1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 65, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 65, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We study the mechanical deformation of fractures under normal stress, via tangent and specific fracture stiffnesses, for different length scales using numerical simulations and analytical insights. First, we revisit an equivalent elastic layer model that leads to two expressions: the tangent stiffness is the sum of an “intrinsic” stiffness and the normal stress, and the specific stiffness is the tangent stiffness divided by the fracture aperture at current stress. Second, we simulate the deformation of rough fractures using a boundary element method where fracture surfaces represented by elastic asperities on an elastic half‐space follow a self‐affine distribution. A large number of statistically identical “parent” fractures are generated, from which sub‐fractures of smaller dimensions are extracted. The self‐affine distribution implies that the stress‐free fracture aperture increases with fracture length with a power law in agreement with the chosen Hurst exponent. All simulated fractures exhibit an increase in the specific stiffness with stress and an average decrease with increase in length consistent with field observations. The simulated specific and tangent stiffnesses are well described by the equivalent layer model provided the “intrinsic” stiffness slightly decreases with fracture length following a power law. By combining numerical simulations and the analytical model, the effect of scale and stress on fracture stiffness measures can be easily separated using the concept of “intrinsic” stiffness. We learn that the primary reason for the variability in specific stiffness with length comes from the fact that the typical aperture of the self‐affine fractures itself scales with the length of the fractures.

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
2016-09-13
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AuradouH., HulinJ. and RouxS.2001. Experimental study of miscible displacement fronts in rough self‐affine fractures. Physical Review E63, 066306.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AuradouH., MaloyK.J., SchmittbuhlJ., HansenA. and BideauD.1999. Competition between correlated buoyancy and uncorrelated capillary effects during drainage. Physical Review E60(6), 7224.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BandisS., LumsdenA. and BartonN.1983. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics20, 249–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BouchaudE.1997. Scaling properties of cracks. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter9(21), 4319–4344.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BouchaudE., LapassetG. and PlanèsJ.1990. Fractal dimension of fracted surfaces: a universal value? Europhysics Letters13, 73.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BrownS.R.1995. Simple mathematical model of a rough fracture. Journal of Geophysical Research100(B4), 5941–5952.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CandelaT., RenardF., KlingerY., MairK., SchmittbuhlJ. and BrodskyE.E.2012. Roughness of fault surfaces over nine decades of length scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth117(B8), B08409.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DrazerG. and KoplikJ.2000. Permeability of self‐affine rough fractures. Physical Review E62(6), 8076–8085.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GloverP.W.J., MatsukiK., HikimaR. and HayashiK.1998. Synthetic rough fractures in rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research103(B5), 9609–9620.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GreengardL.1998. The Rapid Evaluation of Potential Fields in Particle Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HildyardM.W.2007. Manuel Rocha Medal Recipient Wave interaction with underground openings in fractured rock. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering40, 531–561.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HobdayC. and WorthingtonM.H.2012. Field measurements of normal and shear fracture compliance. Geophysical Prospecting60, 488–499.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HopkinsD.1990. The effect of surface roughness on joint stiffness, aperture, and acoustic wave propagation. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, USA.
  14. HopkinsD.2000. The implications of joint deformation in analyzing the properties and behavior of fractured rock masses, underground excavations, and faults. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences37, 175–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. JaegerJ., CookN. and ZimmermanR.W.2007. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. JockerJ. and PrioulR.2010. Analysis of fracture mechanical behavior under normal stress. 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US‐Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT, June 27–30. American Rock Mechanics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. JungR.2013. EGS‐Goodbye or Back to the Future? In: ISRM International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing (eds A.Bunger , J.McLennan , and R.Jeffrey ), International Society for Rock Mechanics, pp. 95–121. InTech.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. KachanovM., PrioulR. and JockerJ.2010. Incremental linear‐elastic response of rocks containing multiple rough fractures: similarities and differences with traction‐free cracks. Geophysics75, D1–D11.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KondevJ., HenleyC.L. and SalinasD.G.2000. Nonlinear measures for characterizing rough surface morphologies. Physical Review E61(1), 104–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LiuE. and MartinezA.2013. Seismic Fracture Characterization: Concepts and Practical Applications. The Hague: EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MandelbrotB.B.1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MatsukiK., ChidaY., SakaguchiK. and GloverP.W.J.2006. Size effect on aperture and permeability of a fracture as estimated in large synthetic fractures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences43, 726–755.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MéheustY. and SchmittbuhlJ.2000. Flow enhancement of a rough fracture. Geophysical Research Letters27(18), 2989–2992.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MorrisJ.P., HaoY., FoxallW. and McNabW.2011. A study of injection‐induced mechanical deformation at the In Salah CO2 storage project. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control5, 270–280.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. NelsonR.A.2001. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Gulf Professional Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. OlsonJ.E.2003. Sublinear scaling of fracture aperture versus length: an exception or the rule? Journal of Geophysical Research108(B9), 2413.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. PlourabouéF., KurowskiP., HulinJ.‐P., RouxS. and SchmittbuhlJ.1995. Aperture of rough cracks. Physical Review E51(3), 1675.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. PlourabouéF., WinklerK.W., PetitjeanL., HulinJ.‐P. and RouxS.1996. Experimental study of fracture surface roughness on rocks with crack velocity. Physical Review E53(1), 277.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. PoonC.Y., SaylesR.S. and JonesT.A.1992. Surface measurement and fractal characterization of naturally fractured rocks. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics25, 1269–1275.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. PrioulR., DonaldA., KoepsellZ., El MarzoukiZ. and BrattonT.2007. Forward modeling of fracture induced sonic anisotropy using a combination of borehole image and sonic logs. Geophysics72, E135–E147.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. PrioulR. and JockerJ.2009. Fracture characterization at multiple scales using borehole images, sonic logs and walk‐around VSP. AAPG Bulletin ‐ Special Session on Fractures93(11), 1503–1516.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Pyrak‐NolteL.J. and MorrisJ.P.2000. Single fractures under normal stress: The relation between fracture specific stiffness and fluid flow. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences37, 245–262.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. RokhlinV.1985. Rapid solution of integral equations of classical potential theory. Journal of Computational Physics60(2), 187–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SayersC.M.2009. Seismic characterization of reservoirs containing multiple fracture sets. Geophysical Prospecting57(2), 187–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SayersC.M. and KachanovM.1995. Microcrack‐induced elastic wave anisotropy of brittle rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research100, 4149–4156.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. SchmittbuhlJ., GentierS. and RouxS.1993. Field measurements of the roughness of fault surfaces. Geophysical Research Letters20(8), 639–641.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SchoenbergM.1980. Elastic wave behavior across linear slip interfaces. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America68, 1516–1521.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. SchoenbergM. and SayersC.M.1995. Seismic anisotropy of fracture rock. Geophysics60, 204–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. WalshJ.B.1981. Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on fracture permeability. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts18(5), 429–435.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. WorthingtonM.H. and LubbeR.2007. The scaling of fracture compliance. Geological Society of London, Special Publications270, 73–82.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
Loading
Numerical investigation of alternative fracture stiffness measures and their respective scaling behaviours
Geophysical Prospecting 65, 791 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12441
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Compliance; Fractures; Seismic properties

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error