Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 75–97 | Cite as

Relationship Between the Geometric Parameters of Rock Fractures, the Size of Percolation Clusters and REV

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Modeling fractured rocks with numerical methods requires some derived parameters, among which the fracture network connectivity and the size of the representative elementary volume (REV) are both of crucial importance. Percolation and REV analyses were made by the RepSim code. The program uses input parameters such as fractal dimension of the fracture midpoints (D c), length exponent (E) and relative dip (α r) data. For percolation analysis, the relative sizes of the largest percolation clusters have been calculated by stochastic realizations of the simulated fracture networks with different parameter triplets. Furthermore, fracture networks can be classified into three major types on the basis of their (E,D c,α r) parameters. For the REV calculations, the porosity of the generated fracture network was calculated. The derived REV size of a fracture network depends essentially on input parameters and shows a decreasing tendency with increasing D and E and vice versa. The method mentioned above was tested on both metamorphic samples of the Pannonian Basin and Variscan granitoid rocks of the Mórágy Complex. Percolation values predicted for the Mórágy granite are highly sensitive to alterations in the input parameters. The amphibolite bodies displayed a modeled fracture network with 80 to 90% of all fractures being interconnected, while the largest achievable percolation cluster size of gneiss is less than 10%. The REV size of the amphibolite is about 20 m as a result of connected fractures filling the whole body, while gneiss has lower porosity and higher REV (approximately 70 m).

Keywords

Fracture network Connectivity Porosity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allègre CJ, Le Mouel JL, Provost A (1982) Scaling rules in rock fracture and possible implications for earthquake prediction. Nature 297:47–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balberg I, Binenbaum N, Wagner N (1984) Percolation thresholds in the three-dimensional sticks system. Phys Rev Lett 52(17):1465–1468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton CC (1995) Fractal analysis of scaling and spatial clustering of fractures. In: Barton CC, La Pointe PR (eds) Fractals in the Earth sciences. Plenum, New York Google Scholar
  4. Barton CC, Larsen E (1985) Fractal geometry of two-dimensional fracture networks at Yucca Mountain, Southwestern Nevada. In: Stephanson O (ed) Proc int symp on fundamentals of rock joints, pp 77–84 Google Scholar
  5. Barton CC, La Pointe PR, Malinverno A (1991) Fractals and their use in Earth sciences. Short course manual. Geol Soc Am ann meeting, San Diego, CA, 1991 Google Scholar
  6. Bear J (1972) Dynamics in porous media. Elsevier, New York Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz B (1995) Analysis of fracture network connectivity using percolation theory. Math Geol 27(4):467–483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloomfield J (1996) Characterization of hydrogeologically significant fracture distributions in the Chalk: an example from the Upper Chalk of southern England. J Hydrol 184:355–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bour O, Davy P (1997) Connectivity of random fault networks following a power law fault length distribution. Water Resour Res 33:1567–1583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bour O, Davy P (1998) On the connectivity of three-dimensional fault networks. Water Resour Res 34:2611–2622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourbiaux B, Cacas MC, Sarda S, Sabathier JC (1997) A rapid and efficient methodology to convert fractured reservoir images into a dual-porosity model. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October, 1997 Google Scholar
  12. Bourbiaux B, Basquet R, Daniel JM, Hu LY, Jenni S, Lange A, Rasolofosaon P (2005) Fractured reservoirs modeling: a review of the challenges and some recent solutions. First Break 23:33–40 Google Scholar
  13. Buda G, Lovas G, Klötzli U, Cousen BI (1999) Variscan granitoids of the Mórágy Hills (South Hungary). Beih Eur J Miner 11(2):21–32 Google Scholar
  14. Carrera J, Heredia J, Vomvoris S, Hufschmied P (1990) Modeling of flow on a small fractured monzonitic gneiss block. In: Neuman SP, Neretnieks I (eds) Hydrogeology of low permeability environments. Hydrogeology: Selected papers 2. International Association of Hydrogeologists, pp. 115–167 Google Scholar
  15. Childs C, Walsh JJ, Watterson J (1997) Complexity in fault zone structure and implication for fault seal prediction. In: Moller-Pedersen P, Koestler AG (eds) Hydrocarbon seals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 262 Google Scholar
  16. Chiles J, de Marsily G (1993) Models of fracture systems. In: Bear J, Tsang, CF, de Marsily G (eds) Flow and contaminant transport in fractured rock. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  17. Darcel C, Bour O, Davy P, de Dreuzy J-R (2003) Connectivity properties of two-dimensional fracture networks with stochastic fractal correlation. Water Resour Res 39(10):1272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Dreuzy J-R, Davy P, Bour O (2000) Percolation parameter and percolation-threshold estimates for three-dimensional random ellipses with widely scattered distributions of eccentricity and size. Phys Rev E 62:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Dreuzy J-R, Davy P, Bour O (2001a) Hydraulic properties of two-dimensional random fracture networks following a power-law length distribution: 1. Effective connectivity. Water Resour Res 37(8):2065–2078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Dreuzy J-R, Davy P, Bour O (2001b) Hydraulic properties of two-dimensional random fracture networks following a power-law length distribution: 2. Permeability of networks based on lognormal distribution of apertures. Water Resour Res 37(8):2079–2095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Dreuzy J-R, Davy P, Bour O (2002) Hydraulic properties of two-dimensional random fracture networks following power law distributions of length and aperture. Water Resour Res 38(12) Google Scholar
  22. de Dreuzy J-R, Darcel C, Davy P, Bour O (2004) Influence of spatial correlation of fracture centres on the permeability of two-dimensional fracture networks following a power law length distribution. Water Resour Res 40(1) Google Scholar
  23. Dershowitz WS, Einstein HH (1988) Characterizing rock joint geometry with joint system models. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1:21–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dershowitz WS, Lee G, Geier J, Hitchcock S, La Pointe P (1993) FracMan user documentation. Golder Associates Inc, Seattle Google Scholar
  25. Dowd PA, Xu C, Fowell RJ, Mardia KV (2007) A comparison of methods for the stochastic simulation of rock fractures. Math Geol 39:697–714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ehlen J (1993) Variations in fractal dimension for joint patterns in granitic rocks. Geol Soc Am Abstr Progr 25:A33 Google Scholar
  27. Ehlen J (1999) Fracture characteristics in weathered granite. Geomorphology 31:29–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ehlen J (2000) Fractal analysis of joint patterns in granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:909–922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher RA (1953) Dispersion on a sphere. Proc R Soc Lond, Ser A 217:295–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gringarten E (1998) FRACNET: Stochastic simulation of fractures in layered systems. Comput Geosci 24(8):729–736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gudmundsson A (2000) Fracture dimensions, displacements and fluid transport. J Struct Geol 22(9):1221–1231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gudmundsson A, Berg SS, Lyslo KB, Skurtveit E (2001) Fracture networks and fluid transport in active fault zones. J Struct Geol 23(2–3):343–353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gueguen Y, Chelidze T, Le Ravalec M (1997) Microstructures, percolation thresholds, and rock physical properties. Tectonophysics 279:23–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, the US Geological Survey modular ground-water model—User guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92, p 121 Google Scholar
  35. Hatton CG, Main IG, Meredith PG (1994) Non-universal scaling of fracture length and opening displacement. Nature 367:160–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hedin A (2008) Semi-analytic stereological analysis of waste package/fracture intersections in a granitic rock nuclear waste repository. Math Geosci 40:619–637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hewett TA (1995) Fractal methods for fracture charaterization. In: Yarus JM, Chambers RL (eds) Stochastic modeling and geostatistics. Principles, methods and case studies. AAPG Computer Applications in Geology, vol. 3. AAPG, Tulsa Google Scholar
  38. Hirata T (1989) Fractal dimension of fault system in Japan: fracture structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales. Pure Appl Geophys 131:157–170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackson CP, Andrew RH, Todman S (2000) Self-consistency of heterogenous continuum porous medium representation of a fractured medium. Water Resour Res 36(1):189–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Juhász A, M. Tóth T, Ramseyer K, Matter A (2002) Connected fluid evolution in fractured crystalline basement and overlying sediments, Pannonian Basin, SE Hungary. Chem Geol 182:91–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaszai B (2003) A Mórágyi gránit repedezettsége az erdősmecskei bánya területén (Brittle deformation of Mórágy granite around Erdősmecske, Hungary). MSc thesis, University of Szeged, Dept Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Petrology, pp 52 Google Scholar
  42. Keller A (1998) High resolution non-destructive measurement and characterization of fracture apertures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(8):1037–1050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Király E, Koroknai B (2004) The magmatic and metamorphic evolution of the north-eastern part of the Mórágy Block. Annual report of the geological institute of Hungary, pp 299–310 Google Scholar
  44. Klötzli US, Buda G, Skiöld T (2004) Zircon typology geochronology and whole rock Sr–Nd isotope systematics of the Mecsek Mountain granitoidsin the Tisia Terrane (Hungary). Miner Petrol 81(1–2):113–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Korvin G (1992) Fractal models in the Earth sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 396 Google Scholar
  46. Kovács-Pálffy P, Földvári M (2004) Hydrothermal minerals and fractures in the Mórágy Granite Formations. Ann Rep Geol Inst Hung 2003:319–333 Google Scholar
  47. Kranz RL (1994) Fractal point patterns and fractal fracture traces. In: Nelson, Laubach (eds) Rock mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 793–800 Google Scholar
  48. La Pointe PR (1988) A method to characterize fracture density and connectivity through fractal geometry. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 25:421–429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lake LW, Srinivasan S (2004) Statistical scale-up of reservoir properties: concepts and applications. J Pet Sci Eng 44(1–2):27–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leckenby RJ, Sanderson DJ, Lonergan L (2005) Estimating flow heterogeneity in natural fracture systems. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 148(1–2):116–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loiseau P (1987) Correlations between Parameters. In: Bear J, Tsang CF, de Marsily G (eds) Flow and contaminant transport in fractured rock. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  52. M. Tóth T (2010, in press) Determination of geometric parameters of fracture networks using 1D data. J Struct Geol Google Scholar
  53. M. Tóth T, Schubert F, Zachar, J (2000) Neogene exhumation of the Variscan Szeghalom dome, Pannonian Basin, E. Hungary. J Geol 35(3–4):265–284 Google Scholar
  54. M. Tóth T, Szűcs É, Schubert, F, Hollós, Cs (2004) Conceptual fracture network model of the crystalline basement of the Szeghalom Dome (Pannonian Basin, SE Hungary). Acta Geol Hung 47(1):19–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, New York, pp 468 Google Scholar
  56. Mandelbrot BB (1985) Self-affine fractal dimension. Phys Scr 32:257–260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mardia KV, Nyirongo VB, Walder AN, Xu C, Dowd PA, Fowell RJ, Kent JT (2007) Markov chain Monte Carlo implementation of rock fracture modelling. Math Geol 39:355–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maros Gy, Koroknai B, Palotás K, Fodor L, Dudko A, Forián-Szabó M, Zilahi-Sebess L, Bán-György E (2004) Tectonic analysis and structural evolution of the north-eastern Mórágy Block. Annu Rep Geol Inst Hung 2003:371–386 Google Scholar
  59. Matsumoto N, Yomogida K, Honda S (1992) Fractal analysis of fault systems in Japan and the Philippines. Geophys Res Lett 19(4):357–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Min KB, Jing L, Stephansson O (2004) Determining the equivalent permeability tensor for fractured rock masses using a stochastic REV approach: Method and application to the field data from Sellafield, UK. Hydrogeol J 12(5):497–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mourzenko VV, Thovert J-F, Adler PM (2004) Macroscopic permeability of three-dimensional fracture networks with power-law size distribution. Phys Rev 69(6) Google Scholar
  62. Mourzenko VV, Thovert J-F, Adler PM (2005) Percolation of three-dimensional fracture networks with power-law size distribution. Phys Rev 72(3) Google Scholar
  63. Nelson RA (2001) Geologic analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs, 2nd edn. Gulf Publishing Co Book Division, p 332. www.elsevier.com
  64. Neuman SP (1990) Universal scaling of hydraulic conductivitiesand dispertivities in geologic media. Water Resour Res 26(8):1749–1758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oda M (1985) Permeability tensor for discontinuous rock masses. Geotechnique 35:483–495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Opheim JA, Gudmundsson A (1989) Formation and geometry of fractures, and related volcanism, of the Krafla fissure swarm, northeast Iceland. Bull Geol Soc Am 101:1608–1622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ouenes A, Hartley LJ (2000) Integrated fractured reservoir modeling using both discrete and continuum approaches. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000 Google Scholar
  68. Ouillon G, Castaing C, Sornette D (1996) Hierarchical geometry of faulting. J Geophys Res 101:5477–5487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paillet FL, Kay RT, Yeskis D, Pedler W (1993) Integrating well logs into a multi-scale investigation of a fractured sedimentary aquifer. Log Anal 34(1):13–23 Google Scholar
  70. Peitgen HO, Jürgens H, Saupe D (1992) Chaos and fractals. New frontiers of science. Springer, Berlin, pp 969 Google Scholar
  71. Pollard DD, Segall P (1987) Theoretical displacements and stresses near fractures in rock: with application to faults, joints, veins, dikes and solution surfaces. In: Atkinson B (ed) Fracture mechanics of rock. Academic Press, London Google Scholar
  72. Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rocks. J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:135–148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Renshaw CE, Park JC (1997) Effect of mechanical interactions on the scaling of fracture length and aperture. Nature 386:482–484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roberts S, Sanderson DJ, Gumiel P (1998) Fractal analysis of the Sn–W mineralization from central Iberia: Insights into the role of fracture connectivity in the formation of an ore deposit. Econ Geol 93:360–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Robinson PC (1983) Connectivity of fracture systems—a percolation theory approach. J Phys A, Math Gen 16:605–614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Robinson PC (1984) Numerical calculations of critical densities for lines and planes. J Phys A, Math Gen 17:2823–2830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rouleau A, Gale JE (1985) Statistical characterization of the fracture system in the Stripa Granite, Sweden. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 22(6):353–367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schubert F, Diamond LW, M. Tóth T (2007) Fluid inclusion evidence of petroleum migration through a buried metamorphic dome in the Pannonian Basin, Hungary. Chem Geol 244(3–4):357–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Svensson U (2001) A continuum representation of fracture networks Part I: Method and basic test cases. J Hydrol 250:170–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Terzaghi R (1965) Sources of error in joint surveys. Geotechnique 15:287–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tsuchiya N, Nakatsuka K (1995) A two-dimensional mono-fractal approach to natural fracture networks in rock. Geotherm Sci Technol 6:63–82 Google Scholar
  82. Turcotte DL (1992) Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  83. Turcotte DL (1997) Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 412 Google Scholar
  84. Twiss RJ, Moores E (1992) Structural geology. W H Freeman, San Francisco, p 544 Google Scholar
  85. US National Research Council (1996) Rock fractures and fluid flow: contemporary understanding and applications. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 551 Google Scholar
  86. Velde B, Dubois J, Moore D, Touchard J (1991) Fractal patterns of fractures in granites. Earth Planet Sci Lett 104:25–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vermilye JM, Scholz CH (1995) Relation between vein length and aperture. J Struct Geol 17(3):423–434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wang M, Kulatilake PHSW, Um J, Narvaiz J (2002) Estimation of REV size and three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity tensor for a fractured rock mass through a single well packer test and discrete fracture fluid flow modeling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:887–904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weiss J (2001) Fracture and fragmentation of ice: a fractal analysis of scale invariance. Eng Fract Mech 68(17–18):1975–2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Witherspoon PA, Wang JSY, Iwai K, Gale JE (1980) Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in deformable rock fracture. Water Resour Res 16(6):1016–1024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yielding G, Walsh JJ, Watterson J (1992) The prediction of small-scale faulting in reservoirs. First Break 10:449–460 Google Scholar
  92. Zhang X, Sanderson DJ (2002) Numerical modelling and analysis of fluid flow and deformation of fractured rock masses. Pergamon, Oxford Google Scholar
  93. Zhang X, Sanderson DJ, Harkness RM, Last NC (1996) Evaluation of the 2-D permeability tensor for fractured rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(1):17–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mineralogy, Geochemistry and PetrologyUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations