4.5 Article

Roughness of fracture surfaces in numerical models and laboratory experiments

Journal

SOLID EARTH
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages 2407-2424

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/se-12-2407-2021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [FKZ 03G0865B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigates the influence of stress conditions on the geometry and roughness of fracture surfaces. The results indicate self-affine surfaces with varying Hurst exponents between numerical models and real rock samples. Although stress conditions have some impact on the roughness of fracture surfaces, they have little influence on newly formed fractures.
We investigate the influence of stress conditions during fracture formation on the geometry and roughness of fracture surfaces. Rough fracture surfaces have been generated in numerical simulations of triaxial deformation experiments using the discrete element method and in a small number of laboratory experiments on limestone and sandstone samples. Digital surface models of the rock samples fractured in the laboratory experiments were produced using high-resolution photogrammetry. The roughness of the surfaces was analyzed in terms of absolute roughness measures such as an estimated joint roughness coefficient (JRC) and in terms of its scaling properties. The results show that all analyzed surfaces are self-affine but with different Hurst exponents between the numerical models and the real rock samples. Results from numerical simulations using a wide range of stress conditions to generate the fracture surfaces show a weak decrease of the Hurst exponents with increasing confining stress and a larger absolute roughness for transversely isotropic stress conditions compared to true triaxial conditions. Other than that, our results suggest that stress conditions have little influence on the surface roughness of newly formed fractures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available