Abstract
The study of groundwater flow in fractured aquifers is an important part of hydrogeology. Main parameters that influence the flow rate and velocity in fractures are their number and connectivity but especially their opening width (aperture). The roughness of fractures also has an important influence, as it locally modifies both aperture and flow patterns. However, it is seldom measured, not fully understood and, therefore, often not included into calculations. The present study focuses on methodological aspects and investigates the roughness and composition of weathered fracture surfaces from Triassic Bunter Sandstone samples from Southern Germany. Such weathered surfaces have received little attention so far. For the first time, different mechanical and optical methods were used and compared. Results show a clear scale dependency, indicating a fractal, self-affine nature, despite several different methods being used. This confirms that all methods provide useful data. .
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Most model approaches for groundwater flow and transport have been developed for porous systems. Flow in fractured aquifers is considerably more difficult to describe due to the uneven distribution and discrete nature of its pathways. Such aquifers are, however, common in many regions worldwide and can play an important role for water supply (or hydrocarbon production) but they can also be affected by contamination (Lee and Farmer 1993; Berkowitz 2002; Krásny and Sharp 2007; Singhal and Gupta 2010; Adler et al. 2013; Sharp 2014). In both cases it is important to study the influence of the faults on the flow rates and velocities within the aquifer.
Several authors have tried to derive basic laws describing flow through fractures (e.g. Lomidze 1951; see also the reviews by e.g. Zimmerman and Bodvarsson 1996; Zimmerman and Yeo 2000; Berkowitz 2002; He et al. 2021). The most commonly used approach to describe laminar flow in a fractured aquifer is the cubic law in the form proposed by Snow (1969).
with
Q = flow rate [L³/T], μ = dynamic viscosity [M/(L·T)], g = acceleration of gravity [L/T²], ρ = fluid density [M/L³], b = fracture aperture (opening width) [L], w = length of fracture (normal to direction of flow) [L], N = number of equal fractures, and I = hydraulic gradient (see Fig. 1a for details).
The law takes its name from the cubic dependency of flow from the aperture, with the fracture planes being parallel. Even a slight change in aperture thus strongly influences flow and permeability of the system. The basic underlying assumption is that the fault planes are parallel and smooth, conditions rarely met in nature. Experiments by Witherspoon et al. (1980) showed the need for a correction term f to address deviations from the idealized concept. From their experiments with granite, basalt and marble, they arrived at values ranging from f = 1.04 to 1.65.
with
f = fracture surface characteristic factor [-].
An important contributor to this correction factor is the surface roughness (the term asperity is sometimes also used). Such protrusions from a basal surface can affect the single-most important parameter, aperture width. A distinction is thus often made between the mechanical aperture and the conducting (or hydraulically effective) aperture (Brown 1987; Renshaw 1995). Due to roughness, the conducting aperture is smaller than the mechanical aperture (Fig. 1b).
Despite or even because of its relatively simple form, the cubic law suffers from several problems. The first is that it addresses both macroscopic and microscopic scales at the same time. The number of fractures and their length can only be assessed on a macroscopic scale (e.g. an outcrop or a tunnel) but can be scale-dependent, raising the issue of the representative elementary volume (REV) of sampling (e.g. Piña et al. 2019). On the microscopic scale, parameters of the (individual) fracture are considered, i.e. its aperture and, indirectly through the factor f, its roughness. A parameter not explicitly included in the cubic law is the connectivity of fractures, i.e. the influence of a fracture network. Due to the aforementioned limits, many authors have tried to develop improved versions of the cubic law (e.g. Gee and Gracie (2022), see also review by He et al. 2021). For the sake of simplicity, effects of double porosity, i.e. the interaction of faults and intermittent porous blocks, e.g. in a sandstone, will also be ignored here.
The number of fractures, their length and to some degree their aperture can be measured in the field, which is often done along a profile section. Drill cores and camera inspections of open boreholes are also used. However, effects of weathering and decompression in surface outcrops and cores may cause deviations from values representative for the subsurface, especially for the aperture (Singhal and Gupta 2010). Measuring the roughness is much more challenging, as it needs to be done in the laboratory and special sophisticated equipment is needed. Different standardized measuring methods developed mostly for material science applications are available (see methods section below, also ISO 25178-2:2021 (2021). Measurement techniques comprise both contact and non-contact methods, the former mostly mechanical feeler techniques, the latter mostly optical. The optical methods rely on different measurement principles and have differing spatial resolutions and measurable sample sizes. It is thus interesting to compare these methods and to see whether they yield comparable results.
Locally, roughness can cause more tortuous flow paths and eddies, especially at higher (non-Dracy) flow velocities, which can also affect transport processes (Brown 1987; Qian et al. 2005; Zou et al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2016; Briggs et al. 2017; Ni et al. 2018; Dou et al. 2019; Stoll et al. 2019; Li et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2023). Especially sharp discontinuities in surface profiles can result in complex flow patterns (Dijk et al. 1999; Dijk and Berkowitz 1999). Ignoring fracture roughness can introduce errors into model calculations based on the cubic law (Plouraboué et al. 2000; Méheust and Schmittbuhl 2003). According to Lee and Farmer (1993), the cubic proportionality between flow rate and aperture decreases to a square relationship for rough fractures. For non-linear laminar flow (non-Darcy or Forchheimer flow) the exponent decreases even further to 1.2 < n < 2.
Mechanical forces acting in the subsurface can also affect the aperture, e.g. load compression and shear forces (e.g. Witherspoon et al. 1980; Yeo et al. 1998; Lee and Cho 2002). Roughness can play a role here too, since the protrusions can prevent the full closure of a fracture under compressive stress due to the mismatch of the surfaces, the latter e.g. enhanced by shear displacement (Witherspoon et al. 1980; Cardona et al. 2001; Zhou et al. 2016; Al-Fahimi et al. 2018).
The influence of fracture roughness on groundwater flow is a widely discussed topic in hydrogeological literature, a SCOPUS search (February 20, 2024) for the search terms “fracture flow” and “roughness” yielded 222 studies, of which the majority have been published in the last ten years. Many studies, however rely on numerical modeling and/or artificially created roughness fields (e.g. Brown 1987; Brush and Thomson 2003; Li et al. 2020), including 3D-printed models (e.g. Zhang et al. 2022). If natural samples are used, the fractures are often freshly created by splitting (e.g. Rost et al. 2018).
Actual measurements of natural fracture roughness are comparably rare and usually rely on a single method. Many studies investigate freshly split samples, thus the bulk rock. Here, on the other hand, we study a natural, weathered surface. The aim of the present study is, therefore two-fold, (a) to compare different methods for measuring surface roughness operating on different scales, and (b) the effects of a natural, weathered joint surface (Bunter Sandstone from Southern Germany).
Methods
Sample material
The sample material was collected in surface outcrops (quarries) of the Triassic Lower to Middle Bunter Sandstone (Badischer Bausandstein) in the northern Black Forest, near the city of Rastatt, SW Germany. For the analysis of the fracture surfaces, several samples were chipped off the outcrop using hammer and chisel.
Optical analysis
The fracture surface was inspected by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) using a FEI Sirion D1625, operating in low-vacuum mode (0.6 mbar). It is equipped with an EDX (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy)-system of the type Genesis 4000 by EDAX for chemical analysis. Additionally, petrographic thin sections were studied by a Zeiss Axioplan light microscope.
Chemical analysis
The chemical composition of powdered samples was determined by wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (WD-XRF), using a PANalytical Axios and a PW2400 spectrometer.
The contents of sulphur and total carbon were measured with a LECO CS-444-Analysator. The organic carbon content was determined with the same machinery after dissolving the carbonates by repeated hydrochloric acid treatment at 80 °C.
The specific surface area was determined by nitrogen adsorption using a five point BET (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface area) method. Measurements were performed with a Micromeritics Gemini III 2375 on about 300 mg of the ground material.
Measures of roughness
In geological media, the roughness of a fracture or fault surface can be defined as small-scale vertical deviations from an ideally smooth surface. It can be caused by the undulations of the mineral grains of the broken rock matrix at the surface but also by secondary precipitates.
The usual measure of roughness is the vertical distance (deviation) of a measuring point from a baseline (see ISO 25178-2:2021 (2021) for details on terminology). It is therefore usually measured as a unit of length. Roughness parameters along a measurement profile (cross section) are indicated by the letter R, e.g. Ra for the average roughness, while the letter S (= surface) is used for values obtained from areal measurements. R and S values from the same sample need not be identical, due to the natural anisotropy of surfaces and the effects of the user-dependent selection of the position of the profile on the surface. Areal measurements are therefore preferred, although they take longer and are computationally more demanding. Following ISO 25178-2:2021, commonly used parameters are the arithmetical mean deviation Ra or Sa (Eq. 3) and the root mean squared deviation Rq or Sq (Eq. 4). The maximum height above the base(line) is also often given (Rz or Sz).
with
n = number of equally spaced measuring points along a profile.
yi = vertical distance of i-th measuring point from the base line [L].
There is a multitude of roughness indices, which cannot all be described here (e.g. Li and Zhang 2015; Magsipoc et al. 2020). The oldest but still most common index is the dimensionless Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) introduced by Barton (1973). An increasing JRC indicates more roughness and thus more obstruction to groundwater flow over a fracture plane. The JRC is obtained visually by comparing measured roughness profiles to a set of standard profiles by e.g. Barton and Choubey (1977). This has the disadvantage that the outcome is prone to the subjective influences of the user (Beer et al. 2002; Stigsson and Mas Ivars 2019). Another popular index is the roughness profile index of a fracture, Rp (Eq. 5a), with Rp ≥ 1 (El Soudani 1978). The profile elongation index δ is a variation (Eq. 5b).
with
Lt = actual length of rough profile [L].
L = projected length of profile in fracture plane [L].
Several studies have shown that JRC and Rp are highly correlated and several empirical equations have been proposed (see review by Li and Zhang 2015). Photogrammetric studies by Maerz et al. (1990) yielded Eq. 6, which will be used here
Several studies indicate that the correlation of JRC with Ra and Rq is significantly weaker (Li and Zhang 2015; Mo and Li 2019; Luo et al. 2022). Only a few empirical equations have been proposed, e.g. the ones by Tse and Cruden (1979), where Ra and Rq are given in centimeters.
Ni et al. (2018) established an empirical relation between the JRC and the Forchheimer coefficient β, an important, but difficult to obtain parameter for non-Darcy flow.
with
β = Forchheimer coefficient [L− 1].
In order to obtain the fractal dimension of dimensionally variable data, the well-established Hurst exponent H is used (Hurst 1951). Here, a simplified approach, modified from Malinverno (1990), is applied, which relates the roughness Rx to the Hurst exponent H via
with
Rx = Ra or Rq = roughness [L].
A = proportionality coefficient.
L = length of observation window (profile) [L].
H = Hurst exponent.
Laboratory roughness measurements
It should be noted that all measurements of this study were performed on independent sub-samples of one sample of a fracture surface. Using the same sub-sample for all roughness measurements is not feasible, since the individual methods vary in image size, resolution, and sample preparation. Finding the same profile locations with different methods is practically impossible. Results can thus be potentially affected by the differences (heterogeneity) amongst the sub-samples.
For a first rough measure of the surface texture, a mechanical feeler gauge (Barton´s profile comb) was used (e.g. Al-Fahimi et al. 2018). It consists of a row of 150 steel pins of 1 mm width each, which can reveal the 2D height profile of a sample in the chosen direction. When removed from the object, the pins remain in the position of the measured profile and can be copied to a sheet of paper for later evaluation against templates by Lee and Farmer (1993).
Interferometric Microscopy with True Color Imaging (CSI-TC) combines Coherence Scanning Interferometry with capture of true color information (details see Beverage et al. 2014; de Groot 2014). Capturing of true color information together with a virtual 3D topography allows distinguishing variations in material properties and the visualization of photorealistic textures. Scans were performed using a nexview™ surface profiler provided by ZygoLOT GmbH (now Ametek GmbH), Germany. The lateral optical resolution was 0.34 μm (100X objective) and the spatial sampling distance 0.04 μm (100X objective, 2X zoom).
Optical 3D Micro Coordinate Measurements (3D-MCM) were performed with an InfinteFocusSL provided by Alicona Imaging GmbH, Austria. The method is based on focus-variation, which means that the change of sharpness is determined while the distance between the objective and the sample is varied. The high measurement point density is also applicable for form and roughness measurements over relatively large sample areas. Uncertainty information is automatically included for every value. The lateral and vertical resolution are 4 μm and 250 nm for both.
For Laser Scanning Microscopy (LSM) a Keyence VK-9700 (Keyence International, Japan) confocal LSM of the Institute for Soil Science of the Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany, was used. The system allows a magnification of up to 24,000x and delivers true color images.
Vertical Scanning Interferometry (VSI) with a white light source provides very high vertical spatial resolution (∼ 1 nm). Like all other light optical profilometers (confocal microscopy, coherence microscopy), the lateral spatial resolution is limited due to diffraction. For all these methods, this leads to the fact that relatively steep flanks of the topography cannot be detected. “Steep” in this context means that the undetected height difference occurs within one pixel width and is thus not detectable. Here, a ZeMapper Vertical Scanning Interferometer (VSI) from Zemetrics Inc. of Tuscon, Arizona, was used for surface analysis of the fractures (installed at MARUM, University of Bremen, Germany). It is equipped with four Mirau objectives for 10x, 20x, 50x, and 100x magnification and a 5x Michelson objective. With this setup, a field of view of up to 3 mm x 3 mm can be achieved. The square pixels have a virtual length of 147 nm when using the 50x objective. More details on this instrument can be found in Fischer et al. (2012).
Results
Optical and chemical inspection of fracture surfaces
Under the electron microscope, the weathered fracture surface it is coated by a dense material, obscuring the grains of the underlying sandstone (Fig. 2, upper row). While the fracture surface looks rather smooth under low magnifications (and less rough than the sandstone matrix underneath), detailed images show a variety of very fine grained materials in the coating, including iron oxides (Fig. 2, lower left), clay minerals (Fig. 2, lower right) and finely dispersed gypsum crystals (not shown). The mentioned minerals are in good accordance with the chemical EDX analyses, which show that the material is locally enriched in iron and sulphur as well as, additionally, in (organic) carbon. These phases are more reactive in terms of sorption and redox reactions compared to the abundant quartz and may thus influence the quality of groundwater flowing along it.
Thin sections show that the surface material has invaded up to 1 mm into the sandstone matrix (Fig. 3). The dark colors could be an indication of the organic carbon mentioned above. Light-optical inspection of thin sections showed that the intergranular space between the quartz grains located near the fracture is filled by a dark phase, which could not be observed farther than 1 mm away from the fracture surface. Based on the above presented electron-optical investigations this phase may be either organic material or iron oxyhydroxide or even a mixture of both.
For the chemical and physical analyses, samples of the bulk sandstone matrix and the fracture coating material were studied separately (Table 1). They show that the latter is enriched in iron, manganese and organic carbon and slightly enriched in sulphur and carbonate. This is in good accordance with the findings from the electron microscopy discussed above. Some trace metal contents are also elevated for the coating material, including barium, copper, nickel, and lead (Table 1). They could be contained in carbonate or sulphate phases (barium) or in the observed iron oxides (heavy metals). The higher specific surface area of the fracture surface reflects the somewhat higher content of fine.grained and microporous phases such as ironoxyhydroxide, carbonate, and clay minerals (Fig. 2; Table 1). This indicates that its roughness is higher than that of the bulk sandstone, despite its overall more smooth appearance.
Mechanical roughness analysis
Figure 4 shows roughness profiles measured with a feeler gauge on 22 surfaces from the same fracture surface. Through visual comparison against templates by Lee and Farmer (1993), an average JRC after Barton (1973) of about 8 was obtained. This is in the typical range of JRC = 5 to 14 for sandstones (e.g. Bandis et al. 1983; Vattai and Rozgonyi-Boissinot 2018). The roughness profile index of a fracture Rp, would be 1.019, following Eq. 6. With an aperture of 1 mm, the Forchheimer coefficient derived from Eq. 8 would assume a value of β = 336 m− 1.
Optical roughness analysis
The measurements with Coherence Scanning Interferometry with True Color Imaging (CSI-TC) by Zygolot GmbH were performed for two different sample sizes and several replicates each, with three samples of a size of 0.336 mm x 0.336 mm (0.113 mm²) and two samples of 0.841 mm x 0.841 mm (0.707 mm²). The observed data are summarized in Annex 1. Figure 5 shows example images of the measurement. The results show a general trend of increasing roughness with sample size. However, the increase of the sample size by a factor of 6.26 only leads to an increase of roughness by a maximum factor of around two. The measurements at the smaller sample size do show pronounced variations, e.g. for Sa from 11 to 17 μm, while the admittedly only two larger-scaled samples are closer together.
The roughness measurements using Optical 3D Micro Coordinate Measurements (3D-MCM) by Alicona Imaging GmbH were done both for an area (5.7 mm x 7.5 mm) and a profile (12 mm length). Figure 6 and Annex 2 show example images and results for the former, Fig. 7 and Annex 3 for the latter. No replicate measurements were carried out. The areal 3D-MCM measurement is the one with the largest area (42.75 mm²) of all methods considered. Although this area is larger by factor of 60 compared to the larger samples (0.707 mm²) measured with CSI-TC, the roughness parameters only increase by a factor of around two. The results of the profile measurement based on 3D-MCM are Ra = 35.9 and Rq = 45.4 μm, respectively. They are somewhat smaller than the values obtained from the areal measurements with Sa = 43.2 and Sq = 54.8 μm, respectively.
The single roughness measurement with a ZeMapper white light interferometer (VSI) was evaluated over a field of view of 30 μm x 196 μm (0.0059 mm²). The field of view size was chosen small enough to exclude sections with many missing data points, which can be caused by e.g. locally lower reflectivity of the surface. Compared to the previously discussed CSI-TC measurements with an area 0.113 mm², this area is smaller by a factor of around 19. However, the Sq of 14.7 μm obtained by VSI is not much smaller, but rather in the same range as the values obtained by the CSI-TC method (13.5–21.7 μm), although on the lower side.
The confocal laser scanning microscope (LSM) was used for 15 areal measurements (Fig. 7a, Annex 4) and 14 profiles (Fig. 8, Annex 5) of the same sample. They show a rather large scatter but a weak trend of increasing roughness with increasing imaging area.
Discussion
The areal roughness measurements are shown together in Fig. 7. It is evident that both roughness parameters, Sa and Sq, increase with increasing sample (or image) size. The difference between Sa and Sq is relatively small. Sample reproducibility is generally good, although only available for CSI-TC. It is remarkable, that the different methods do no show a notable dependence of roughness on image size, a testament to the usefulness of all applied techniques. The profile measurements (Fig. 8) show a steady increase of roughness parameters Ra and Rq with increasing profile length. As expected, values for Rq are consistently higher than those for Ra.
A comparison of our roughness values to published data is somewhat hampered by the fact that the majority of studies prefer JRC measurements or parameters that correlate well with JRC. Applying Eq. 7a and 7b for our observed JRC = 8, we obtain Ra = 66 μm and Rq = 79 μm. Since Tse and Cruden (1979) apparently worked on a centimeter scale, these values have to be compared to the higher values on the x axis of Fig. 8. The calculated values thus coincide well with the range shown there.
Measurements of amplitude-based roughness parameters on samples similar to ours are somewhat scarce. Rost et al. (2018) gave values of Ra = 32.4 μm and Rq = 50.1 μm for the Gildehaus sandstone (Germany) and Ra = 18.3 μm and Rq = 35.1 μm for the quartz-rich Fontainebleau sandstone (France), each for a 1.7 × 2.3 mm sample window (in Fig. 8, a mean length of 2 mm was assumed). It should be noted, however, that Rost et al. (2018) studied the surface of freshly split samples, not weathered fracture surfaces like ours, which have undergone secondary geochemical processes (Figs. 2 and 3). Haeri et al. (2020) measured the Rq of six sandstones, namely the Navajo, Nugget, Bentheimer, Bandera Brown, Berea and Mt. Simon sandstones and obtained values of 23.3, 17.8, 34.4, 35.5, 30.4 and 123.8 μm, respectively (sample size 0.95 × 1.3 mm, plotted as 1.1 mm in Fig. 8). These literature values are somewhat higher than the range for our data shown in Fig. 8, maybe an effect of weathering which our samples experienced.
For an artificially cemented sandstone, Konstantinou et al. (2021) found values for Ra and Rq, ranging between 500 and 2500 μm, but for a high scan length of 50 mm, which is far beyond our range. For a fresh, artificially induced joint in an unspecified Chinese sandstone, Fang et al. (2019) found values of Sa = 517 μm and Sq = 666 μm. These much higher values can also be explained by their much larger sample size (90 × 90 mm = 8100 mm²), which is almost two orders of magnitude higher than our maximum sample size. The observed dependence of roughness on the scale of imaging is a reflection of the fractal (self-affine) nature of roughness (e.g. Magsipoc et al. 2020). Our study is not the first to identify such a behavior (e.g. Brown 1987; Kumar and Bodvarsson 1990; Develi and Babadagli 1998; Beeler 2020). Already Schmittbuhl et al. (1993) clearly stated that “… roughness increases continuously with the size of the window over which it is estimated. No absolute roughness scale can be defined independently of the sample size.” Our study, which takes into account both profile and areal measurements, confirms these previous findings, even when using several independent methods.
Despite the large spread of data and the use of different methods (Figs. 7 and 8), we investigated the fractal dimension of our samples via the well-established Hurst exponent H (Hurst 1951).
A regression analysis of our data shown in Fig. 8 with Eq. 9, yields for Ra values of A = 0.124 (± 0.057) and H = 0.601 (± 0.053), with a correlation coefficient of R² = 0.90. For Rq, we obtain very similar values of A = 0.152 (± 0.073) and H = 0.605 (± 0.056), correlation coefficient R² = 0.89. It should be noted that we could only use four different profile lengths, fewer than recommended by Kulatilake and Um (1999). The Hurst exponent is related to the fractal dimension D via Eq. 10 (Magsipoc et al. 2020).
with
D = fractal dimension.
E = number of spatial dimensions (E = 2 for profiles).
By definition, self-affine fractals have a spatial dimension of D = 1.5, while typical values for rock joints fall in the range D = 1.0-1.5 (Brown 1987; Magsipoc et al. 2020). With H = 0.6, we obtain D = 1.4, a value that fits well into this range. The results thus confirm the fractal, self-affine nature of our fracture surface. It should, however, be noted that our material was weathered, while most literature data are for freshly-split material.
Conclusions
Fracture roughness is an important but not fully understood factor influencing flow in fractured aquifers, since it can lead to deviations from the commonly used cubic law.
Unlike most other studies, we investigated a natural, weathered fracture surface. Despite its overall smooth appearance, the fracture coating on the Bunter Sandstone from Southern Germany exhibited a higher specific surface area than the bulk rock. This is due to the presence of many small and potentially microporous phases such as iron oxyhydroxides, organic matter, clay minerals, and fine grained gypsum, which all provide an increased geochemical reaction potential.
Mechanical feeler gauge measurements and the resulting JRC values compared favorably to the results from the optical amplitude methods with their much higher spatial resolution.
Despite the relatively small number of measurements, areal and profile measurements of fracture surface roughness both indicate that typical roughness parameters such as Ra/Sa and Rq/Sq increase with increasing sample (or image) size. This scale effect is a result of the fractal, self-affine nature of roughness. For the first time, this effect could be shown, although several different measuring methods were used, and image sizes differed by several orders of magnitude. Albeit at different scales, all methods are thus able to provide useful data, which confirms their applicability in this context, something which was not investigated before.
The observed scale-dependence of roughness should be considered when modeling fractured aquifers.
References
Adler PM, Thovert J-F, Mourzenko VV (2013) Fractured porous media. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Al-Fahimi MM, Ozkaya SI, Cartwright JA (2018) New insights on fracture roughness and wall mismatch in carbonate reservoir rocks. Geosphere 14(4):1851–1859. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01612.1
Bandis S, Lumsdent A, Barton N (1983) Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomechamical Abstracts 20(6):249–268
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol 7(4):287–332
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 10(1–2):1–54
Beeler NM (2020) Characterizing fault roughness - are faults rougher at long or short wavelengths? USGS Open-File Report 2020–1134, 22p
Beer AJ, Stead D, Coggan JS (2002) Technical note estimation of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) by visual comparison. Rock Mech Rock Eng 35(1):65–74
Berkowitz B (2002) Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media: a review. Adv Water Resour 25(8–12):861–884
Beverage J, de Lega C, Fay X (2014) M. Interferometric microscope with true color imaging. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. 9203. 92030S. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2063264
Briggs S, Karney BW, Sleep BE (2017) Numerical modeling of the effects of roughness on flow and eddy formation in fractures. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(1):105–115
Brown SR (1987) Fluid flow through rock joints: the effect of surface roughness. J Geophys Res 92(B2):1337–1347. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB092iB02p01337
Brush DJ, Thomson NR (2003) Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations. Water Resour Res 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001346
Cardona A, Finkbeiner T, Santamarina JC (2001) Natural rock fractures: from aperture to fluid flow. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54, 5827–5844 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02565-1
de Groot P (2014) The state of the art in interference microscopy: modern techniques for geometric form, surface texture and areal structure analysis. Imaging and Applied Optics 2014, OSA Technical Digest (online), paper ATu2A.4
Develi K, Babadagli T (1998) Quantification of natural fracture surfaces using Fractal geometry. Math Geol 30:971–998. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021781525574
Dijk PE, Berkowitz B (1999) Three-dimensional flow measurements in rock fractures. Water Resour Res 35(12):3955–3959
Dijk P, Berkowitz B, Bendel P (1999) Investigation of flow in water-saturated rock fractures using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI). Water Resour Res 35(2):347–360
Dou Z, Sleep B, Zhan H, Zhou Z, Wang J (2019) Multiscale roughness influence on conservative solute transport in self-affine fractures. Int J Heat Mass Transf 606–618
El-Soudani SM (1978) Profilometric analysis of fractures. Metallography 11:247–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0800(78)90045
Fang, J., Deng, H., Qi, Y., Xiao, Y., Zhang, H., Li, J. (2019) Analysis of changes in the micromorphology ofsandstone joint surface under dry-wet cycling. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2019, Article8758203,https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8758203
Fischer C, Michler A, Darbha GK, Kanbach M, Schäfer T (2012) Deposition of mineral colloids on rough rock surfaces. Am J Sci 312(8):885–906. https://doi.org/10.2475/08.2012.02
Gee B, Gracie R (2022) Beyond the cubic law: a finite volume method for convective and transient fracture flow. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 94(11):1841–1862. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.5129
Haeri F, Tapriyal D, Sanguinito S, Shi F, Fuchs SJ, Dalton LE, Baltrus J, Howard B, Crandall DM, Matranga C, Goodman AL (2020) CO2–Brine Contact Angle measurements on Navajo, Nugget, Bentheimer, Bandera Brown, Berea, and Mt. Simon Sandstones Energy Fuels 34(5):6085–6100. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00436
He X, Sinan M, Kwak H, Hoteit H (2021) A corrected cubic law for single-phase laminar flow through rough-walled fractures. Adv Water Resour 154:103984
Hurst HE (1951) Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 116:770–799
ISO 25178-2:2021 (2021) Geometrical product specifications (GPS) — surface texture: areal — part 2: terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. ISO standard
Konstantinou C, Biscontin G, Logothetis F (2021) Tensile strength of artificially cemented sandstone generated via microbially induced carbonate precipitation. Materials 14:4735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164735
Krásny J, Sharp JM (eds) (2007) Groundwater in fractured rocks. Selected papers from the Groundwater in Fractured Rocks International Conference, Prague, 2003. IAH selected papers on hydrogeology 9, 386 p.; CRC, Boca Raton
Kulatilake PHSW, Um J (1999) Requirements for accurate quantification of self-affine roughness using the roughness-length method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00170
Kumar S, Bodvarsson GS (1990) Fractal study and simulation of fracture roughness. Geophys Res Lett 17(6):701–704
Lee H, Cho T (2002) Hydraulic characteristics of rough fractures in linear flow under normal and shear load. Rock Mech Rock Eng 35:299–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-002-0028-y
Lee C-H, Farmer I (1993) Fluid flow in discontinuous rocks. Chapman & Hall, London
Li Y, Zhang Y (2015) Quantitative estimation of joint roughness coefficient using statistical parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 77:27–35
Li B, Mo Y, Zou L, Liu R, Cvetkovic V (2020) Influence of surface roughness on fluid flow and solute transport through 3D crossed rock fractures. J Hydrol 582:124284
Lomidze TM (1951) Percolation in fissured rooks. Gosgeoltekhizdat, Moscow. (in Russian)
Luo Y, Wang Y, Guo H, Liu X, Luo Y, Liu Y (2022) Relationship between joint roughness coefficient and statistical roughness parameters and its sensitivity to sampling interval. Sustain (Switzerland) 14(20):13597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013597
Ma C, Chen Y, Tong X, Ma G (2023) An equivalent analysis of non-linear flow along rough-walled fractures based on power spectrum and wavelet transform. J Hydrol 620:129351
Maerz NH, Franklin JA, Bennett CP (1990) Joint roughness measurement using shadow profilometry. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 27:329–343.
Magsipoc E, Zhao Q, Grasselli G (2020) 2D and 3D roughness characterization. Rock Mech Rock Eng 53:1495–1519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01977-4
Malinverno A (1990) A simple method to estimate the fractal dimension of a self-affine series. Geophys Res Lett 17:1953–1956. https://doi.org/10.1029/GL017i011p
Méheust Y, Schmittbuhl J (2003) Scale effects related to flow in rough fractures. In: Kümpel HJ (ed) Thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling in fractured rock. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 1023–1050
Mo P, Li Y (2019) Estimating the three-dimensional joint roughness coefficient value of rock fractures. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(2):857–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1150-0
Ni XD, Niu YL, Wang Y, Yu K (2018) Non-Darcy flow experiments of water seepage through rough-walled rock fractures. Geofluids, 2018 (7): 1–12
Piña A, Donado LD, Blessent D (2019) Analysis of the scale-dependence of the hydraulic conductivity in complex fractured media. J Hydrol 569:556–572
Plouraboué F, Kurowski P, Boffa JM, Hulin JP, Roux S (2000) Experimental study of the transport properties of rough self-affine fractures. J Contam Hydrol 46(3–4):295–318
Qian J, Zhan H, Zhao W, Sun F (2005) Experimental study of turbulent unconfined groundwater flow in a single fracture. J Hydrol 311(1–4):134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.01.013
Renshaw CE (1995) On the relationship between mechanical and hydraulic apertures in rough-walled fractures. J Geophys Research: Solid Earth 100(B12):24629–24636
Rost, E., Hecker, C., Schodlok, M.C., van der Meer, F.D. (2018) Rock sample surface preparation influencesthermal infrared spectra. Minerals, 2018 (8), 475
Schmittbuhl J, Gentier S, Roux S (1993) Field measurements of the roughness of fault surfaces. Geophys Res Lett 20(8):639–641
Sharp JM (ed) (2014) Fractured rock hydrogeology. IAH selected papers. p.; CRC/Balkema, Leiden, p 386
Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks, Second Edition. Springer; Dordrecht, London, Heidelberg, New York
Snow DT (1969) Anisotropic permeability of fractured media. Water Resour Res 5(6):1273–1289
Stigsson M, Mas Ivars D (2019) A novel conceptual approach to objectively determine JRC using fractal dimension and asperity distribution of mapped fracture traces. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52:1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1651-6
Stoll M, Huber FM, Trumm M, Enzmann F, Meinel D, Wenka A, Schill E, Schäfer T (2019) Experimental and numerical investigations on the effect of fracture geometry and fracture aperture distribution on flow and solute transport in natural fractures. J Contam Hydrol 221:82–97
Tse R, Cruden DM (1979) Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstracts 16(5):303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(79)90241-9
Vattai A, Rozgonyi-Boissinot N (2018) The effect of grain size, surface roughness, and joint compressive strength on shear strength along discontinuities of Hungarian sandstones. Central European Geology 61(1):34–49. https://doi.org/10.1556/24.61.2018.03
Witherspoon PA, Wang JSY, Iwai K, Gale JE. (1980) Validity of cubic law for fluid-flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resour Res 16:1016–1024
Yeo IW, de Freitas MH, Zimmerman RW (1998) Effect of shear displacement on the aperture and permeability of a rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(8):1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(98)00165-X
Zhang Y, Ye J, Li P (2022) Flow characteristics in a 3D-printed rough fracture. Rock Mech Rock Eng 55(7):4329–4349
Zhou J-Q, Hu S-H, Chen Y-F, Wang M, Zhou C-B (2016) The friction factor in the Forchheimer equation for rock fractures. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(8):3055–3068
Zimmerman RW, Bodvarsson GS (1996) Hydraulic conductivity of rock fractures. Transp Porous Media 23(1):1–30
Zimmerman RW, Yeo I-W (2000) Fluid flow in rock fractures: from the Navier-Stokes equations to the cubic law. Geophys Monogr Ser 122:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1029/GM122p0213
Zou L, Jing L, Cvetkovic V (2015) Roughness decomposition and nonlinear fluid flow in a single rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 75:102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.01.016
Acknowledgements
The provision of measurements and images by the Institute for Soil Science, Leibniz University Hannover, Zygolot GmbH and Alicona Imaging GmbH is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Sebastian Winterfeldt (Keyence Germany GmbH) for technical support with the laser scanning results. The VSI measurement was thankfully provided by Cornelius Fischer, then at MARUM at the University of Bremen, now at Helmholtz-Center Dresden-Rossendorf.
Funding
This study was funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Program, project 281196 “Understanding the Long-Term fate of geologically stored CO2” (ULTimateCO2), call: FP7-ENERGY-2011-1.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. AW took the samples, prepared them and performed or coordinated the roughness analyses. SK performed and interpreted the mineralogical and geochemical analyses. GH devised the project, took part in the lab analysis and wrote the draft of the manuscript (including all figures, if not provided by external sources). All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Houben, G., Weitkamp, A. & Kaufhold, S. The roughness of fracture surfaces and its scale dependence – a methodological study based on natural fractures in sandstones from Southern Germany. Environ Earth Sci 83, 388 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11699-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11699-8