Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 493–510 | Cite as

Computational Modeling of Fluid Flow through a Fracture in Permeable Rock



Laminar, single-phase, finite-volume solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations of fluid flow through a fracture within permeable media have been obtained. The fracture geometry was acquired from computed tomography scans of a fracture in Berea sandstone, capturing the small-scale roughness of these natural fluid conduits. First, the roughness of the two-dimensional fracture profiles was analyzed and shown to be similar to Brownian fractal structures. The permeability and tortuosity of each fracture profile was determined from simulations of fluid flow through these geometries with impermeable fracture walls. A surrounding permeable medium, assumed to obey Darcy’s Law with permeabilities from 0.2 to 2,000 millidarcies, was then included in the analysis. A series of simulations for flows in fractured permeable rocks was performed, and the results were used to develop a relationship between the flow rate and pressure loss for fractures in porous rocks. The resulting friction-factor, which accounts for the fracture geometric properties, is similar to the cubic law; it has the potential to be of use in discrete fracture reservoir-scale simulations of fluid flow through highly fractured geologic formations with appreciable matrix permeability. The observed fluid flow from the surrounding permeable medium to the fracture was significant when the resistance within the fracture and the medium were of the same order. An increase in the volumetric flow rate within the fracture profile increased by more than 5% was observed for flows within high permeability-fractured porous media.


Fractured porous media Single-phase flow Friction-factor Cubic law Navier–Stokes CFD 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Al-Yaarubi, A.H., Pain, C.C., Grattoni, C.A., Zimmerman, R.W.: Navier–Stokes simulations of fluid flow through a rock fracture. In: Faybishenko, B., Gale, J. (eds.) Dynamics of fluids and transport in fractured rocks, vol. 162 of AGU Monograph, pp. 55–64. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC (2005).Google Scholar
  2. Berkowitz B. (2002) Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media: a review. Adv. Water Resour. 25: 3151–3175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown S.R. (1995) Simple mathematical model of a rough fracture. J. Geophys. Res. 100: 5941–5952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown S.R., Caprihan A., Hardy R. (1998) Experimental observation of fluid flow channels in a single fracture. J. Geophys. Res. 103: 5125–5132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chae B.G., Ichikawa Y., Jeong G.C., Seo Y.S., Kim B.C. (2004) Roughness measurement of rock discontinuities using a confocal laser scanning microscope and the Fourier spectral analysis. Eng. Geol. 72: 181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Detournay E. (2004) Propagation regimes of fluid-driven fractures in impermeable rocks. Int. J. Geomech. 4: 34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Detwiler R.L., Pringle S.E., Glass R.J. (1999) Measurement of fracture aperture fields using transmitted light: an evaluation of measurement errors and their influence on simulations of flow and transport through a single fracture. Water Resour. Res. 35: 2605–2617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dougan L.T., Addison P.S., McKenzie W.M.C. (2000) Fractal analysis of fracture: a comparison of dimension exponents. Mech. Res. Commun. 27: 383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drazer G., Koplik J. (2001) Tracer dispersion in two-dimensional rough fractures. Phys. Rev. E 63: 056104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hirono T., Takahashi M., Nakashima S. (2003) In situ visualization of fluid flow image within deformed rock by X-ray CT. Eng. Geol. 70: 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingham D.B., Al-Hadhrami A.K., Elliott L., Wen X. (2006) Fluid flows through some geological discontinuities. J. Appl. Mech. 73: 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Issa M.A., Issa M.A., Islam Md S., Chudnovsky A. (2003) Fractal dimension: a measure of fracture roughness and toughness of concrete. Eng. Fract. Mech. 70: 125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karpyn Z.T., Piri M. (2007) Prediction of fluid occupancy in fractures using network modeling and X-ray microtomography. I: data conditioning and model description. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 76: 016315Google Scholar
  14. Karpyn Z.T., Grader A.S., Halleck P.M. (2007) Visualization of fluid occupancy in a rough fracture using micro-tomography. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 307: 181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kulatilake P.H.S.W., Um J. (1999) Requirements for accurate quantification of self-affine roughness using the roughness-length method. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36: 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lanaro F. (2000) A random field model for surface roughness and aperture of rock fractures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37: 1195–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mandelbrot B.B., Passoja D.E., Paullay A.J. (1984) Fractal character of fracture surfaces of metals. Nature 308: 721–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKoy, M.L., Sams, W.N.: Tight gas simulation: modeling discrete irregular strata-bound fracture network flow including dynamic recharge from the matrix. Presented at U.S. Department of Energy’s Natural Gas Conference, Number P17, Houston, TX (1997)Google Scholar
  19. Mityushev V., Adler P.M. (2006) Darcy flow around a two-dimensional permeable lens. J. Phys. A. Math. Gen. 39: 3545–3560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mourzenko V.V., Thovert J.-F., Adler P.M. (2001) Permeability of self-affine fractures. Transp. Porous Media 45: 89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Institutes of Health (U.S.) ImageJ 1.38x. Accessed 13 April 2009
  22. National Research Council (U.S.): (1996) Committee on Fracture Characterization and Fluid Flow: Rock Fractures and Fluid Flow: Contemporary Understanding and Applications. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Nazridoust K., Ahmadi G., Smith D.H. (2006) New friction factor correlation for laminar, single phase flows through rock fractures. J. Hydrol. 329: 315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Odling N.E. (1994) Natural fracture profiles, fractal dimension and joint roughness coefficients. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 27: 135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan M.J., Pruess K., Lippmann M.J. (2001) State of the art geothermal reservoir simulation. Geothermics 30: 395–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piri M., Karpyn Z.T. (2007) Prediction of fluid occupancy in fractures using network modeling and X-ray microtomography. II: Results. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 76: 016316Google Scholar
  27. Poon C.Y., Sayles R.S., Jones T.A. (1992) Surface measurement and fractal characterization of naturally fractured rocks. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 25: 1269–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rangel-German E., Akin S., Castanier L. (2006) Multiphase-flow properties of fractured porous media. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 51: 197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roux S., Plouraboué F., Hulin J.-P. (1998) Tracer dispersion in rough open cracks. Trans. Porous Media 32: 97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Selroos J.-O., Walker D.D., Ström A., Gylling B., Follin S. (2002) Comparison of alternative modelling approaches for groundwater flow in fractured rock. J. Hydrol. 257: 174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsang Y.W. (1984) The effect of tortuosity on fluid flow through a single fracture. Water Resour. Res. 20: 1209–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Energy: United States Department of Energy Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada. (2007). Accessed 13 April (2009)
  33. Wang J.S.Y., Narasimhan T.N., Scholz C.H. (1988) Aperture correlation of a fractal fracture. J. Geophys. Res. 93: 2216–2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White F.M. (1999) Fluid Mechanics, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dustin Crandall
    • 1
    • 2
  • Goodarz Ahmadi
    • 1
  • Duane H. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering DepartmentClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  2. 2.National Energy Technology LaboratoryUnited States Department of EnergyMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations