPTV imaging
results from KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14 in 2001 (2306 m).
The task included fracture mapping from the image material and determination of
orientation of the fractures using the Well CAD utility, determination of properties of the
fractures, compilation of print-outs, and data delivery. The following fracture properties
were mapped: fracture type, aperture and filling thickness, fracture shape and colour.
The results of this independent mapping task provide supplementary information, i.e.
complete orientation coverage, apertures, etc. not found from core mapping data. The
observations were checked with comparing them to the core samples.
In total6138 fractures were mapped. These represent roughly 80% of the core mapping
fractures. Not every fracture reported from core can be observed from the images, but
on the other hand, specifically from frequently fractured and core loss sections also few
possible previously non-reported fractures have been encountered.

The open or partly open fractures, some of which might have also filling, make on
average 5% of all fractures. In less fractured KR1 and KR2 these are rare, and in KR4
and KR13 more frequent (9%) than for the others. Fractures with filling form two-third
of all fractures, and closed ones one-third. Aperture and thickness both range from 0.5
mm to 120 mm. Thickness has been reported for most of the fractures.
More than a half of the fractures are planar and smooth in their shape (55%). Slightly
less (one-fifth) are found both planar and rough, and undulating and smooth. The
fracture colours are determined mostly as a grey scale (60-80%). Black fillings are seen
less than others probably due to dark background, grey and white are more frequent. For
KR2 and KR13 the colours brown, green and yellow are found relatively often.
Seepage has been found from 0 - 49 fractures per borehole, most frequently in KR12.
For almost half of these seepage locations, a hydraulic conductivity indication has been
found with good depth agreement. Based on seepage, these are potential inflow
locations in open borehole conditions.
Keywords: Borehole optical imaging, fracture interpretation, nuclear waste disposal

Tammisto, E., Lehtimaki, T., Palmen, J., Hella, P. & Heikkinen, E. 2002. Olkiluodon
reika-TV -aineiston rakokartoitus, 2001. Tyoraportti 2002-22. Posiva Oy, Helsinki. 109
s.
TIIVISTELMA
Osana taydentavia kaytetyn ydinpolttoaineen maanalaisen loppusijoituksen tutkimuksia
Olkiluodon alueella, optisen kuvantamisen (reika-TV) aineistosta on kartoitettu rakojen
sijainnit ja ominaisuudet kairanrei'ista K.Rl , KR2, KR4, KR9, KR12, KR13 ja KR14.
Aineisto sisaltaa vuoden 1996 BIP-kuvauksista KR1, KR2 ja KR4 ne ehyen kallion
reikajaksot, joita ei aiemmin ole tulkittu (745 m), seka reikien KR9, KR12, KR13 ja
KR14 vuoden 2001 OPTV-kuvaustulokset (2306 m).
Tyohon sisaltyi rakojen kartoitus ja suuntaus kuvamateriaalista kayttaen WellCADohjelmistoa, ominaisuuksien maaritys, tulosteiden laadinta ja tiedonluovutus.
Kartoituksessa kerattiin rakotyyppi, taytepaksuus ja avauma, muoto ja vari. Taman
erillisena tehdyn kartoituksen tulokset taydentavat kairausnaytteen kartoitustietoja
puutteellisilta osin, kuten kattava suuntaus ja avaumatiedot. Havaintojen
varmennukseen kaytettiin kairausnaytteen tarkastelua tulkintojen rinnalla.
Kaikkiaan rei'ista kartoitettiin 6138 rakoa, mika edustaa karkeasti 80% kairausnaytteen
rakokartoituksen havainnoista. Kaikkia kairausnaytteesta havaittuja ja raportoituja
rakoja ei kuvista voida nahda. Toisaalta erityisesti tihearakoisilla osuuksilla seka
naytehukkajaksoilla havainnoissa on mukana myos joitakin todennakoisia a1emm1n
raportoimattomia rakoja, joita ei ole kairausnaytteesta kartoitettu.
Avoimia ja osittain avoimia rakoja, joista osassa on myos tayte, on keskimaarin 5%
kaikista raoista. Harvarakoisissa rei'issa K.Rl ja KR2 niita on vahan. Rei'issa KR4 ja
KR13 niita esiintyy muita reikia yleisemmin (9%). Taytteiset raot edustavat kahta
kolmasosaa ja tiiviit yhta kolmasosaa kaikista raoista. Avaumat ja taytepaksuudet
vaihtelevat 0.5 - 120 mm valilla. Taytepaksuus on raportoitu useimmille raoille.
Rakojen muoto on yli puolessa tapauksista tasomainen ja silea (55%), tasomainen ja
karkea seka aaltoileva ja tasainen molemmat noin viidesosalla. Rakojen vareina on
todettu useimmiten harmaasavy (60-80% kaikista). Mustia taytteita todetaan harvoin
luultavasti tumman taustan takia, harmaa ja valkoinen ovat yleisempia. Reikien KR2 ja
KR13 osalta tavataan melko usein myos varisavyja ruskea, vihreaja keltainen.
Vuotokohtia on havaittu 0 - 49 raossa kutakin reikaa kohti, eniten reiassa KR12.
Melkein puolet naista raoista osoittavat vedenjohtavuusmittausten virtauskohtia. Sisaan
virtaavan materiaalin perusteella on kyse mahdollisesta avoimessa reiassa reikaan
suuntautuvasta virtauksesta.
Avainsanat: Kairanreikien kuvantaminen, rakotulkinta, ydinjatteiden loppusijoitus

-------

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
TIIVISTELMA
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3
2

IMAGE MATERIAL ......................................................................................................... 7

2.1

Image logging arrangements ............................................................................. 7

2.2

The image properties ....................................................................................... 10

2.3

The image quality due to borehole conditions ................................................. 14

2.4

The preconditioning of the image material ...................................................... 23

MAPPING THE FRACTURES ...................................................................................... 25

3.1

Preparation of the material .............................................................................. 25

3.2

Picking of the features ..................................................................................... 25

3.3

Quality criteria of the picking ........................................................................... 26

DETERMINATION OF THE PROPERTIES ................................................................. 31

4.1

Design of property parametres ........................................................................ 31

4.2

The distribution of mapping results according to level of confidence .............. 71

CHECKING THE OBSERVATIONS WITH THE CORE SAMPLES ............................. 73

5.1

The checking procedures ................................................................................ 73

5.2

The results of the checking ............................................................................. 73

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 75
6.1

Contents of the results ..................................................................................... 75

6.2

Fracture type distributions ............................................................................... 75

6.3

Fracture aperture and thickness ...................................................................... 80

6.4

Fracture forms ................................................................................................. 80

6.5

Fracture filling colours ..................................................................................... 81

6.6

Inflow indications ............................................................................................. 83

6. 7

Presentation of results and data delivery ........................................................ 88

6.8

Comments on results ....................................................................................... 89

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 91

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 97

PREFACE

This report describes fracture interpretation of borehole imaging data from Olkiluoto in
2001 (supplementary mapping of KRl, KR2 and KR4, and mapping of KR9, KR12,
KR13 and KR14). This work belongs to Posiva site characterization programme for
spent nuclear fuel disposal. The work has been ordered from and supervised by Posiva.
The authors wish to thank Posiva's contact persons Mr. Heikki Hinkkanen and Mrs.
Liisa Wikstrom for their useful comments and guidance. We also thank the experts
who reviewed the work and results on their essential communication: Dr. Alan
Geoffrey Milnes of GEA Consulting, Dr. John Hudson of Rock Engineering
Consultants, Mr. Kai Front of VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, and Mrs.
Ursula Sievanen of Saanio & Riekkola Consulting Engineers.
Mr. Raimo Ruotsalainen and Mr. Esa Raivonen of Geological Survey, and Mr. Aimo
Hiironen of Posiva deserve special thanks for arranging the review of the core samples.

INTRODUCTION

Orientations and properties of fractures were mapped from borehole imaging data of
Olkiluoto boreholes KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14 and partly boreholes KR1, KR2 and
KR4. The data contained 1996 BIP imaging results from those KR1, KR2 and KR4
sparsely fractured sections, that have not been included into previous interpretation
(745 m, Stn1hle 1996) and OPTV imaging results from KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14
in 2001 (2306 m, Wild et al. 2002).
It was necessary to carry out the image mapping as a separate task, because the drilling
and core mapping has been performed well before (some months to 12 years) this
work. On general view, as core mapping is traditionally performed immediately on
site, and for the imaging can be performed due to optical conditions not earlier than
half a month after drilling, the most efficient mapping procedure has been recognized a
separate work, divided into subtasks that are checked numerically between the steps.
This also saves time and preserves consistency on mapping of the image properties.
Any direct comparison to the actual core mapping data is a separate task and has been
left to the interpretation phase during later works. Background data is referred to
adequate level.

The fracture mapping used extensively the WellCAD software from Advanced Logic
Technology (ALT 2001). WellCAD can handle and represent different kind of
borehole data and store the data linked to the presentations. All logs on a single file are
displayed on the same scale. The original image data together with borehole deviation
data were imported to WellCAD by Ms. Eveliina Tammisto and Mr. Tomas Lehtimaki
(Chapter 2). Before mapping, the core samples and images were visually examined to
understand the appearance of the features on the images. The fractures were mapped
and data transferred to determination of properties by Ms. Tammisto (KR2, KR4, KR9,
KR13), Mr. Eero Heikkinen (KR14) and Mr. Lehtimaki (KR1, KR12) (Chapter 3).
Determination of fracture properties from image was completely done by Ms.
Tammisto, a geologist. This was required by the Client, with an intention to maintain
consistency in the properties (see Chapter 4). Principles on determination were agreed
with Mr. Jorma Palmen, a geologist. The data was first checked by Mrs. Pirjo Hella
(mathematician) to select the observations to be confirmed or rejected. The selected
observations were checked over with the core samples (see Chapter 5) at Loppi core
archive (KR1, KR2, KR4, KR9, KR12) and in Olkiluoto (KR13 and KR14). Ms.
Tammisto, Mr. Lehtimaki and Mr. Heikkinen participated into this work. The sole
purpose of checking was to remove most of the features encountered on imagery that
are not real fractures in sense of core mapping.
Planning of the layout for printouts (Chapter 6), and data delivery were done partly by
Mr. Heikkinen, partly by Mrs. Hella and Ms Tammisto. Summary tables of different
fracture properties were compiled by Mrs. Hella. Practical arrangements for printing
and data compilation were done by Ms. Tammisto.
The preceding data is listed in the Table 1 below. The fracture locations and
intersection angles from core mapping were used in confirming the image observation
before review with the core sample. Other background data has not been used directly,
but understanding of these has been required to perform the mapping.

The mapping of core sample has listed all penetrative mechanical discontinuities with
their form and roughness on the sample, the mineralogical mapping specifically also
the coating minerals. Hydraulic conductivity is mapped with the flow logging. For
KRl, KR2 and KR4 there has been also dipmeter mapping available, that has brought
out valuable although incomplete orientation data.
Table 1. The preceding material from mapped boreholes.
Method

Properties

Borehole

Reference

Systematic
core
mapptng

KR1
KR2
KR4
KR9
KR12
KR13
KR14

Suomen Malmi Oy 1989a

SMOY 1989b, Rautio 1995a
SMOY 1990, Rautio 1995b
Rautio 1996
Niinimaki 2000
Niiinimaki 2001a
Niinimaki 2001 b

Geophysical
logging

Reference to lithology,
fracture zones, hydrology

KR1
KR2,KR4
KR9
KR12
KR13,
KR14
KR12
KR1, 2, 4,
9
KR13, 14
all

Blomqvist et al1992, Gehor et al. 2001a

Gehor et al. 1996
Gehor et al. 1997
Gehor et al. 200 1b
Not available during mapping

Hydraulic
flow logging
data

Length location (primary

reference), type (open,
filled, tight, slickensided),
intersection angle, partial
orientation, form,
roughness, tentative
mineralogy, frequency,
RQD. All observed ones.
Length, type (open,
breakout, slickensided,
filled); thorough fracture
mineralogy and
appearance, thickness of
filling. Not all fractures.
Location and hydraulic
conductivity of the
conductive fractures

Electrical
dipmeter

Fractures, general
orientation of banding;
interpretation of
orientation clusters
Image from whole
borehole, mapped data
from selected sections
(those not included to this
work); fracture location,
type, orientation,
aperture, form, tentative
mineralogy, alteration
Merging of above
mentioned fracture
properties to same
observations
Non-mapped image data,
mapped in this work

Systematic
mineralogy
mapptng

BIP imaging
and mapping

Fracture
database
(FDB)
OPTV
image

KR1, 2, 4

Pollanen & Rouhiainen 2000.

Rouhiainen 1999.
Not available during mapping
Niva 1989, SMOY 1989c, d, 1990b,
Julkunen et al. 1995, 1996, 2000, Lahti
et al. 2001
Lowit et al 1996

KR9, 12,
13, 14
KR1, 2, 4

Not available

KR 1, 2, 4

Saksa et al. 1997, Karanko et al. 2000

KR9, 12,
13, 14

Wild et al. 2002

Strahle 1996; mapping supplemented by

Karanko et al. 2000. Systematic mapping
similar to this work performed for 70o/o
of imagery.

Most important data not received from other than the image mapping are the thorough
orientation, and the aperture of the fractures, combined with the observation type seen
in image. The type of observation is different from each mapping method, and will
rather be supplementing each other than being exclusive.

It was expected that there is a proportion of fractures not seen in the imagery (Saksa et
al. 1997, Karanko et al. 2000). In this sense both the other mapping data and the image
mapping results are in their part inadequate to describe the fracture properties alone.
Without a direct comparison to the core data (performed in fracture database
approach), it cannot be said which (kind of) core fractures are not included into the
current observations. A priori assumption is that these may be thin, dark fractures on a
dark background, and probably often perpendicular to the borehole (horizontal lines on
image). Despite of this potential statistical bias, the coverage of core fractures is
expected to be reasonable.
The work in hand concentrated on mapping of the imagery to produce material for later
geological usage. Results were referred with the core sample for quality's sake. These
results should not be considered as the primary data source of fracturing. A relevant
data source these become only after the fracture database has linked core fractures to
the image data. For orientation distributions, the image mapping data is the only
available thorough data set until the database comes available.

IMAGE MATERIAL

Borehole wall images of KR1, KR2 and KR4 BIP investigations (Stn1hle 1996) and
OPTV investigations in 2001 from KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14 (Wild et al. 2002)
were analysed in this work. Previous interpretation of BIP data (Strahle 1996) was
supplemented from least fractured sections, omitted from the preceding work. The
interpretation included for each borehole the sections shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The extent of the interpretation work for this report.

Borehole

Borehole length range, m

Length, m

Image type

Reference

KR1

341 -500 (sections d & e in

field data),
644- 740 (field data section g)
300- 390 (sections c & d),
440- 539 (section e)
390- 480 (sections d and e),
570 - 739 (sections f, g and j)
40-602
40- 793
6-499
9-513.5

267.5

BIP

Strahle 1996

201

BIP

Strahle 1996

276

BIP

Strahle 1996

559
751
494
502
3050.5

OPTV
OPTV
OPTV
OPTV

Wild et al.
Wild et al.
Wild et al.
Wild et al.

KR2

KR4
KR9
KR12
KR13
KR14
Total

2002
2002
2002
2002

This chapter lists the techniques used, the properties of the images, and the observed
factors in image quality, which have influenced to the mapping and may affect to the
results.

2.1

Image logging arrangements

The images consist of bitmaps arranged by depth and orientation. Images have been
acquired by slowly lowering or raising a wire-line camera probe in a borehole and
digitally sampling the borehole image at a dense, constant depth rate. In the probe the
light of a LED-string is reflected from borehole wall to a mirror and further projected
onto CCD-element (a video camera). The acquisition geometry, and the parameters of
the image data content are shown in Figure 1.
Each 360 or 720 pixels' row in the image presents a full circle around the borehole
wall captured from a circle on the image. This produces a radial resolution of 1 or 0.5
degrees, respectively. The specifications of the tools used are presented in Table 3.
The capturing has been performed at a rate of 1130 or 1150 frames per second. The
resulting recording rate or the depth resolution of the image lines is 0.5 or 1.0 mm,
depending on available resolution and logging speed. Recorded image lines were
stored into a computer and transferred to a MO or compact disc. Images contain RGB
data at a colour resolution of 0 ... 255 units for each Red, Green and Blue channels
("millions of colours"). Due to their very large size bitmap images were stored in 30150 m slightly overlapping sections during the field work. These data sections
("logging runs") are indicated by letter indexes "a" through "k" in each borehole.

Table 3. The tool and operation specification details for BIP and OPTV images.
Tool/ Details
Probe manufacturer

BIP
RaaX Ltd (Japan).

Operator

SKB/Geosigma (Strahle
1996), Sweden
1 mm (max 0,25 mm)
1 (360 pixels) or 0.49

Vertical sampling used

Horizontal sampling used

OPTV
Robertson Geologging (UK)/
OyO (Japan)
Robertson Geologging Ltd.
(Wild et al. 2002), UK.
0,5 mm
0.5 (720 pixels) or 0.24 mm

mm at a 56 mm at 56 mm and 0.33 mm at 76
diameter borehole
mm borehole diameter
Storage size
Data format

1Mb/metre
BIP binary

Nominal logging rate

Illumination
Recording geometry
Cable
Logging direction

1,5 m/minute
LED at mirror
Conical mirror
Optical
Upwards

4Mb/metre
Initially LGX (binary),
received as Dill
0,5 m/minute
LED at camera objective
Hyperbolical mirror
Coaxial steel armored
Mainly upwards

An image has been oriented to the down side of inclined borehole (BIP image, Strahle
1996), or by a magnetic 3-axial compass (Flux gate) to the magnetic North, then
adjusted to the site North (OPTV image). Because of the rapid changes in local
magnetic field orientation in presence of magnetized minerals in the host rock, the
initial OPTV image has been straightened up by the operator (Wild et al. 2002) by
replacing the orientation with Maxibor or Fotobor orientation data (Rautio 1996,
Niinimaki 2000, Niinimaki 2001 a, b).

Examples of the images are in Figures 2 and 3, and their colour histograms in Figures 4
and 5, in Section 2.2 below.

9
a) The down-hole tool assembly

b) The OPTV functional arrangement

SO NDEHEAO

1---r- Video Camera

Lighting Ring
) AXIX

A CCELEf\Ot.IETEf\

NO N MAG N E11C _
CEN f iV\J ISERS

T RANSPA RENT
WINDOW

c) Image arrangement
c) Screen (camera) view

Azimuth

N
-

Camera field of view

Image of
circular mirror
Sample circle

CD

"'0

s:

L-----~--L.,;~;;..._--__.

Hypothetical X-Y
pixel grid

Figure 1. The nomenclature used in the image presentations and alignment. a) the
OPTV image tool and b) the camera functional arrangement with c) the
screen view during logging. The 3-component inclinometer and
magnetometer provide the tool orientation reference to magnetic and site
North and to borehole deviation. This is used to align the Sample circle in
c) to arrange the image at subsequent depth lines to show the pixels
clockwise, each row starting at reference direction (for OPTV the True
North; for BIP the down side) (modified from Wild et al 2002). The
sinusoid line on wrapped-out image shows a planar fracture projection.

10

2.2 The image properties

The image properties are differing slightly with respect to the technique used in
logging. Figures 2 - 5 illustrate these differences. Generally, the difference in pixel
resolution can be seen in approximately 1:2 vertical and 1: 1 horizontal scale images in
Figures 2 and 3. This scale is typical for the on-screen mapping and image quality
assessment, but usually not for presentations or printing. The features discussed on this
Section are most clearly visible on computer screen and suffer on quality when printed.
The hair cracks on pegmatite granite, having dark coating, appear slightly jagged in 1
degree by 1 mm BIP image (Figure 2), and the overall resolution gives a bit blurred
impression on this scale. The individual image pixels can be clearly seen in this scale.
The two-fold sharper resolution of OPTV image (0.5 degrees by 0.5 mm) on less
fractured tonalite gneiss gives a more sharp impression, the individual pixels can not
be clearly distinguished on the image on this scale, and the minor cracks and grain
boundaries do not appear as jagged as in BIP. Even the foliation can be seen. Due to
better resolution the OPTV data storage size is four times larger than for the BIP.
The above-mentioned properties are a result of selecting the data acquisition
parameters and the logging speed rate rather than due to tool functional properties. The
dark coating visible on Figure 2, and the opaque band on Figure 3 are due to borehole
conditions (see Section 2.3 in more detail), and not related to the tool performance.
Further to the tool and logging resolution, the tool arrangement has influenced to the
image appearance. This can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 in the differences of lightness
and color saturation. The differences are shown in Figures 4 and 5, in sense of image
analysis, in the RGB channel plots of Figures 2 and 3, respectively. For a shadow cast
on the fracture trace due to the tool arrangement (see below), the difference between
BIP and OPTV can be best viewed on images shown in Chapter 4 (Figures 15 and 22).
In the BIP tool the light source is located adjacent to the conical mirror, to where the
light reflects perpendicularly from the borehole wall, and further to the camera
objective. The light source is powerful and the distance short, so in places there has
occurred saturation of the colour channels (Figure 4). Usually there is also due to large
variation of dark and light rock types, an effect of automated exposure or shutter speed
(light intensity) adjustment. No later adjustments to the images have been applied.

In the OPTV tool the light source is located behind the camera objective, and the
oblique light beam reflects first from the borehole wall to a hyperbolical mirror (image
is similar to that from a fish-eye lens), and then to the objective. Despite of the strong
light source, the image is rather dark (Figure 5). Light intensity is higher with larger 76
mm diameter. It was required to adjustment RGB scale (contrast, brightness and colour
intensity). The adjustments were performed for optimal printing on photographic paper
for reporting (Wild et al. 2002), and have caused the image colours to convert a bit
false, with slightly too high relative intensity in blue and red components. The light
intensity range is a bit narrow due to the initial darkness of the image, but the contrast
is adequately sharp for on-screen mapping. No later image enhancement has been
applied for presentations.

The oblique angle of illumination allowed many fractures to cast a shadow on the
image, so these can be observed pretty clearly (the difference is seen best on Figures
6a, 15 and 22).

11

Figure 2. Example of BIP image data from depth level 340.40- 360.66 m of KR2,
granite pegmatite with hair cracks. Scale is approximately 1:2 vertically
and 1:1 horizontally. The pixels on the image can be seen quite well on this
scale. The light grains are slightly overexposed (see also Figure 4 for
reference). Thin lines appear jagged.

12

Figure 3. Example of OPTV image data from depth level 40.50 - 40. 76 m of KR9,
tonalite gneiss. Scale is approximately 1:2 vertically and 1:1 horizontally.
The pixels on image are not distinct in this scale. Image is sharp and the
grain boundaries and hair cracks appear rather smooth. Foliation and even
the vertical tool marks can be distinguished. On the other hand, the colour
range is narrow, and the dark grains are a bit underexposed (see also
Figure 5 below).

13

Channel :

Red

Figure 4. RGB colour channels of the BIP image in Figure 2. The colour range is
well covered, although the red channel is partly saturated resulting to
slightly reddish image and partial overexposure.

Figure 5. RGB colour channels of the OPTV image in Figure 3. The colour range is
narrow and show a slight underexposure on all components, specifically on
red. This has lead to a slightly bluish image quality. Differences arise from
the tool geometrical arrangements.

14

2.3 The image quality due to borehole conditions

Generally the quality of images is good and accurate. There are several technical
factors influencing the images that also affect the mapping (see Table 4).
Table 4. The factors on image quality.
Factors on image quality

Reason

Figure

Vertical banding,
opaque bands
Tool marks

Tool decentralization
Flow of mud in water
Spiral banding, reamer
Vertical scratch lines
Cloudy water
Coated borehole wall
Uneven movement, due to
surface,
coarse
cable
tension, flow, low weight
of tool, or other

Figure 6a
Figure 6b
Figure 7a
Figure 7b
Figure 8a
Figure 8b
Figures 9a, b

Optical conditions
Stick-slip motion of probe

Typically the quality deeper in some boreholes has suffered from cloudy water, dark
opaque bands on image or stick-slip motion. Vertical illumination differences (see
Figure 6a) occur due to the decentralization of the tool (especially for OPTV images
from larger 76 mm diameter boreholes KR13 and KR14). Other vertical banding
occurs on the bottom side of the borehole due to an opaque material flowing in the
borehole water (Figure 6b). This line helps to confirm the image orientation.
Drilling with an oversize reamer has left spiral marks occurring as 3-5 cm wide
patches, repeated at 13-15 cm period, of different colour than surrounding image (see
Figure 7a). On the other hand, tool marks can be seen also as light and narrow vertical
lines (Figure 7b ). These occur both in the BIP and the OPTV images.
Dirty borehole water can be seen in many locations, especially at fracture zones. The
feature is more severe when the borehole is freshly drilled, or when other measurement
have been performed shortly before image logging (Figure 8a). Boreholes drilled long
before image logging have prominent sedimentation of rust or other dark material onto
the wall (Figure 8b).
The stick-slip motion of the imaging probe can be seen as horizontal lines of short
vertical banding. The probe had jammed instantaneously but depth record changed
continuously, and the probe has then suddenly jumped over some 3- 5 mm (OPTV,
Figure 9b) to 3- 10 cm (BIP, Figure 9a), where true image pixels are missing because
they have been replaced with a single value in each column.
The length of each slip movement is smaller in OPTV image than in BIP. This may get
an explanation from the slower 0.5 m/min probe run rate of OPTV compared to 1.5
m/min of BIP. The phenomenon is expected to be caused by friction on the probe due
to coarse wall (fractures etc.), or possibly a strong flow along the borehole; or cable
tension, or the light weight of the probe itself causing uneven movement, among the
other possible reasons. No direct explanation for this has been available so far.

15

Figure 6a. Vertical banding. Probe decentralization (KR13, depth 36.70- 36.97 m).
Light intensity is higher on the high side of borehole (larger distance from probe
produces better illumination due to distance and less narrow reflection angle).

16

Figure 6b. Vertical banding. Dark material flow along the borehole (KR9, depth
231.60-231.95 m). The phenomenon is worst below fracture zones.

17

Figure 7a. Tool marks on the image. Spiral banding is due to oversize reamer (KR4,
448.85-449.15 m).

18

Figure 7b. Tool marks on the image. Narrow vertical tool scratch lines (KR13, 401.10
- 401.35 m). The water is also rather cloudy (dirty) in this image, and there is an
opaque band on down side of the borehole (to the east on borehole inclined to the
west).

19

Figure 8a. Water quality. Dirty water in the borehole (KR14, 512.50 - 512.80 m).
Flowing clay particles can be seen on the center line of the image (down side of the
borehole inclined to the north).

20

Figure 8b. Water quality. Coated surface of borehole wall (KRJ , 342.80 - 343.05 m).
The coating will accumulate during long period, and is best preserved on the spiral
tool mark.

21

Figure 9a. Stick-slip motion. BIP image (depth 643.90- 644.15, KRJ). The length of
each slippage is 20-30 mm, sometimes even larger, and damages the image severely
when observed. Occurrence is rather rare on sparsely fractured bedrock.

22

Figure 9b. Stick-slip motion. OPTV image (KR14, 505.55 - 505.80 m). The length of
each slippage is only 3-5 mm, so the mapping is not totally blocked. The phenomenon
can be thorough over long sections.
In general the BIP image had suffered less from the dirty water, and does not indicate
severe stick-slip motion on sections treated in this work. In 1996 the water in the
boreholes had settled down reasonably long. Also the colour intensity is good. On the
other hand the image pixel resolution is clearly poorer than in OPTV. For OPTV image
the pixel resolution is good, but the image is dark, and a minor stick-slip motion makes
the quality at the deeper parts slightly poor. The short time after drilling and other
borehole operations, and probably the upward sequence of OPTV logging, made other
boreholes than long time settled KR9 to suffer from dirty water conditions. KR12 was
reasonably good but for freshly drilled KR13 and KR14 the condition was less good.

23

Also the decentralization causes more uneven light distribution in 76 mm diameter

boreholes compared to 56 mm, although the image quality is otherwise better with
larger diameter.

2.4

The preconditioning of the image material

Before the mapping the images were necessary to transport into the software system
used in the mapping.
Original OPTV and BIP data was imported in 10 m sections into WellCAD (version
3.0) working logs and stored into files containing the depth and original measurement
section information (index "a"-"k") in the file names. During the logging there was at
each run section a 1 - 2 m overlap reproduced in the images. Data import preserved the
original data resolution and image orientation, and allowed scalability on the depth and
the radial axis.
The BIP data was contained in binary files of 100 m in each, including recorded depth
and orientation. The depth reading was adjusted according to values obtained from the
original report (Stn\hle 1996), representative at the top of each 10 m section. The
adjustments are linear between the top and the bottom of the each 100 m run section.
Residual differences of 10 - 20 cm to core sample can occur due to local deviation
from the trend. The stretch of the image over 10 m section is typically 5 - 15 cm. In
places the residual difference may reach 30 cm due to deviation in core mapping depth
(reconstruction of sample has failed), or a slight jamming of the probe.
The OPTV image was read in as 10 m sections of Device Independent Bitmap (DIB)
files. Original OPTV records were adjusted by setting top of subsequent log to the
bottom of previous log. The DIB files do not contain depth or orientation data, but left
edge of image is at the true North, and the top and the bottom depth values for each 10
m section were taken from the field work report (Wild et al. 2002) during the import.
The difference to the core sample is typically less than 10 cm, and at largest less than
30cm.
The depth differences were found during the fracture mapping, but were not
systematically corrected for in the images. A proper adjustment would require trend
analysis for each section and non-linear or piecewise linear adjustments on that basis.
This was not task of the work.
The imported images were checked for possible errors and proper orientation.
Supplementary data including rock types, crushed borehole intervals, drilling fractures
with orientation and intersection angle, drilling fracture frequency, and the borehole
orientation (azimuth from the North and inclination from the vertical) were presented
in the WellCAD working logs to aid the mapping.

25

MAPPING THE FRACTURES

In the planning phase of the work, typical appearance of the fractures in the images
were compared with those from core sample mapping at Loppi core archive (KR2 and
KR4, KR12) of Geological Survey and in Olkiluoto (KR14). The task was to
distinguish the real fractures (penetrative mechanical discontinuities) from narrow
mica bands, veins, foliation etc. possibly appearing similar way on the images.

3.1

Preparation of the material

In Well CAD the images were set to a depth scale of 1:1 - 1:2 and stretched on the log

so that the horizontal scale was approximately the same as the vertical (image 17 - 22
cm wide on screen; aspect ratio close to 1: 1). With this setting the pixels on screen
(0.25 mm) were close to the true image resolution.
A new "Structure Log" to be used in mapping was created on the WellCAD file. The
structure log and the BIP or OPTV image log were set on top of each other in exactly
same horizontal and vertical scales. The borehole diameter was set to a correct value
(56 or 76 mm) in the structure log. The tadpole presentations (arrow position on depth
shows the location, on horizontal scale the dip, and the tail points to dip direction,
north to up, east to left etc.) of drilling observed fractures (both the 3-D orientation and
the intersection angle) were set on the side of these two logs.

3.2

Picking of the features

On the structure logs were drawn numerically the sinusoidal projection traces of the
mapped fracture planes. The software stored the orientation data of the planes into data
table. Any (near to) planar feature appears on wrapped-out image as a sinusoid trace,
where the lowest point indicates the dip direction and amplitude (difference from
highest to lowest point) indicates the dip when correlated to the borehole diameter.
When the interpreted traces were combined to the borehole deviation data, the true
orientations of the fractures were obtained and converted to the tables. The data was
presented in a tadpole log beside the image log and compared to the core logging data.
A discontinuity feature in the image was considered to be a potential fracture, when it
differed clearly from the background image; was continuous over the image width, and
was not easily confused to a vein, band of mica plates, foliation or schistosity, or other
thin, similarly orientated features. These criteria are in accordance with those applied
in core mapping. In core mapping the features that penetrate thoroughly over the
sample are reported as fractures. This cannot always be seen reliably for weak class of
features in the image. Features of incomplete continuity (partial fractures - terminating
to another, faulting one; discordant cracks between two adjacent fractures) were agreed
to be left out from the image mapping in this work, although these may be of
importance. Mapping can be continued for these features later according to the
requirements.
Typical indications of a fracture are often light in colour over a dark rock type, or dark
in colour over a light rock. These can be few pixels to several millimetres wide, or
even of a sub-pixel width (less than 0.3 - 0.5 mm) when showing clear continuity. A
(drilling induced) breakout or washout of filling material or the borehole wall will
make the observation easier. A black line in an image would indicate open space
(water filled) between the fracture surfaces, a coloured line on the other hand some

26

kind of filling. Examples of clearly visible (probable) and poorly visible (potential)
fractures are shown in Figure 10.
Fracture observations were picked from activated structure logs by clicking with
mouse pointer in minimum three points (usually more) on the sinusoidal trace. The
software then calculated the fracture plane matching to the points and displayed the
corresponding projection trace on the log. The orientation data was stored into a file for
editing and exporting. The assigned depth is the midpoint of the trace depth (average of
high and low points). The trace can be activated and graphically edited to represent the
observations in an optimal way.

3.3 Quality criteria of the picking

Depending on the curvature and roughness of the real fracture surface pretty large
deviations from the orientation can occur. The software has directly calculated the
orientation of the plane relative to the borehole coordinates. The values only need to be
corrected for borehole deviation.
Typical accuracy of the plane fit is some 1-5 degrees. The relative dip is most accurate
when the plane intersects the borehole image nearly perpendicularly. The relative dip
direction is most accurate when the trace is aligned with borehole axis. For a stepped
or undulating trace, a visually well-representative trace was fitted, and there can be
quite a large deviation locally from the plane. This also means that the orientation is
more inaccurate, error can be even several tens of degrees. The final accuracy will
depend on the orientation of the fracture. The true dip direction is very insensitive for
near-horizontal fractures, even differences of some 30 degrees need to be allowed; on
the other hand for near vertical ones the dip will greatly depend on the accuracy of the
plane fit - small curvature of the trace or change in the intersection angle with borehole
axis will cause comparably large difference on the true dip. It has to be borne in mind
that also the core mapping orientation may in cases be inadequately defined.
The core mapping data from the drilling reports were used to guide the image mapping.
The mapping was done from top to bottom in order to detect depth differences. At this
point it was not possible to combine the mapped fractures together with the fracture
data from the drilling. The features that were clear and continuous on the image were
mapped most easily. The core data were mostly used for checking the correct depth
and orientation of the image, and when poorly visible features were mapped. Extremity
points of traces were avoided to be used in plane fitting.
For each observation a level of certainty was determined on basis of visibility on image
and on correspondence to the core data depth and orientation. Clearly visible trace was
nominated as "probable" and poorly visible as "possible". Good correspondence with
location (10 cm) and reasonable correspondence with orientation (intersection angle, or
when available the dip direction and dip within 30 degrees) was indicated with label
"existing", poor correspondence to either location or orientation with "new".
Finally, after each depth section of a borehole was mapped, the structure logs of
observations were copied, and the copy was transformed to the true site coordinate
system. The data was converted to tadpole presentation and compared with oriented
drilling fractures. The data were exported to an Excel sheet. All data sets of a borehole
were merged together. Duplicate observations at overlapping logging run sections (1-2
m) were discarded.

27

Example of clearly and weakly visible fractures, and the mapped traces, are shown in
pair of images in Figures 1Oa-b. The "probable" fracture (green line) is seen as 5 mm
wide continuous trace, with a slight irregularity and curvature on the shape. The
"possible" fracture (thin black line) is seen as jagged, less planar thin bluish-white line
on both sides of the projection line (see red arrows on Figure lOb). Similar but more
planar feature is on the bottom of Figure 10. This kind of features needed to be
confirmed from the core.

Figure lOa. Examples of fracture picking (KR9, 141.50-141.75 m). A clear feature
(upper, a probable fracture), and a less well visible feature (lower, a possible fracture)
with the fitted sinusoid curves of a plane projection. The poorly visible trace is
indicated on Figure JOb (arrows).

28

Depth

OPTV

1:2

~------------------------------------------------------~
N
N
s
w
E

Figure JOb. Examples of fracture picking (KR9, 141.50-141.75 m). A clear fracture
(upper), and a less well visible fracture (lower) without sinusoid curves. The red
arrows indicate the points where the undulating and thin, bluish white fracture trace
can be seen on the image. Penetrative continuity can be seen best on screen.
The mapping was done as a separate phase of work and entirely before proceeding to
classification and property determination. To speed up the procedure, mapping was
performed by three different persons (a whole borehole for each):
Ms Tammisto, a geologist: KR2, KR4, KR9, KR13, KR14
Mr. Lehtimaki, a geophysicist: KRI, KR12
Mr. Heikkinen, a geophysicist: KR14

~~ ~~

~-

-~

- -

- - -

- - -- - -- - -

- - - - - --

29

Due to different "handwriting", experience and background of persons involved, the

mapping was assumed to lead to slightly a different result with respect to relative
amount and certainty of observations (specifically the less visible ones). Some persons
tend to pick more clear features (losing some true data), and some try to find as many
features as possible (with a risk of mapping also non-true fractures). The differences
could have been best confirmed with a blind comparison test of a same section to avoid
influence of image quality and rock type.
The procedure of separate mapping of properties, and checking of observations against
the core sample were considered essential. Differences were considered to be equalized
by limiting the determination of properties to a single person, a geologist (Ms.
Tammisto).
Also, most important, using the separate phases made each phase more efficient and
time intensive compared to a situation where all steps were carried out simultaneously.
And, the statistical checking of picked properties was more consistent when handling a
single phase simultaneously over a borehole before proceeding to the next phase.

---,

31

DETERMINATION OF THE PROPERTIES

The determination of fracture properties was performed by Ms. Tammisto, a geologist,

alone to maintain consistency of the results. The work was performed with keeping on
display simultaneously an Excel spreadsheet file with depth and orientation data, and
the WellCAD image log from corresponding depth.
The observation was viewed from the image log and the type, aperture and filling,
level of certainty, form and colour were determined. The possible values for properties
were agreed beforehand. The data was further classified and rearranged during the
checking and analysis procedure (Chapters 5 and 6).

4.1

Design of property parametres

The parameters were designed before the mapping to preserve similarity with the
previous image mapping results (Stn\hle 1996) and core mapping results (Suomen
Malmi Oy 1989a, b, 1990, Rautio 1995a, b, 1996, Niinimaki 2000, 2001 a, b) from the
area, and on the other hand the work done on merging the fracture data from different
mappings (Karanko et al. 2000). The technique was adjusted further to this work to
allow thorough mapping of the information visible in the image. The mapping
concentrated to the properties that cannot be reliably or completely obtained from the
core mapping (aperture and orientation were the most important). On the other hand,
the other, supporting parameters that are mapped also from the core, were expected to
assist later comparison and merging of the different observations and techniques. The
observation and their illustrations on pairs of Figures 11-24 are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5. The parameters used in the determination ofproperties.

Nos.

Properties Comments

Figures
where
illustrated

Level of
certainty

11

2-5

Type

6-7

Aperture,
thickness
Form

8-9
1113
14

Col or
Seepage

Clear visibility on image= "probable", corresponding the

core data = "existing"
Clear visibility on image= "probable", not corresponding
the core data = "new"
Poor visibility on image = "possible", corresponding the
core data = "existing"
Poor visibility on image= "possible", corresponding the
core data = "new"
Visual properties of feature on image; open fractures
Partly open fractures
Fractures with filling (no visible aperture)
Fractures without visual filling or aperture
Measurement principle of the properties (perpendicular to
the fracture plane)
Fracture form, seen in image width scale (planarity, steps,
undulation) and in local mm scale (local smoothness)

20a-f
21a-d

Color or grayscale data visible in different conditions,

ranging from darkness or gray value to color dye
Indication of material inflow from the surface

22a-b
23a-b
24

12
13
14
15a-d
16a-d
17a-b
18a-b
19a-b

32

The determined properties and their possible values are summarized in Table 6.
Distributions of the fractures according to their class before checking are listed in
Table 7. The details on mapping parameters are presented below.

Level of certainty (1) was used as a guiding basis for internal quality analysis of the
mapping. Also the observations to be checked were selected on this basis (Chapter 5).
Checking maintains the "probable/possible" classifications on Table 7 based on the
image visibility, but will alter the "existing/new" to "checked/rejected" when
applicable, to Table 9. The "rejected" class is not maintained in the final results (Table
9). The "possible" ones were checked systematically, the "probable" ones only with
few checks. A "probable" feature is so clear that there is no doubt on its determination
as a fracture. Observation was "possible" when it was not sure from image whether
there was a fracture or a vein or whether the observation was penetrative or not.
Feature was considered "existing" (fracture) when there were adequately similarly
oriented observations at the same depth level in the drilling report, and "new" when
there were no correspondence on either location or orientation. Also depth differences
between the image and core sample result in "possible" class observations. The typical
observations on different categories are illustrated in Figures 11 - 14.
Fracture type (2 - 5) consists of four independent observations. These were
"openness", "filling", "alteration" and "tightness". The previously used mutually
excluding types open-with filling-closed were considered to be inadequate so these
parameters were mapped separately. This results to fractures that can be with filling
and/or open. Anyhow, a "closed" fracture was not classified as an open fracture or a
fracture with filling, because it cannot be judged from visual appearance on image.
The type is a property that is observed from image at the intersection line of the plane
(along the plane), as there is no view onto the plane surface in image like there is in the
core. Observations are limited to their scale, i.e. features clearly smaller in thickness as
the pixel size are assigned with property "closed", although there can be filling
material or aperture thinner than 0,25 mm. Thus a closed fracture in the image can
quite well be a fracture with filling in core mapping, etc. The "open" and "partly open"
fractures may be seen as black pixels in BIP & OPTV, and shadow in OPTV. Filling
can be present also when a fracture is "open". Partial filling has not been separated fom
complete in mapping. And, if there is no observation "with filling", it does not mean
there would not be filling on the surface. The Figures 15 - 18 below show examples of
different fracture types.

The thickness (6) of the visible solid filling between the fracture surfaces and the
aperture (7) (a distance perpendicularly between fracture surfaces being apart each
another) were measured in millimeters from central part of the fracture trace,
perpendicular to the fracture plane, or, when the fracture was partly open, from the
open part. This was thought as the most representative value. At the peak points of the
projection (upper or lower end) the cut section is wider and usually more interfered by
drilling than at the central part. Thickness does not include aperture, nor vice versa.
Both aperture and thickness can vary considerably along the trace, so these estimates
should not be counted together to a "total width" estimate.

33

The aperture may partly or totally originate from drilling induced physical failure
(break-out) or washout of material between the surfaces, or even between closely
spaced several fractures, or from clay-filled or brecciated larger zone. If the
observation is linked to clearly collapsed or washed wide section (a narrow zone), the
edges have been mapped as separate observations. The fractures inside the zones have
been picked and classified only if they appear clearly. The image is the only
opportunity to get a direct "openness" indication of a fracture surface, as usually the
reconstruction of the core sample has no means to observe it; and there are rare in situ
indications on open fractures in other than hydraulic conductivity data. Figure 19
shows an example of measuring the aperture and thickness.

The form and roughness (8 - 9) of the surface have been described as a deviation
from the plane (from the sinusoid trace) in two separate scales. In the scale of the
wrapped-out image (200 - 250 mm), form (8) was analyzed. When the fracture trace
follows accurately enough the sinusoid of a plane, observation is "planar". If the trace
deviates several millimeters in any point, it is "undulating" (i.e. curved). In case the
surface changes suddenly several millimeters, it is denoted as "stepped". In the smaller
few millimeter scale, roughness (9) was analyzed. The fracture is "smooth" if there is
no observable deviation from the sinusoid, and otherwise "rough". Examples of
different forms of the fractures in different scales are shown in Figures 20 - 21.
The image observation is obtained from the side of the fracture plane, not from the
surface as in the core mapping, so the observations may not be quite comparable to the
surface roughness. Because the property is clearly observable, and also indicates the
accuracy of the plane fitting, it was recorded.

The colour (11 - 13) of fracture filling was assessed on three-level scale. Depending
on the colour and darkness of the background, and quality of the image, the colour
could be observed as
brightness (11 dark or light; especially when other colours cannot be seen)
grey intensity (12, white-grey-black)
colour dye (13, brown-red-yellow-green-blue).
In certain cases there are two or more separate colours, seen partially or layered on the
trace. From OPTV data the colour was observed from initial field data records, as in
the final data the contrast adjustment has altered the colours. In Figures 22 and 23
examples of the colour or grey intensity observation are shown.

Seepage (14) can be observed only when some material flows into the borehole from a
fracture and the colour of flowing material differs from the background. Outflow
cannot be observed. The flow from the fracture or along the borehole can be seen as a
curved fan on the image. The fan initiates from channels on fracture surface. It can be
guided towards the high side (light, warmer water) of the borehole, or to the low side
(heavier, cold water or material) and turn narrower before it vanishes within few tens
of centimeters. A visual observation at close probe view indicated that such trace is a
turbulent flow of material in the water. It can also be a stain of material sedimented on
the wall over a longer time. Direction (upwards or downwards) has been marked for
specific fractures. The Figure 24 shows an example of seepage location.

34

Table 6. The parameters treated during mapping, with allowed values.

No.
1

Property

Values

Comments

Level of
certainty

Probable,
existing

Drilling fractures at same 10 cm depth range, orientation

similar to the image observation within 30 degs, clear on
image
Drilling fractures at same 10 cm depth range, orientation
different from the image observation, and/or not clear on
image
Drilling fractures not observed at same 10 cm depth range,
or orientation clearly different to the image observation;
however clearly visible and "fracture-like"
Drilling fractures are not observed at same depth range ea.
10 cm, or orientation is different to the TV observation,
and are not clearly observable from image
Projections apart from each other
Part of surfaces apart from each other, part are closed when
seen in the observation scale
Surfaces are adjacent in the observation scale
Filling seen in image (coloured pixels, different from
background)
No filling seen in image (in observation scale)
Fracture lines are discoloured or disintegrated (rust, etc).
Fracture lines intact, no colour changes
Surfaces are either apart, separated with some material, or
weathering is observed
In the observation scale (0,25- 0,5 mm) the surfaces are
closed, there is no filling and fracture is not weathered.
Excludes the others.
Measured from central part of trace (in mm)
Central part of trace, for partly open from the open part (in
mm)
On image width scale

Possible,
existing
Probable,
new
Possible,
new

Openness

Filling

Alteration

Tightness

Open
Partly open
Not open
With filling
No filling
Altered
Fresh
Not closed
Closed

Filling thickness
Aperture

Shape

Planar
undulating
stepped

Roughness

10

Mineral

11

Darkness

12

Grey intensity

13

Colour dye

14

Seepage

Smooth
Rough
Possible
mineral
Dark
Light
Black
Grey
White
Yellow
Red
Green
Brown
Upwards
Downwards
No

On few mm scale
An estimate, not stored in final data
Only when image dark and no color or grey scale can be
estimated
Other than colour dye

Other than grey intensity

Material flow into borehole and its direction

35

OPTV

1:2

N 0

90
Drill. obs. tract.

7JD

Figure 11. Existing and probable observation (KR14, 72.80- 73.10 m, green sinusoid
and tadpole). Similar core fracture (black tadpole) is observed close to the same depth.
The trace is clear and continuous on image.

36

epth
1:2

OPlV

r---------------------------------------------N
N

90
Drill . obs . fract.

90

Figure 12a. Existing and possible observation (KR14, 73.60- 73.80 m, green sinusoid
and tadpole). A core fracture is observed close to the same depth (black tadpole). The
trace on image is a bit vague, and its continuity uncertain (a white undulating line).
The dip is steep; the dip direction of a steep fracture can easily turn 180 degrees in a
vertical borehole if the feature is undulating; real dip difference is approx. 3 0 degrees
over the vertical.

37

OPl\1'

1:2

IJtl

Figure 12b. Existing and possible observation (KR14, 73. 60 - 73. 80 m) without the
sinusoid curve. The red arrows clearly indicate the undulating white line, a possible
fracture with filling. The real reported fracture can be at slightly different position if
re-opened.

38

Pmjection#11

90

Figure 13a. A new and probable observation (KR9, 70.00 - 70.20 m). Similar core
fractures are not observed near to the same depth, but the observation is clear on
image. The fracture clearly is there, and typically when checking from the core sample
the observation was confirmed. It is possible that a welded fracture has not been
reported in drilling report although it could have been observed if broken apart. The
form deviates significantly from planar (see arrows on Figure 13b).

39

Depth

1:2

OPTV
N

Projection
N

Figure 13b. New and probable observation (KR9, 70.00 - 70.20 m) without the
sinusoid curve. The arrows indicate the position where the continuous, undulating line
is best observed on image.

40

Pmjectjon#1

90

Figure 14a. New and possible observation (KR9, 71.55-71.75 m, black line and
tadpole, on sparsely fractured rock). Similar core fractures are not observed close to
the same depth, and the observation is not very clear on image. It is possible that there
is a mica plate originated continuity on core, or a hair crack if seen on image is not
penetrative; or the fracture has not been observed on the core mapping. The checking
of these features on the core either led to rejection of observation, but in few cases a
new real fracture has been added to the database.

41

Depth

1:2

OPTV

Projection

71.6

Figure 14b. New and possible observation (KR9, 71.55-71.75 m) without the sinusoid
curve. The arrows indicate where the faint trace of possible hair crack has been seen
on image (black, continuous undulating line between feldspar grains).

42

Figure 15a. An open fracture, with filling (KR9, 13 7. 55 - 13 7. 75 m.). The arrow
shows the location where some filling material has been observed. The filling is not
penetrative in this case, and may have partly washed out during drilling.

43

Depth

1:2

OPTV
N

137.6

Figure 15b. An open fracture, with filling (KR9, 137.55- 137.75 m). The sinusoid and
arrow removed so the trace is more clearly seen.

44

Figure 15c. An open fracture with sinusoid curve, no visible filling (KR12, 713.35 713.55). There is some indication of the drilling debris lain on bottom of the surface,
but no compact filling between the surfaces. Either filling did not exist on this location,
or has been completely washed away.

45

Depth

1:2

OPTV

713.4

Figure 15d. An open fracture without sinusoid curve, no visible filling (KR12, 713.35 713.55). The same image as in Figure 15a.

46

Figure 16a. A partly open fracture, with filling (KR12, 738.35- 738.50 m). There is
clearly compact filling (calcite?) between the fracture surfaces, and part of the
fracture trace is clearly open on North (left) side.

47

OPTV

Depth

1:2

~--------------------------------------------------~
N

738.4

Figure 16b. A partly open fracture, with filling (KR12, 738.35- 738.50 m). The same
image as on Figure 16b.

48

Figure 16c. A partly open fracture with sinusoid curve, no visible filling (KR12,
713.15- 713.35). The aperture is clearly seen but no indication of any filling material
is present.

49

Depth

OPTV

1:2

~----------------------------------------------------~
N
E
s
w
N

713 .2

Figure 16d. A partly open fracture without sinusoid curve, no filling (KR12, 713.15 713.35). The same image as in Figure 16c.

50

Figure 17a. A fracture with filling, neither open nor partly open (KR9, 142.65 142.80 m). The filling, light in colour, can be seen on west (right) part ofthe trace. In
the observation scale, there cannot be seen any aperture or breakout (fracture is
healed).

51

OPTV

Depth

1:2

Figure 17b. A fracture with filling, neither open nor partly open (KR9, 142.65- 142.80
m). The same image as in Figure17a.

52

Depth
1:2

OPTV

r----------------------------------------------------------N
E
S
W
N
PROJECTION

Figure 18a. A closed fracture (KR9, 41.70-41.90 m) with sinusoid curve. There is a
narrow curved crack trace, cutting the mineral grains, that does not allow any
aperture or filling material to be observed.

53

Depth

OPTV

1:2

~---------------------------------------------------------N
s
w
N
E

41B

Figure 18b. A closed fracture (KR9, 41 .70-41 .90 m) without sinusoid curve. The red
arrows show the trace. There is no aperture or filling visible on the trace length. This
does not exclude the possibility offilling observed on the surface, or a minor (less than
0.25 mm) aperture being present.

54

Figure 19a. The measurement principle of aperture (KRJ2, 94.95 - 95.20 m). The
reading is taken from the mid part of the trace, between the surfaces apart in the
image.

55

Figure 19b. The measurement principle of thickness (KR12, 74.80- 75.00 m). The
reading is taken from the mid part of the trace, over the filling material.

56

Figure 20a. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), planar (KR9, 147.85 148.05 m) with sinusoid curve. The form follows nicely the sinusoid curve over the
image width.

57

Depth

1:2

OPTV
N

148.0

Figure 20b. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), planar (KR9, 147.85 148. 05 m) without sinusoid curve. The same image as in Figure 20a.

r---------------------------------------

-- -~------

58

Figure 20c. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), undulating (KR12, 65.5565.80 m) with sinusoid curve. The trace form is clearly deviating from the sinusoid
curve ofplane projection.

59

Depth

OPTV

1:2 1 - N - - - - - - - E - - - - - - - - S - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - N

6:5 .6

Figure 20d. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), undulating (KR12, 65.5565.80 m) without sinusoid curve. The image is same as in Figure 20c.

60

Figure 20e. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), stepped fracture (KR12
61.35 - 61.66 m) with sinusoid curve. There is clearly a step (probable brittle minor
fault) at the middle of the trace. A differently oriented minor crack seems to cut the
fracture mapped.

~-----------------------------------------------------

61

Dep1h

OPl\1'

1 :2

~-------------------------------------------------------

61.6

Figure 20f. Fracture form in image width scale (200 mm), stepped fracture (KR12
61.35- 61.66 m) without sinusoid curve.

62

Figure 21 a. Fracture form in local, mm scale smooth (KR12, 66.00 - 66.10 m) with
sinusoid curve. The surface is even, no deviation from planar form is seen.

OPTV

1:2

Figure 2lb. Fracture form in local, mm scale smooth (KR12, 66.00- 66.10 m) without
sinusoid curve. The same image as in Figure 21 a.

63

Figure 21 c. Fracture form in local, mm scale rough fracture (KR12, 62.15 - 62.35 m)
with sinusoid curve. The local few mm variation on the surface from the planar
projection is clearly seen.

64

Depth

1:2

OPTV

r---------------------------------------------------------N
E
s
N
w

Figure 21 d. Fracture form in local, mm scale rough fracture (KR12, 62.15 - 62.35 m)

without sinusoid curve. The same image as in Figure 21 c.

65

Figure 22a. A white fracture (KRJ , 370.00- 370.20 m) with sinusoid curve. The filling
material seen between the surfaces is white (calcite, kaolinite?) in eo/or.

66

Depth

1:2

BIPS

r------------------------------------------------------N

Figure 22b. A white fracture (KRJ, 370.00- 370.20 m) without sinusoid curve. The
same image as in Figure 22a.

67

Figure 23a. A grey fracture (KR2, 313.9-314.15 m) with sinusoid curve. The dark
grey eo/or offilling between the surfaces is clearly seen (quartz, chlorite?).

68

Depth

1:2

BIP
N

314.0

Figure 23 b. A grey fracture (KR2, 313.9 - 314.15 m) without sinusoid curve. The

same image as in Figure 23a.

69

Figure 24a. A location where material flows into the borehole (KR9, 280.54- 280.82
m) with sinusoid curve. There is a fan of material flowing upwards, tending to reach
the high side of the borehole (north), and a thicker line reaching to the down side
(south) of the borehole, flowing downwards. The first is probably soluble material and
water flowing, the latter probably solid material !rending to depth, or heavier water
fraction.

70

Depth
m:2m(R)

OPTV
N

200.8

Figure 24b. A location where materia/flows into the borehole (K.R9, 280.54-280.82
m) without sinusoid curve. The same image as in Figure 24a.

71

There was no attempt to observe existence of an alteration rim around the fracture trace
or to measure its thickness. Neither were assessed the filling properties (grain size,
compactness, clay, carbonate, quartz) as these were considered to be best mapped from
the core. Both can be estimated from the image to some extent, but the latter not with a
certainty.

4.2

The distribution of mapping results according to level of confidence

The original mapping resulted in 7933 fractures for 3050 m, see Table 7 for
observations in each borehole before checking.

Table 7. The distribution and amount offractures before checking.

Existing/
probable
Existing/
possible
New/
probable
New/
possible
Probable
Possible
Total
Obs. length
m
Observations
/m
Fractures/m
(drilling)

K.Rl,
N(%)

KR2,
N(%)

KR4
N(%)

KR9
N(%)

KR12,
N(%)

KR13,N
(%)

KR14,
N(%)

226 (60)

98 (27)

99 (41)

887 (71)

1797 (71)

1073 (67)

615 (40)

86 (23)

90 (25)

81 (33)

134 (11)

321 (13)

205 (13)

110 (7)

14 (4)

101 (28)

38 (16)

104 (8)

201 (8)

155 (10)

171(11)

52 (14)

77 (21)

26 (11)

124 (10)

227 (9)

161 (10)

660 (42)

240 (63)
138 (37)

199 (54)
167 (46)

137 (56)
107 (44)

991 (79)
258 (21)

1998 (78)
548 (22)

1228 (77)
366 (23)

786(51)
770 (49)

378
267.5

366
201

244
276

1249
559

2546
751

1594
494

1556
502

1.41

1.82

0.88

2.23

3.39

3.23

3.10

1.42

1.68

0.85

2.24

3.62

3.77

1.54

Initial fracture frequencies are similar to those observed in the core mapping. The host
rock sections (outside defined fracture zones) in KRl, KR2 and KR4 indicate less
fractures than the completely mapped other boreholes. Less fractured KR14 is an
exception in terms of comparison with the core mapping data.
The proportions of probable and possible features distribute interestingly. The BIP
mapped boreholes KRl, KR2 and KR4 show fewer probable observations (54- 63%)
than the OPTV mapped KR9, KR12, KR13 (77-79%). An exception of this trend is
KR14 (51%), which is least fractured and was mapped by a different person. Also the
image is poor due to stick-slip interference and dirty water. Class "existing/ possible"
is more frequent (23- 33%) in BIP image mapping than in OPTV mapping (7-13%).
For "new" fractures there is more variation in BIP image results (4-28%) than in
OPTV (8-11 %, except new possible 42% in KR14). These may arise from the
correctness of the depth adjustment in BIP images or core sample.

72

The certainty class was used to decide which borehole sections would be checked over
with the core sample. It appeared that the better resolution of OPTV image allows to
observe the features with greater certainty, although the relative amount of the
observations does not depend so much on the image source. In analysis of the different
certainty classes it was observed that the "possible" observations are more often
"closed" or "with filling" than the others. So the checking against the core sample was
focused into "existing/possible", "new/possible" and "new/probable", leaving the
"existing/probable" that was already linked to the core sample mapping for lesser
interest as it had external confirmation from the drilling data.

73

5
5.1

CHECKING THE OBSERVATIONS WITH THE CORE SAMPLES

The checking procedures

The observations were checked towards the core samples at the core sample archive of
Geological Survey of Finland in Loppi (boreholes KRl, KR2, KR4, KR9 and KR12),
and at Olkiluoto (KR13 and KR14). All the observations of classes 'New, Possible"
and "New, Probable" were checked systematically as well as most of the observations
"Existing, Possible".
The images and results were compared with the samples. The results of the first
checked borehole (KR2) were analyzed to allow guidance of the remaining work.
Checking required typically a day for 300- 400 observations. The rate depended on
fracture frequency, proportion of observations to be checked, rock type, quality of
image and the accuracy of the depth adjustment. The checked fractures received status
"probable", and are indicated also with a label "confirmed" in the final database. The
others have a label "unchecked". Rejected "not a fracture" -observations have been
removed from the final fracture lists. Influence of checking is presented in Table 8.

5.2 The results of the checking

After the checking 6138 fractures remained in the data (78% of the initial amount).
Generally some 78-88% of observations remained, except for KR4 (62%) and KR14
(5lo/o).
Table 8. Influence of checking.
Inspection

KRl,
N(%)

KR2,
N (o/o)

KR4,
N(%)

KR9,
N(%)

KR12,
N(%)

KR13,
N(%)

KR14,
N(%)

Initially
Final

378
295 (78)

366
321 (88)

244
148 (61)

1249
1026 (82)

1594
1342 (84)

1556
778 (51)

Checked
Rejected
Rejected of
checked
Exist/Cert
rejected
Exist/ uncert
rejected
New/cert
rejected
New/uncert
rejected

153 (40)
83 (22)
54%

213 (58)
58 (16)
27%

151 (62)
96 (39)
64%

386 (31)
223 (18)
58%

2546
2228
(88)
804 (32)
317(12)
39%

535 (34)
252 (16)
47%

969 (63)
770 (50)
79%

2 (1%,
N=226)
36 (42%,
N=86)
5 (36%,
N=14)
40 (77%,
N=52)

1 (0%,
N=98)
14 (16%,
N=90)
11 (11 %,
N=lOl)
32 (42%,
N=77)

3 (3%,
N=99)
48 (59%,
N=81)
21 (55%,
N=38)
24 (92%,
N=26)

13 (1 %,
N= 887)
74 (55%,
N=134)
44 (42%,
N=104)
92 (74%,
N=124)

10 (1 %,
N=1073)
78 (38%,
N= 205)
59 (38 %,
N=155)
105 (65%,
N=161)

27 (4%,
N=604)
63 (57%,
N=llO)
95 (34%,
N=278)
585 (91 %,
N=644)

13 (4%)

15 (1%,
N=1797)
99 (31%,
N=321)
51 (25%,
N=201)
152
(67%,
N=227)
1 (0%)

12 (1.5%)

1.10
pes/m

1.60
pes/m

0.54
pes/m

1.84 pes/m

2.97
pes/m

2.72
pes/m

1.55
pes/m

1.42
pes/m

1.68
pes/m

0.85
pes/m

2.24 pes/m

3.62
pes/m

3.77 pes/m

1.54
pes/m

New,
confirmed
Frequency

Drilling
frequency

74

Varying by borehole some 40-62% of the observations were checked from BIP, and
from the checked ones 27-64% were rejected, the others confirmed. For KR9-KR13
OPTV 31 - 34% were checked, and 39-58% of the checked ones were rejected, others
were confirmed. In KR14 63% of observations was checked and 79% of the checked
ones were rejected, the remaining 21% confirmed. Typically the rejected fractures
represented rather types "closed" or "fractures with filling". Any of the rejected
fractures were of types "open" or "partly open".
The fractures classified as "Existing, Probable" were checked only occasionally (2-3%)
especially when a depth error or disorientation of the core sample were suspected. A
proportion of 0-4% of all were rejected (some one-third of the checked ones in this
class). Table 9 shows the proportion of fractures in the certainty classes after checking.
The properties "probable" and "possible" practically lost their meaning in checking.
The few "possible" observations are related to locations where the sample has been
missing. The greatest remaining uncertainty is found for observations initially
belonging to the class "possible", as these have not been checked as extensively as the
others. Generally these are linked to similarly oriented core mapping fractures at the
same depth level and usually are very clear in the image. The information has not been
merged in this work. According to tentative observation some 1o/o of all the features in
this class would change when checked, mostly at locations with depth or orientation
errors. In any case the core mapping and image mapping would produce slightly
different results due to e.g. accuracy reasons.
The proportion 6 - 14% of "new" fractures suggests, that there are some fractures
unobserved in the core sample mapping. Some of these may barely indicate an
inadequate depth value in core reconstruction (deviation from the image depth
adjustment), or an uncorrected drift on image depth value.
Table 9. Certainty classes after checking. Those rejected are not counted for in the
proportions. The possible ones confirmed have been transferred to probable class.
Borehole/
Certainty
Existing/
Probable
Existing/
Possible
New/
Probable
New/
Possible

KRl
(N=295)
272
(92%)

5 (2%)
14 (5%)
4 (1%)

KR2
(N=321)
148
(46%)
30 (9%)

130
(40%)
13 (4%)

KR4
(N=148)
134 (91 %)

KR9
(N=1026)
943 (92%)

2 (1%)

3 (0%)

11 (7%)
1 (1%)

KR14
(N=778)
662 (85%)

KR12
(N=2228)
2029

KR13
(N=1342)
1197

(91%)

(89%)

3 (0.1%)

7 (1%)

7 (1%)

74 (7%)

190 (8.5%)

133 (10%)

105 (13%)

5 (0%)

6 (0.3%)

3 (0%)

4 (1%)

75

RESULTS

6.1

Contents of the results

In total 613 8 fractures were included into the final results after checking. The
frequencies and amount represent 81% of the core sample fractures (63% - 100% for
different boreholes). Lowest proportion is found in KR4 (63%). Reason might emerge
from image quality or fracture type distribution, or accuracy in the image adjustment.
Highest proportions (95% and 100%) are in KR2 (BIP) and KR14 (OPTV). The former
was checked first and in more detail than the others. From the latter smaller scale and
more detailed possible fractures were mapped resulting to a greater amount of rejected
observations at the checking phase. The proportion for other boreholes is 77 - 82%.

There are probably some 0-5% new observations in different boreholes. The new
fractures may be drilling induced, from core loss areas (not from triple-tube drilled
KR13 and KR14), or features that have not been reported from sample because of
being closed, but can be mapped from image.
The coverage of previous BIP interpretation (Strahle 1996) was checked for
comparison. Mapping has covered in average 43% of the core mapping reported
fractures, varying between 22 - 60% depending on borehole and depth interval.
Proportions of observed fractures were less near to surface where the fracture
frequency is highest. Mapping in 1996 did not utilize the core mapping data but was
based on image data alone, and recorded only the most clear indications.

6.2

Fracture type distributions

The fracture type distribution was analyzed. The "open", "partly open" and "with
filling" types can exist simultaneously forming five major classes whereas the sixth
major class "closed" is excluding the others by definition. The class "altered" is met
only in boreholes KR2 and KR13, probably reflecting local variation in bedrock
conditions. Distribution of types in results are in Table 10 and in Figures 25 - 32.
Table 10. Fracture type distributions.
Borehole/
Types
Open

KRl
N=295
0 (0%)

N=321
0 (0%)

KR4
N=148
1 (0.6%)

KR9
N=1026
6 (0.6%)

KR12
N=2228
15 (0.7%)

KR13
N=1338
29 (2.2%)

KR14
N=778
5 (0.6%)

Partly
open
Open,
with
fillin2
Partly
open, with
fillin2
With
fillin2
Closed

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

56 (2.5%)

45 (3.4%)

2 (1%)

1 (0.3%)

2 (1.2%)

16
(1.6%)
1 (0.1 %)

2 (0.1 %)

3 (0.2%)

18
(2.3%)
3 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

3 (1%)

10
(6.8%)

13
(1.3%)

25 (1.1%)

45 (3 .3%)

19
(2.4%)

115
(1.9%)

181
(61%)
112
(38%)

256
(80%)
61 (19%)

114
(77%)
21
(14.2%)

646
(63%)
344
(33.5%)

1400
(62.8%)
730
(32.8%)

915
(68.4%)
301
(22.5%)

536
(69%)
197
(25 .3%)

4048
(65.5%)
1766
(28.8%)

KR2

All
N=6134
56
(0.9%)
135
(2.2%)
14
(0.2%)

76

Fractures that are either open or partly open (also when with filling) form about 5% of
all fractures. The proportion is largest (9%) in KR4 and KR13, and smallest in KR1
and KR2 (0%) probably because these consist average fracture frequencies typical to
the host rock. The fractures with filling occupy some two-third of all observations. In
KR2 and KR4 these represent 77-80% of all, whereas the proportion of the closed ones
is 14-19%. In other boreholes the closed fractures form 22 - 38% of all fractures. In
the OPTV image it is possible to detect smaller fractures and to map closed fractures
better than in BIP. An exception to this is borehole KRl. The BIP fracture type
distribution is similar to that of typical OPTV data in KR9-12. The property might as
well be related to local variation of fracture types.

SUM

2%

Figure 25. Fracture type distributions for all fractures, N=6138.

I
I

77

OLKR01
open, filled
1%

Figure 26. Fracture type distributions for KRJ fractures, N=295.

OLKR02
tight

open, fUied
0%

partly open,
filled
1%

80%

Figure 27. Fracture type distributions for KR2fractures, N=321.

78

OLKR04
tight

open

open, filled
1%

partly open,
filled
7%

77%

Figure 28. Fracture type distributions for KR4 fractures, N=l48.

OLKR09
open

open, filled

Figure 29. Fracture type distributions for KR9 fractures, N= 1026.

79

OLKR12
open, filled

Figure 30. Fracture type distributions for KR12 fractures, N=2228.

OLKR13
open
2%
tight

open, filled
0%

69%
3%

Figure 31. Fracture type distributions for KR13 fractures, N= 1342.

80

OLKR14
open, filled
tight

partly

partly open,
filled
2%

70%

Figure 32. Fracture type distributions for KR14 fractures, N=778.

6.3

Fracture aperture and thickness

The fracture apertures typically range from 0.5 to 122 mm, and are most typically 1 - 3
mm with only few exceptions over 10 mm. Thickness has been measured from almost
all fractures (even the closed ones) and it ranges from 0.5- 120 mm, and is typically
0.5 - 3 mm. Open fractures are concentrated to few sections per borehole, mostly to
those to be considered as fracture zones. Thickness is more evenly distributed, but the
largest thicknesses are as well concentrated into zones.
The apertures and thicknesses are presented in Appendices 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18
along with the polar diagrams and fracture frequencies.

6.4

Fracture forms

More than a half (55%) of the fractures are "planar and smooth", for KR2 and KR4
less (23-33%) than for the others (45-66%). This may be caused by differences
between OPTV and BIP mapping. For some reason KR1 is again different to the other
BIP mapped boreholes, probably the closed fractures and "planar and smooth" form
are linked together.
One-fifth (varying between 11-26%) of the fractures are "planar and rough"; as well as
"undulating, smooth" (varying between 12-31 %). "Undulating, rough" are found
clearly less frequently (6%, varying between 3-13%), and "stepped" only occasionally
(KR2 is an exception, 10%).
The fracture form distribution has been presented in Table 11.

81

Table 11. The fracture forms.

Borehole/
Form
Planar,
smooth
Planar,
rough
Undulating,
smooth
Undulating,
rough
Stepped,
smooth
Stepped,
rough

KRl

K.R2

KR4

N=295
196
(66%)
33
{11%)
56
{19%)
10
{3.4%)
0 (0%)

N=321
74
(23%)
72
(22%)
99
(31%)
42
(13%)
32
{9.7%)
2
(0.6%)

N=148
49 (33%)

0 (0%)

9 (6%)

KR9
N=1026
459
(45%)
266
(26%)
212
(21%)
86
(8.4%)
3 (0.3%)

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

52 (35%)
25 (17%)
12 (8%)

KR12

KR13

KR14

N=2228
1426
(64%)
411(18%)

N=1338
685 (51%)

308 (14%)

294 (22%)

N=778
466
(60%)
182
(23%)
90 (12%)

69 (3.0%)

82 (6%)

40 (5%)

All
N=6134
3355
(55%)
1277
(21%)
1084
(18%)
341 (6%)

13 (0.5%)

15 (1%)

0 (0%)

72 (1 %)

1 (0%)

1 (0%)

0 (0%)

5 (0%)

261 (19%)

6.5 Fracture filling colours

The colours of the fillings are combined so that darkness-grey intensity and a colour
can be separated, and when necessary the primary and secondary colours shown
simultaneously.
The colour data is missing from 18-39% of the cases (closed fractures do not contain
colour). Only colour is observed very rarely (for KR2 most often, 13%).
The brightness has been given as attribute usually when a colour cannot be indicated.
This property varies between 0- 26% (highest in KR13). In almost all cases (lowest
60%) there is also at least grey tone reported. In some cases also colour. Dark colour
has been found in 0.3 - 11% of cases. Light ones occur more rarely, 0- 15% (highest
in KR13).
Grey tone has been defined in 60-82% of all fractures. Typically those with white or
black main colour show only few secondary colour observations. Black colour
frequency varies between 0.7-8.7%, the largest proportion has been found in KR2 and
KR9. Secondary colours are rare, brown and green have been found. Grey is most
abundant, 4 - 54% (least in KR2, 4%), and most frequent in KR4 and KR9, KR12 and
KR13. Secondary colours are mostly brown and green. White has been found for 14 55% of fractures, largest proportion in KR2, lowest in KR13. Secondary colours are
brown and yellow. Colours in general are found in 0- 25% of cases, most in KR2 and
KR13, least in KR1, KR9 and KR12.
Observations are varying largely by borehole. It is apparent that properties depend on
bedrock conditions. It may also depend on brightness of the water in the borehole, and
the light intensity of the image. Black fractures are found rarely. Either these do not
show out from dark rock type background, or the property is linked to mainly closed
fractures. Of course, black fracture fillings can occur sparsely. The results have been
shown in Table 12.

82

Table 12. Distribution of colours.

Borehole
No colour
Only colour

Brown
Red
Yellow
Brightness
Dark
Light
Grey tone
Black
Brown
secondary
Green
secondary

Grey
Brown
secondary
Green
secondary
... Yellow
secondary

.. White
secondary
White
Brown
secondary
Yellow
secondary

KR1
N=295
116
(39%)
1
(0.3/o)

KR2
N=321
62
(19.3/o)
42
(13.1 /o)

1
(0.3%)

39
(12.1%)
1 (0.3%)
2 (0.6%)

KR4
N=148
26
(17.6o/o)

KR9
N=1026
376
(36.6/o)

KR12
N=2228
820
(37/o)
3
(0.13o/o)

KR13
N=1340
409
(30.5/o)
10
(0.7o/o)

KR14
N=778
225
(28.9o/o)
1 (0.1 o/o)

3
(0.13%)

8 (0.6%)

1 (0.1 %)

2 (0.1%)

20
(6.8o/o)

1 (0.3/o)

17
(11.5o/o)

130
(12.7o/o)

387
(17.2o/o)

353
(26.3/o)

42
(5.4/o)

18
(6.1%)
2
(0.7%)

1 (0.3%)

14
(9.5%)
3 (2%)

112
(10.9%)
18
(1.7%)

199
(8.9%)
186
(8.3%}

148
(11%)
205
(15.3%)

27
(3.5%)
15
(1.9%)

178
(60o/o)

217
(67.6o/o)

122
(82o/o)

650
(63.3/o)

1397
(62.7o/o)

916
(68.4o/o)

552
(71 o/o)

9 (3%)

28
(8 .7%)

5 (3.3%)

83
(8.1%)

56
(2.5%)

10
(0.7%)

12
(1.5%)

4 (1.2%)

1 (0.7%)

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.1 %)

62
(21%)

13 (4%)

72
(48.6%)

357
(34.8%))

908
(40.7%)

721
(53.8%)

214
(27.5%)

1
(0.3%)

4 (1.2%)

1 (0.7%)

4 (0.4%)

70
(5.2%)
30
(2.2%}

2 (0.3%)

6
(0.27%)
12
(0.54%)

8 (0.6%)

1 (0%)

5 (0.6%)

107
(36%)

175
(54.5%)

45
(30.4%)

210
(20.5%)

433
(19.4%)

185
(13.8%)

326
(41.9%)

3 (2%)

39
(2.9%)
3 (0.2%)

8 (1%)

20
(6.2%)
6 (1.9%)

2 (0.3%)

... Red
secondary
Colour

1 (0%)

3 (1o/o)

77
(24o/o)

5 (3.3o/o)

4 (0.4/o)

24 (1 /o)

162
(12.1 o/o)

19
(2.4o/o)

Brown

3 (1%)

5 (3.3%)

12
{0.54%)

Yellow

67
(20.9%)
8 (2.5%)

11
(1.4%)
2 (0.3%)

Green

1 (0.3%)

4 (0.4%)

12
(0.54%)

Red
White

1 (0.3%)

118
(8.8%)
13
(0.9%)
30
(2.2%)
1 (0%)
1 (0%)

6 (0.8%)

83

6.6

Inflow indications

In association with specific fractures in each borehole seepage has been observed. The

flow direction was observed, and the observations of hydraulic conductivity (Pollanen
& Rouhiainen 2000, Rouhiainen 1999) were checked. For some 25 - 45% of the
observations at least weak hydraulic conductivity has been found with good depth
agreement, logarithmic transmissivities ranging from -9.6 - 5.0 m2/s (mostly -9 - -8
2
m /s). For some others there are flow indications in an adjacent fracture or increased
level of noise in the flow data.
Typically observable seepage seems to be related to narrow open or partly open, or
fractures with filling, in some cases also to closed ones. Two occasions are found
where a fracture has not been observed from the image, but there is a seepage on image
(probably dark fracture on a black background). The largest apertures do not indicate
seepage for some reason. This does not exclude the possibility of flow for more open
fractures, but probably the flowing material either does not exist or has been washed
away more easily already before logging. Also, it can be expected that only inflow into
the borehole can be seen, not outflow, even when it does exist. Most of the
observations suggest up-flow in an open borehole, some also (especially in KR9)
down-flow, even simultaneously.
The seepage locations have been listed in Tables 13 - 15. The related fracture
orientations and types have been presented in Figures 33 - 36 on polar plots.
Orientations seem to be distributed to the main fracture orientations of the site, so these
are not only oriented to the gently dipping, foliation-parallel orientation.
Table 13. The seepage locations in KRJ.
Image
depth

Dip
direction

Dip

Type

Flow
direction

457.8

Up

483.1

Up

683.7

Up

704.7
734.92

Up
Up

Flow
log
depth

Lo~T-

(m Is)

Transmissitivity,
comment
Not observed
fracture, slight noise
level change at level
457.1 m
Not observed
fracture, slight noise
level change at level
683.5 m
Not observed
fracture, slight noise
level change at level
683.5 m
Not observed fracture
Not observed fracture

84

Table 14. The seepage locations in KR4.

Image
depth

Dip
direction

Dip

Type

Flow
direction

618.84

39.00

44.00

Up

-9.0

626.06

203.00

62.00

Partly open
with filling
With filling

Up

-9.7

Flow
log
depth

LofT(m Is)

Transmissitivity,
comment

Table 15. The seepage locations in KR9.

Image
depth

Dip
direction

Dip

Type

Flow
direction

147.326
147.358

174.32
159.99

51.72
52.66

Down
Down

147.65

125.68

53.33

open
partly open
with filling
open

148.985

114.4

46.93

Up

149.091

114.12

27.69

187.115

54.46

44.01

partly open
with filling
open with
filling
with filling

187.979

23.84

35.76

with filling

Down

188.366

73.32

29.72

with filling

188.572

69.83

38.03

262.908
280.691

108.45
162.11

43.77
78.73

partly open
with filling
closed
with filling

Down
and u_p
Down

280.923

120.57

43.53

283.559
307.112
316.019
347.402
371.102
411.516
419.206
419.872
473.618
474.157
557.74

62.91
190.3
336.57
143.57
36.13
62.01
4.86
151.83
128.51
119.71
94.66

11.45
78.99
18.06
42.5
23.95
40.28
35.8
73.52
16.61
38.21
48.29

Flow
log
depth

Log
T(m2/s)

Comment

147.5

-5.3

Not distinguished
from adjacent
Not distinguished
from adjacent
Not distinguished
from adjacent

Down?

149.2

-5.2

Up

187.2

-8

Down

Not distinguished
from adjacent
188.6

-8.3

262.9
280.8

-8.8
-7.5

closed

Up_
Up and
down
Up?

with filling
with filling
closed
closed
with filling
with filling
with filling
with filling
with filling
with filling
with filling

Down
Up?
Up?
Up?
Up
Up?
Down?
Up
Up
Up
Up

283.7

-9.2

316.1

-9.3

474.6

-5

Very uncertain flow

Not distinguished
from adjacent
Uncertain flow

Masked by the lower

85

Table 16. The seepage locations in KR12.

Image
depth, m
44.523

Dip
direction
214.12

Dip
15.38

46.397

159.63

16.06

46.608
57.135

235.78
239.76

43.13
20.39

Type
with fillin_g
partly open with
filling
partly open with
filling
partly open

68.388

184.3

21.26

~ith

68.89
74.268
74.279
77.641
79.203
80.028
80.408
83.773
88.142
91.002
91.019
99.723
108.062
108.764

197.52
176.16
224.13
150.87
139.79
250.04
340.99
70.55
6.82
133.19
136.26
113.53
145.18
256.81

6.34
35.35
11.6
62.08
64.22
86.87
66.97
49.03
70.32
48.48
51.92
44.15
54.02
70.04

115.878

23.45

31.55

Partly open

144.117

86.81

84.86

144.933

196.37

29.13

189.311

138.16

35.39

230.216

326.91

301.222

Flow log logT

'm2/s)
!Direction depth
44.6
5.9
~p
~p

46.5

Comment

6.4
~ot distinguished from

adjacent

~p
~p

57.2

filling

~p

68.5

7.9

with filling
!partly open
!partly open
open

up
up
up
up
up
up
up
up
up
up
up
up

Not distinguished from

adjacent

77.7

-8.5

Uncertain flow

80
80.7
83.9
88.2

-8.5
-8.1
-8.3
-8.6

Uncertain flow

91

-8.1

up

Ca. 116

8.5

with filling

up

144.1

8.1

with filling

up
up, very
small

67.21

with filling
tpartly open with

up

21.36

29.61

~lling

up

~01.2

308.159

143.43

27.49

~with filling

up

352.266

186.67

29.02

~ith

up

~52.2

8.8

!partly open
with filling
with filling
!partly open
with filling
with filling
open
with filling
with filling
with filling

filling

353.01

~p
~p

reasonably high
increase in noise level
of flow data below 353
m, no interpreted
fracture in image

~p

353.492

247.23

59.9

~losed

~p

353.944

13.07

73.06

~losed

~p

361.234

160.12

38.3

~ith

~p

366.809

199.51

77.7

~ith

367.487

41.24

51.3

filling

~p,

filling
partly open with
[filling

~eddish

~own

Seen only in difference

flow logging

367

86

Table 16. Continued.

399.913

176.05

46.59

closed

up

400.813

158.57

46.75

with filling

up

429.666

88.04

60.83

with filling

up

506.313

166.54

35.95

with filling

up

506.78

254.68

69

~with filling

up

506.808

195.35

82.87

~ith

filling

~p

509.213

342.16

39.84

~ith

filling

~p

523.671

183.78

73.41

~i th

filling

~p

555.395

90.75

41.88

partly open

~p

569.358

131.62

54.57

with filling

~p

571.749

189.63

44.52

open

~p

572.533

147.48

34.81

~p

581.671

338.86

8.6

with filling
partly open with
filling

8.9
Increased noise in flow
data

506.1

8.5
Increased noise in flow
data

22 cm above actual
fracture but not
interpreted
555.3

7.7

572

8.1

582
up

649.215

155.42

39.91

with filling

up

649.436

200.51

36

with filling

up

649.705

190.93

49.28

with filling

up

649.974

41.63

12.24

with filling
Fracture not
mapped

up

773.12

400

8
649.4

8.2
cannot be seen on pdf
printout, seam lacks 20
cm

~a. 773

9.6

up

Only seen in differential

flow log

Table 17. The seepage locations in KR13.

Image
depth, m

Dip
direction

Dip

38.26

69.97

54.08

38.348
116.004
249.541
318.977
458.871
491.239

78.31
113.96
199.31
108.99
197.2
82.23

80.89
81.51
37.14
58.49
33.25
64.36

Type
Partly open with
filling
Partly open with
filling
closed
open
with filling
with filling
Partly open

Flow log LofT(m Is) Comment

Direction depth
Up?
Up?
Up
Down
Up
Down?
Up

38.3

-7.6

115.81

-8.7

Partly masked by upper

Not distinguished from
adjacent
Uncertain flow

87

Table 18. The seepage locations in KR14.

Depth, m
63.711

Dip
direction
179.6

Dip
51.99

137.172
474.925

15.03
155.82

32.66
13.7

Type
closed
partly open with
filling
with filling

511.385

90.62

57.55

with filling

Up?
Up?
Up and
down?

oe
8

Flow log LogT(m2/s) Comments

Direction depth
Up?

Figure 33. The KR9 seepage fracture orientations.

Figure 34. The KR12 seepage fracture orientations.

137.2

-8.6

Not logged this deep

88

Figure 35. The KR13 seepage fracture orientations.

Figure 38. The KR14 seepage fracture orientations.

6. 7

Presentation of results and data delivery

The results have been illustrated in log presentations in Appendices 5- 18 (on CD). In
Appendices 1-4 are presented the data layout, legend for rock types and tadpole
libraries.
The first series of printouts contain in scale 1:20 the rock type, the image, the fracture
projection in apparent borehole orientation, the fracture tadpoles in true orientation, the
orientations of different fracture types as text, and the fracture colours as tadpoles.
These logs have been gathered to Appendices 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 (on CD). Each
10 m image section has been printed separately due to original arrangement of images.

89

The rock type is presented as taken from following reports (see the legend in Appendix
4):
KR1 Lindberg & Paananen 1991
KR2 Suomen Malmi Oy 1989b, Gehor et al. 1996
KR4 Suomen Malmi Oy 1990, Gehor et al. 1996
KR9 Gehor et al. 1997
KR12 Niinimaki 2000
KR13 Niinimaki 2001a
KR14 Niinimaki 2001b.
The fracture projection is shown on the right side of the image, so it will not mask the
fracture image. To the right, the tadpole (arrow) shows the true orientation of the
fractures, the base shows the dip on 0 -90, and the tail of the arrow the dip direction;
North to up (12 o'clock), East to right (3 pm), South downwards (6 pm), and West to
the left (9 pm). Legend is presented in Appendix 2.
The texts for fracture orientations are shown in type specific columns, with the same
colours. The colours of the fractures are shown (only the main colour) as tadpoles,
where the base shows the colour (see Appendix 3) and the tadpole indicates the
orientation.
The resulting data table was stored into the TUTKA-database in Windows ANSI
format for further analysis. Data example is shown in Appendix 1 and included onto
adjoined CD. The data were also prepared for general description and WellCAD
presentations (Appendices 5 - 18, on CD).
The second 1:200 scale presentation style contains lithology, the fracture tadpoles,
fracture frequencies (1/m), filling thicknesses on logarithmic scale 0.2 - 200 mm,
apertures on logarithmic scale 0.2 - 200 mm, and polar plots of fractures over 25 m
depth sections on Schmidt lower hemisphere (area-equal) projections. These are
presented in Appendices 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 (on CD).

6.8

Comments on results

On general view, the fractures concentrate to some more frequently fractured,

restricted depth intervals, and are found rather sparsely elsewhere. The types are
distributed quite evenly on length, except the open and partly open ones that are mainly
found from the zones.
The orientations concentrate on a large scale to a gently southeast dipping direction.
Locally, there are also steeper orientations with dips to the south and to the north, as
well as to the west and to the east. Moderate dips are found both to the north and to the
south-southeast, locally also to the southwest. These represent well the orientations
reported previously e.g. in core mapping data.

91

SUMMARY

As a part of complementary site characterization for spent nuclear fuel disposal, the
fractures have been mapped from Olkiluoto boreholes KRl, KR2 and KR4 BIP
(averagely fractured/ outside structures sections not included into previous
interpretations) and KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14 OPTV image data. The work
utilized extensively the WellCAD software from ALT.
Fractures were first mapped for orientation and location from the image sections, then
determined with certainty level, type (openness, filling, alteration and tightness),
aperture, thickness, form, colour, and seepage. In total 7933 fractures were mapped.
The possible and some of the probable observations were checked with core samples
on the basis of the level of certainty. All in all 31-63% of fractures were checked in
each borehole. From mapped features 12-50% (27 - 79% from the checked) were
rejected. Mostly closed and possible observations were rejected. Resulting confirmed
fractures are now probable except for sections where sample is missing.
The number of observations after checking is 6138 for the total mapped length of 3050
m. This represents roughly 80% of the fractures reported in the core mapping. Not
every fracture can be observed from the images, but on the other hand, specifically
from frequently fractured and core loss sections also probable new fractures have been
encountered. The amount of new confirmed fractures is estimated to be 5-14%.
The open or partly open fractures, which may also have filling, make on average 5% of
all the fractures. In less fractured KRl and KR2 these are rare, and in KR4 and KR13
more frequent (9%) than for the others. Fractures with filling form two-third of all
fractures, and closed ones one-third. Aperture and thickness both range from 0.5 mm to
120 mm. Thickness has been reported for most of the fractures.
More than a half of the fractures are planar and smooth in their form (55%) when
viewed on the trace. These are observed in two scales, on image width and on local
few millimeter scale. Slightly less (one-fifth) are found both planar (large scale) and
rough (small scale), or undulating (large) and smooth (small).
The fracture colours are determined mostly as a grey scale (60-80%). Black fillings are
not seen as well as grey and white. For KR2 and KR13 the colours brown, green and
yellow are found relatively often.
Seepage (material inflow indication) has been found from 0- 49 fractures in different
boreholes, most frequently in KR12. The locations indicate inflow of water into the
borehole. Varying transmissivities have been observed from almost half of the seepage
locations. Also some others show uncertain indications of flow.
This independent image based mapping work has produced data that can be compared
to core data and will supplement the orientation and aperture coverage of the core
mapping results.

92

The fracture data are stored in table format for delivery and possible further analysis.
The results are also presented with the images in the Appendices of this report (mostly
on CD in PDF format).
The mapping allowed detection of about 80 % of the core mapping fractures. Most of
the undetected fractures were closed ones. Indications of flow (seepage) can be seen in
the images even in locations where fractures are invisible.
Special attention is to be paid to image acquisition as the good quality image is a basic
requirement for the fracture mapping. The mapping on certain intervals suffered from
the poor image quality resulting from cloudy water, stick-slip movement of the probe
and coated borehole surfaces.
Mapping from the OPTV-images seems to be more effective and reliable than from the
BIP-images due to the higher resolution and oblique light orientation. Also smaller
fractures can be seen in the OPTV-images. Major problem with BIP is the difficulty to
distinguish the closed fractures and fractures with filling from the mica plates and other
dark bands, and to detect the open fractures.
On the other hand, in OPTV -images very thin or even discontinuous fractures (microcracks) may appear similar to true fractures. Even continuous fractures seen in the core
sample can appear discontinuous in the image and vice versa.
Comparison to the core sample fracture data during mapping is essential, especially for
the BIP-images. It helps also to define the fracture properties. Proper depth adjustment
to less than 10 cm difference between image and core data would be helpful.
Checking the mapped fractures from the core sample assures the high quality of the
results.

93

REFERENCES
ALT 2001. WellCAD user's guide for version 3.0. Advanced Logig Technologies,
Luxembourg. 831 p.
Blomqvist, R., Nissinen, P. & Frape, S. 1992. Dating of Fracture Minerals from
Olkiluoto, Eurajoki (in Finnish with an English abstract). Helsinki, Finland:
Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 17 p. TVO/Site investigations Work Report 92-27.
Gehor, S, Karki, A., Maatta, T., Suopera, S. & Taikina-aho. 0. 1996. Eurajoki,
Olkiluoto: petrology and low temperature minerals in drill core samples. Helsinki,
Posiva Oy. Working report PATU-96-42. 300 p.
Gehor, S, Karki, A., Suopera, S. & Taikina-aho. 0. 1997. Eurajoki, Olkiluoto: petrology
and low temperature minerals in drill core sample OL-KR9. Helsinki, Posiva Oy.
Working report 97-09. 70 p.
Gehor, S., Karki, A., Maatta, T. & Taikina-aho, 0. 2001a. Eurajoki, Olkiluoto:
petrology and low temperature minerals in drill core OL-KR1. Helsinki, Posiva Oy.
Working report 2001-36. 56 p.
Gehor, S., Karki, A., Maatta, T. & Taikina-aho, 0. 2001b. Eurajoki, Olkiluoto:
petrology and low temperature minerals in drill cores OL-KR6, OL-KR7 and OL-KR12.
Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2001-38. 166 p.
Julkunen, A., Kallio, L. & Hassinen, P. 1995. Geophysical borehole logging in
Olkiluoto, Eurajoki, boreholes KR2, KR3, KR4, KR6, KR 7 and KR8 (in Finnish with
an English abstract). Helsinki, Finland: Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 16 p. Work report
PATU-95-71.
Julkunen, A., Kallio, L. & Hassinen, P. 1996. Geophysical borehole logging in
Olkiluoto, Eurajoki, 1996, borehole KR9 (in Finnish with an English abstract). Helsinki,
Finland: Posiva Oy. 11 p. Work report PATU-96-41.
Julkunen, A., Kallio, L. & Hassinen, P. 2000. Geophysical borehole logging in
Olkiluoto, Eurajoki 2000, the boreholes OL-KR6, OL-KR7 and OL-KR12 (in Finnish
with an English abstract). Helsinki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 54 p. Working report 2000-37.
Karanko, A., Heikkinen, E. & Hella, P. 2000. Supplementary fracture database from
deep boreholes at Olkiluoto site. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2000-30. 362 p.
Lahti, M., Tammenmaa, J. & Hassinen, P. 2001. Geophysical logging ofboreholes OLKR13 and OL-KR14 at Olkiluoto, Eurajoki 2001 (in Finnish with an English abstract).
Helsinki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 139 p. Working report 2001-30.

94

Lindberg, A. & Paananen, M. 1991. Petrography, lithogeochemistry and petrophysics of

rock samples from Olkiluoto study site Eurajoki, Western Finland. Drillholes OL-KR1
- OL-KR5. Helsinki, TVO Site Investigations. Working report 90-10. 65 p.
Lowit, B., Morecroft, S., Siddans, A. & Wild, P. 1996. Dipmeter survey, processing and
interpretation, Olkiluoto site, Finland 1996. Helsinki, Finland: Posiva Oy. 27 p + app.
Work report PATU-96-38E.
Niinimak:i, R. 2000. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR12 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki
2000. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2000-28. 192 p.
Niinimaki, R. 2001a. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR13 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki
2001. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2001-19. 179 p.
Niinimaki, R. 2001b. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR14 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki
2001. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2001-24. 146 p.
Niva, B. 1989. Geophysical Borehole Logging at Olkiluoto, Borehole OL-KRl.
Helsinki, Finland: Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 10 p. TVO/Site investigations Work Report
89-58.
Pollanen, J. & Rouhiainen, P. 2000. Difference flow and electric conductivity
measurements at the Olkiluoto site in Eurajoki, boreholes KR6, KR7 and KR12.
Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 2000-51. 150 p.
Rautio, T. 1995a. Extension drilling of deep borehole OL-KR2 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki
1995. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report PATU-95-62. 22 p.
Rautio, T. 1995b. Drillings at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki 1995, extension of the borehole OLKR4. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report PATU-95-46. 20 p.
Rautio, T. 1996. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR9 at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki 1996.
Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report PATU-96-32. 28 p.
Rouhiainen, P. 1999. Electrical conductivity and detailed flow logging at the Olkiluoto
site in Eurajoki, boreholes KR1 - KR11. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working report 99-72.
202 p.
Saksa, P., Hella., P., Voipio S., Nummela, J., Hanninen, T., Ahokas, H., Lindh, J. &
Heikkinen, E. 1997. Detailed fracture database from deep boreholes at Olkiluoto site (in
Finnish with an English abstract). Helsinki, Fintact Oy. Posiva Oy, Working report 9732, 97 p.
Stn1hle, A. 1996. Borehole-TV measurements at the Olkiluoto site, Finland 1996.
Volumes 1.- 3. 1. Report and appendices for OL-K.Rl. 2. Appendices for OL-KR2. 3.
Appendices for OL-KR4. Helsinki, Posiva Oy. Working Report PATU-96-59e. 20 p.

95

Suomen Malmi Oy. 1989a. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR1 at Olkiluoto in
Eurajoki. Helsinki, TVO Site Investigations, work report 89-38. 17 p.
Suomen Malmi Oy. 1989b. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR2 at Olkiluoto in
Eurajoki. Helsinki, TVO Site Investigations, work report 89-43. 16 p.
Suomen Malmi Oy 1989c. Geophysical Borehole Logging in Olkiluoto, Eurajoki,
Boreholes KR2 and KR3 (in Finnish with an English abstract). Helsinki, Finland:
Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 9 p. TVO/Site investigations Work Report 89-88.
Suomen Malmi Oy. 1990a. Core drilling of deep borehole OL-KR4 at Olkiluoto in
Eurajoki. Helsinki, TVO Site Investigations, work report 90-24. 17 p.
Suomen Malmi Oy 1990b. Geophysical Borehole Logging at Olkiluoto Investigation
Site, Boreholes KR4 and KR5 (in Finnish with an English abstract). Helsinki, Finland:
Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 9 p. TVO/Site investigations Work Report 90-44.
Wild, P., Siddans, A. & Kennaugh, K. 2002. Optical Televiewer survey and processing
in Olkiluoto site, Finland 2001. Boreholes KR9, KR12, KR13 and KR14. Helsinki,
Posiva Oy. Working Report 2002-02. 31 p and images.

97

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Example of result data arrangement.
APPENDIX 2 Tadpole legend for fracture interpretation presentations. The
corresponding colours are used on projection log presentations
APPENDIX 3 Tadpole legend for fracture colour presentations.
APPENDIX 4 Colour legend for the rock types presented in the result logs.
APPENDICES ON CD:
APPENDIX 5 The fracture observations ofKR1, scale 1:20.
APPENDIX 6 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR1,
1:200.
APPENDIX 7 The fracture observations of KR2, scale 1:20.
APPEND IX 8 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR2,
1:200.
APPENDIX 9 The fracture observations ofKR4, scale 1:20.
APPEND IX 10 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR4,
1:200.
APPENDIX 11 The fracture observations ofKR9, scale 1:20.
APPENDIX 12 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR9,
1:200.
APPENDIX 13 The fracture observations ofKR12, scale 1:20.
APPEND IX 14 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR12,
1:200.
APPENDIX 15 The fracture observations ofKR13, scale 1:20.
APPENDIX 16 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereo graphic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR13,
1:200.
APPENDIX 17 The fracture observations ofKR14, scale 1:20.
APPEND IX 18 The fracture frequency on 1 m interval, apertures, thicknesses and
stereographic projections over 25 m sections (equal area lower hemisphere) ofKR14,
1:200.

Example of result data arrangement

borehole Depth, m Dip direction (deg) Dip (deg) Level of certainty Inters. Angle Openness
Filling
57 .39 no openness seen with filling
kr1
341 .664
193.63
44 .89 probable
33 .11 no openness seen with filling
kr1
341 .979
286 .03
41 .35 probable
22.76 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342.031
291 .61
50 .99 probable
24.35 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342.245
278.59
52 .15 probable
30.36 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342 .306
271 .78
47 .55 probable
30.85 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342 .346
279.07
45 .21 probable
29.82 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342 .515
275.04
47 .27 probable
29.99 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342.557
258 .42
51 .85 probable
30.17 no openness seen with filling
kr1
342.587
268.78
48.56 probable
54 .2 no openness seen with filling
kr1
343 .819
237.2
31 .52 probable
61 .39 no openness seen with filling
kr1
343 .916
114.74
42 .85 probable
34 .92 no openness seen with filling
kr1
343 .941
256 .97
46 .78 probable
46.38 no openness seen with filling
kr1
344.168
277.77
28.76 probable
14.43 no openness seen with filling
kr1
344.434
43 .82
68 .78 probable
26.96 no openness seen with filling
kr1
345.16
242.33
60 .45 probable
23.65 no openness seen with filling
kr1
345 .238
226 .14
69 .96 probable
38 .23 no openness seen with filling
kr1
345 .904
236 .94
50 .08 probable
4 no openness seen with filling
kr1
351 .382
283.6
80.09 probable
49.8 no openness seen with filling
kr1
351 .86
215 .35
45 .36 probable
37 .24 no openness seen with filling
kr1
352 .149
258.3
43 .79 probable
3.09 no openness seen with filling
kr1
352 .558
293.24
76.92 probable
40 .02 no openness seen with filling
kr1
353 .055
280.11
35 .04 probable
50 .04 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
353 .08
264 .98
27 .57 probable
46 .11 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
353.141
256.04
34 .61 probable
20.8 no openness seen with filling
kr1
353 .313
276.64
56 .13 probable
12.05 no openness seen with filling
kr1
353.425
271 .06
66 .84 probable
11 .17 no openness seen with filling
kr1
354.461
269 .65
68 .18 probable
57.44 no openness seen no fill ing seen
kr1
356 .295
123.88
49.7 probable
31 .33 no openness seen with filling
kr1
356.848
230 .09
60.17 probable
15.83 no openness seen with filling
kr1
357 .082
283.18
59.57 probable
28.03 no openness seen with filling
kr1
357 .103
19.98
47.46 probable
20 .37 no openness seen with filling
kr1
357 .24
269.82
58 .32 probable
15.22 no openness seen with filling
kr1
357.344
284.5
59 .89 probable
14.77 no openness seen with filling
kr1
358 .512
284.68
60 .32 probable
17 .67 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
358 .807
183.61
89 .08 probable
53 .35 no openness seen with filling
kr1
359 .296
18.93
20.16 probable
29 .36 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
359.39
316.5
40.87 probable
64.75 no openness seen with filling
kr1
360 .188
200.17
33.67 probable
28 .39 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
360.48
295.93
44 .11 probable
11.7 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
361 .217
272.44
66.62 probable
11.02 no openness seen with filling
kr1
362 .436
305 .87
82 .52 probable
16.89 no openness seen with filling
kr1
366 .563
284.21
58.15 probable
14 .59 no openness seen with filling
kr1
367.439
298.25
57.62 probable
48 .11 no openness seen no filling seen
kr1
367.872
216.15
46 .83 probable
45.48 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368.276
289.69
27 .14 probable
25 .04 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368.287
281.8
50.1 probable
26.67 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368.327
269.51
51 .55 probable
13.05 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368.434
299.38
59 probable
44 .05 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368.476
260.35
35.3 probable
47 .69 no openness seen with filling
kr1
368 .515
293.16
24.31 probable

Weathering
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh
fresh

Tightness Thickness Aperture (mm) Form

not closed
1
-1 Planar
not closed
1
-1 Undulating
not closed
1
-1 Undulating
not closed
-1 Undulating
2
not closed
2
-1 Undulating
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
4
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
1
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
not closed
2
-1 Undulating
-1 Planar
not closed
not closed
- 1 Planar
1
-1 Undulating
not closed
2
-1 Planar
not closed
1
closed
-1 Planar
0.5
closed
-1 Planar
0.5
1
-1 Undulating
not closed
- 1 Undulating
2
not closed
-1 Planar
not closed
1
closed
-1 Planar
0.5
not closed
-1 Planar
1
not closed
-1 Planar
2
not closed
1.5
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
2
-1 Undulating
not closed
1
not closed
2
-1 Planar
closed
-1 Planar
0.5
not closed
2
-1 Planar
closed
0.5
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Planar
2
-1 Planar
closed
0.5
0.5
closed
-1 Planar
not closed
- 1 Undulating
2
-1 Planar
not closed
1
-1 Planar
not closed
1
closed
-1 Planar
0.5
-1 Planar
not closed
2
-1 Undulating
not closed
1
not closed
-1 Planar
1
-1 Undulating
not closed
2
-1 Planar
not closed
-1 Undulating
not closed

Roughness Brightness Greyscale Calor Seepage

Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
-1 White
Smooth
-1 no
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Rough
-1 White
-1 no
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
Light
Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Rough
-1
-1
-1 no
Rough
-1
-1
-1 no
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Rough
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1
-1
-1 no
Rough
-1 no
-1 Grey
Smooth
-1 no
Dark
Grey
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Rough
-1
-1
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Rough
-1
-1
-1 no
Smooth
-1 Black
-1 no
Smooth
-1
-1
-1 no
Rough
-1
-1
-1 no
-1 no
Smooth
-1
-1
Smooth
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 no
-1
-1
Rough
-1 White
-1 no
Rough
-1 Grey
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no
Smooth
-1 White
-1 no

Checked
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no

\0
00

)>
"'C
"'C
(l)

:::l

a.

x
__..

99

APPENDIX 2.Tadpole legend for fracture interpretation presentations. The

corresponding colours are used on projection log presentations.
, / OPEN

OPEN WITH
FILLING

, / PARTLY OPEN
/

PARTLY OPEN
WITH FILLING

, / WITH FILLING
,/CLOSED

100

APPENDIX 3. Tadpole legend for fracture colour presentations.

.~
~

BLACK
BLACK + SECONDARY COLOUR

GREY
GREY+ SECONDARY COLOUR

NOT ASSIGNED

(:/

WHITE

WHITE + SECONDARY COLOUR

BROWN

GREEN

YELLOW

LIGHT GREY
LIGHT GERY

/
~

SECONDARY COLOUR

DARK GERY
DARK GREY+ SECONDARY COLOUR

101

APPENDIX 4. Colour legend for the rock types presented in the result logs.

QUARTZ
FELDSPAR
GNEISS

MIGMATITIC
MICA
C J GNEISS

~~ TONALITIC
~GNEISS

~~ TONALITE/

~ GRANODIORITE

C J DIABASE

AMPHIBOLITE

GRANITE/
PEGMATITE

VEINED
GNEISS

DMYLONITE

102

Appendix 5

OLKILUOTO BOREHOLE KR1 FRACTURE INTERPRETATION: INDIVIDUAL FRACTURES

Depth: 340.57-351.57 m
0

BIP IMAGE

1 rnm x 1

.._J

<.(

Date: 14.1.2002 BIP IMAGE

FRACTURE

FRACTURE TYPE

PROJECTION

o o..
(f)
>11fri
0

Azimuth

a::

; up

Rtght

Down

Left

Up Right

Down

-r
i

Tail points

Left Up: 0

to azimuth.

DIP

c
9b

<ll

Q_

type

type#1

BIPS

"0

~
c

-.::::

base to dip

Azimuth

COL OR

FRACTURE ORIENTATION
---l

90

Q)

0..

Primary calor
on the base
Wavytail
indicates
several colors
DIP

103

104

348.8

349 .2

350.4

350.8

351 .2

105
Appendix 6
OLKILUOTO BOREHOLE KR1 FRACTURE INTERPRETATION: STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
Depth: 340- 515 m

FRACTURE
FILLING
THICKNESS

FRACTURE
lYPE

00
~

0:::

Date: 14.1.2002

Tail points
to azimuth
DIP
90 0.2

FRACTURE
APERTURE

POLAR PROJECTION

FRACTURE
FREQUENCY

(mm)

Area-equal stereographic projection

Projected onto the lower hemisphere

(1/m)
(Truncated at 15)

(mm)

200 0

15

1-

I-

344.0

I
I-

348.0

I-

352.0

_...,.

-=~

.. ..

-""4
......

lil

356.0

f-

f-

il

1-

I-

360.0

364.0

368.0

372.0

1--

.., .'.

eft

380.0

I
384.0

I-

Page 1

106

~~
'J
392.0

~
~p...

If

r=

ii

11

--~

1/

1,~

396.0

f=

I~

~
I

~~~

~~ ~

11

...,.

t-

'it

404.0

11111

400.0

I=

;,.r.;

1/17

I-

t-

1-

'

--t

408.0

I
I

14
412.0

~-~~

~I

416.0

1-

4~

1--

~~

424.0

""
,.. .,

t
v~
t.
lollll

11

lv

1-

1--

11--

Fl

1--

1-

f-

428.0

f.-

1--

.,..

-,

1--

432.0

I
1--

436.0

440.0

,.'

ii

~ ~~

...-11

"""'

t::

1::

1::

t:

Pag e 2

107

448.0

..' .

~
456.0

~
=

f-

460.0

f-1

11

11

1-

f--

I-

1-

~~ I\

f-

'

fl'

:.

f--

1\

.+-

--

I;;

f--

'

r-..

464.0

'

.l

n-.

1-

1-

'it

468.0

~.

~"'

1-

f--

i-f- >-I-

>-f-.

1-

476.0

1-

1\

f--

I
1-

I
f--1-

480.0

1-

f-

.
. ...

t-

I
f-

484.0

f--

--

488.0

f-

1-

"]

492.0

f--

>-I-

f--

I-

""'

.
'

U-+-i

~.~ T -. 11 t tt
1

nt

-~

Page 3

108

,.

.
.. ...

Page 4