Fracture spacing behavior in layered rocks subjected to different driving forces: a numerical study based on fracture infilling process

doi:10.1007/s11707-014-0427-x

Front. Earth Sci.

2014, Vol. 8

Issue (4) : 472-489 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-014-0427-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fracture spacing behavior in layered rocks subjected to different driving forces: a numerical study based on fracture infilling process

Lianchong LI(

),Shaohua LI,Chun’an TANG

School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

Download: PDF(6916 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Natural layered rocks subjected to layer-parallel extension typically develop an array of opening-mode fractures with a remarkably regular spacing. This spacing often scales with layer thickness, and it decreases as extension increases until fracture saturation is reached. To increase the understanding of how these opening-mode fractures form in layered rocks, a series of 2D numerical simulations are performed to investigate the infilling process of fractures subjected to different driving forces. Numerical results illustrate that any one of the following could be considered as a driving force behind the propagation of infilling fractures: thermal effect, internal fluid pressure, direct extension loading, or pure compressive loading. Fracture spacing initially decreases with loading process, and at a certain ratio of fracture spacing to layer thickness, no new fractures nucleate (saturated). Both an increase in the opening of the infilled fractures and interface delamination are observed as mechanisms that accommodate additional strain. Interface debonding stops the transition of stress from the neighboring layers to the embedded central layer, which may preclude further infilling of new fractures. Whatever the driving force is, a large overburden stress and a large elastic contrast between the stiff and soft layers (referred to as a central or fractured layer and the top and bottom layers) are key factors favoring the development of tensile stress around the infilled fractures in the models. Fracture spacing is expected to decrease with increasing overburden stress. Numerical results highlight the fracturing process developed in heterogeneous and layered sedimentary rocks which provides supplementary information on the stress distribution and failure-induced stress redistribution., It also shows, in detail, the propagation of the fracture zone and the interaction of the fractures, which are impossible to observe in field and are difficult to consider with static stress analysis approaches.

Keywords opening-mode fractures fracture spacing driving force numerical simulation heterogeneity

Corresponding Author(s): Lianchong LI

Online First Date: 11 April 2014 Issue Date: 13 January 2015

Cite this article:

Lianchong LI,Shaohua LI,Chun’an TANG. Fracture spacing behavior in layered rocks subjected to different driving forces: a numerical study based on fracture infilling process[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(4): 472-489.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-014-0427-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2014/V8/I4/472

Fig.1 The observed fracture spacing behavior in the field at Earth’s surface, (a) the overall view of fracture spacing behavior in layered carbonate rocks (scale bar= 10 m), (b) the partially enlarged view of fracture spacing behavior in layered carbonate rocks (scale bar= 10 cm) (Larsen et al., 2010), and (c) the observed fracture spacing in the limestone layers, Note that these fractures are closely spaced joints. The ratios of spacing to layer thickness of these fractures are less than a certain lower limit of the critical spacing to layer thickness ratio (e.g.<0.8) (scale bar= 2 cm) (Bai and Pollard, 2000b).

Fig.2 Schematic illustration of fracture spacing as a consequence of pressured fluid infiltration into stressed heterogeneous strata at depth of the Earth’s crust (Sibson, 1996).

Fig.3 Elastic-brittle damage constitutive law of element subject to uniaxial stress, (a) the case under uniaxial tensile stress, and (b) the case under uniaxial compressive stress.

Fig.4 The configuration of a three-layered model without pre-assigned fractures. (The thickness of the central layer and the neighboring layers are indicated by T_c, T_t, and T_b, respectively. The entire width is denoted by W. The varied shades of gray in the partially enlarged box represent different value of mechanical properties of the individual element.)

Tab.1 Physico-mechanical parameters employed in simulation

Fig.5 The simulated process of fracture infilling in the case under thermo-mechanical loading (Note: a number from ‘1’ to ‘35’ indicates the sequence of fracture initiation, the dark elements represent the nucleated flaws. Fractures form by connection of flaws, and ‘S’ indicates the fracture spacing between two neighboring fractures which gradually decreases in size).

Fig.6 The infilling process presented with stress field in the case under thermo-mechanical loading. (The shading intensity indicates the relative magnitude of the minimum principal stress within the elements. This figure shows how the evolution of fracturing in the model affects the stress distribution.)

Fig.7 Fracture-event counts versus increasing temperature.

Fig.8 The final fractured pattern for the additional four samples under thermo-mechanical loading, the four samples hold all of the material parameters and boundary conditions constant at those values used in the model of Fig. 5.

Fig.9 Numerically obtained fracture infilling process in the case under hydro-mechanical loading.

Fig.10 Numerically obtained fracture infilling process in the case under direct tension stress in a horizontal direction.

Fig.11 Numerically obtained fracture infilling process in the case under pure compressive loading in both vertical and horizontal directions.

Fig.12 Stress distribution and failure-induced stress redistribution along the line A–A across the fractured layer. (The stress fluctuation is influenced mainly by the micro-scale heterogeneity of the model and the newly formed fracture propagation. The negative sign represents the tensile stress, and the positive sign represents the compressive stress.)

Fig.13 The variation of S/T_c with overburden stress.

Fig.14 The configuration of a three-layered model with four pre-assigned fractures. (The thickness of the central layer and the neighboring layers are indicated by T_c, T_t, and T_b, respectively. The space of the adjacent fractures is denoted by S, and the entire width is denoted by W).

Fig.15 The stress variation along the line B–B between adjacent fractures as the variation of fracture spacing to layer thickness ratio S/T_c, (a) the case under thermo-mechanical loading, (b) the case under hydro-mechanical loading, (c) the case under direct extension loading, and (d) the case under pure compressive loading.

Tab.2 Fracture spacing to layer thickness ratios (S/T_c) in the cases under different driving forces

1	Aveston J, Cooper G A, Kelly A (1971). The Properties of Fiber Composites. In: Conference Proceeding of National Physical Laboratory. Guildford: IPC Science and Technology Press, 15–26
2	Bai T, Pollard D D (2000a). Fracture spacing in layered rocks: a new explanation based on the stress transition. J Struct Geol, 22(1): 43–57 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(99)00137-6
3	Bai T, Pollard D D (2000b). Closely spaced fractures in layered rocks: initiation mechanism and propagation kinematics. J Struct Geol, 22(10): 1409–1425 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00062-6
4	Bai T, Pollard D D, Gao H (2000). Explanation for fracture spacing in layered materials. Nature, 403(6771): 753–756 https://doi.org/10.1038/35001550 pmid: 10693800
5	Becker A, Gross M R (1996). Mechanism for joint saturation in mechanically layered rocks: an example from southern Israel. Tectonophysics, 257(2–4): 223–237 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(95)00142-5
6	Bourne S J (2003). Contrast of elastic properties between rock layers as a mechanism for the initiation and orientation of tensile failure under uniform remote compression. J Geophys Res, 108(B8): 2395 https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001725 pmid: 14686320
7	Cherepanov G P (1994). On the theory of thermal stresses in a thin film on a ceramic substrate. J Appl Phys, 75(2): 844–849 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.356438
8	Cooke M L, Simo J A, Underwood C A, Rijken P (2006). Mechanical stratigraphic controls on fracture patterns within carbonates and implications for groundwater flow. Sediment Geol, 184(3–4): 225–239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.004
9	Crosby W O (1882). On the classification and origin of joint structures. Proc Boston Soc Nat Hist, 22: 72–85
10	De Joussineau G, Petit J P (2007). Can tensile stress develop in fractured multilayers under compressive strain conditions. Tectonophysics, 432(1–4): 51–62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.12.003
11	Engelder T, Fischer M P (1996). Loading configurations and driving mechanisms for joints based on the Griffith energy-balance concept. Tectonophysics, 256(1–4): 253–277 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(95)00169-7
12	Engelder T, Lacazette A (1990). Natural hydraulic fracturing. In: Proceeding of international symposium on rock joints. Norway: Loen, 35–43
13	Engelder T, Peacock D C P (2001). Joint development normal to regional compression during flexural-flow folding: the Lilstock buttress anticline, Somerset, England. J Struct Geol, 23(2–3): 259–277 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00095-X
14	Eyal Y, Gross M R, Engelder T, Becker A (2001). Joint development during fluctuation of the regional stress field in southern Israel. J Struct Geol, 23(2–3): 279–296 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00096-1
15	Fairhurst C (1964). On the validity of the Brazilian test for brittle materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 1(4): 535–546 https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(64)90060-9
16	Fang Z, Harrison J P (2002). Development of a local degradation approach to the modelling of brittle fracture in heterogeneous rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 39(4): 443–457 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00035-7
17	Fischer M P, Gross M R, Engelder T, Greenfield R J (1995). Finite-element analysis of the stress distribution around a pressurized crack in a layered elastic medium: implications for the spacing of fluid-driven joints in bedded sedimentary rocks. Tectonophysics, 247(1–4): 49–64 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(94)00200-S
18	Gross M R (1993). The origin and spacing of cross joints: examples from Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara coastline, California. J Struct Geol, 15(6): 737–751 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(93)90059-J
19	Gross M R, Bahat D, Becker A (1997). Relations between jointing and faulting based on fracture-spacing ratios and fault-slip profiles: a new method to estimate strain in layered rock. Geology, 25(10): 887–890 https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0887:RBJAFB>2.3.CO;2
20	Gross M R, Engelder T (1995). Strain accommodated by brittle failure in adjacent units of the Monterey Formation, U.S.A.: scale effects and evidence for uniform displacement boundary conditions. J Struct Geol, 17(9): 1303–1318 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(95)00011-2
21	He M Y, Hutchinson J W (1989). Kinking of a crack out of an interface. J Appl Mech, 56(2): 270–278 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3176078
22	Helgeson D E, Aydin A (1991). Characteristics of joint propagation across layer interfaces in sedimentary rocks. J Struct Geol, 13(8): 897–911 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(91)90085-W
23	Hu M S, Thouless M D, Evans A G (1988). Decohesion of thin films from brittle substrates. Acta Metall, 36(5): 1301–1307 https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(88)90282-9
24	Iyer K, Podladchikov Y Y (2009). Transformation-induced jointing as a gauge for interfacial slip and rock strength. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 280(1–4): 159–166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.01.028
25	Jain A, Guzina B B, Voller V R (2007). Effects of overburden on joint spacing in layered rocks. J Struct Geol, 29(2): 288–297 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2006.08.010
26	Ji S, Saruwatari K (1998). A revised model for the relationship between joint spacing and layer thickness. J Struct Geol, 20(11): 1495–1508 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(98)00042-X
27	Ji S, Zhu Z, Wang Z (1998). Relationship between joint spacing and bed thickness in sedimentary rocks: effects of interbed slip. Geol Mag, 135(5): 637–655 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756898001459
28	Kelly A, Tyson W R (1965). Tensile properties of fiber-reinforced metals: copper/tungsten and copper/molybdenum. J Mech Phys Solids, 13(6): 329–350 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(65)90035-9
29	Kingery W D (1955). Factors affecting thermal stress resistance of ceramic materials. J Am Ceram Soc, 38(1): 3–15 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1955.tb14545.x
30	Lachenbruch A H (1961). Depth and spacing of tension cracks. J Geophys Res, 66(12): 4273–4292 https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ066i012p04273
31	Ladeira F L, Price N J (1981). Relationship between fracture spacing and bed thickness. J Struct Geol, 3(2): 179–183 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(81)90013-4
32	Larsen B, Grunnaleite I, Gudmundsson A (2010). How fracture systems affect permeability development in shallow-water carbonate rocks: an example from the Gargano Peninsula, Italy. J Struct Geol, 32(9): 1212–1230 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2009.05.009
33	Li L C, Tang C A, Fu Y F (2009). Influence of heterogeneity on fracture behavior in multi-layered materials subjected to thermo-mechanical loading. Comput Mater Sci, 46(3): 667–671 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2009.03.041
34	Li L C, Tang C A, Wang S Y (2012). A numerical investigation of fracture infilling and spacing in layered rocks subjected to hydro-mechanical loading. Rock Mech Rock Eng, 45: 753–765
35	Li L C, Tang C A, Wang S Y, Yu J (2013). A coupled thermo-hydrologic-mechanical damage model and associated application in a stability analysis on a rock pillar. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 34: 38–53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.10.003
36	Ma G W, Wang X J, Ren F (2011). Numerical simulation of compressive failure of heterogeneous rock-like materials using SPH method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 48(3): 353–363 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.02.001
37	Malvar L J, Fourney M E (1990). A three dimensional application of the smeared crack approach. Eng Fract Mech, 35(1–3): 251–260 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(90)90203-S
38	Mandl G (2005). Rock Joints. The Mechanical Genesis. Heidelberg: Springer, 27–48
39	McClintock F A, Argon A S (1966). Mechanical Behavior of Materials. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1–770
40	Narr W (1991). Fracture density in the deep subsurface: techniques with applications to Point Arguello oil field. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull, 75: 1300–1323
41	Olson J E (1993). Joint pattern development: effects of subcritical crack growth and mechanical crack interaction. J Geophys Res, 98(B7): 12251–12265 https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB00779
42	Pascal C, Angelier J, Cacas M C, Hancock P (1997). Distribution of joints: probabilistic modelling and case study near Cardiff (Wales, U.K.). J Struct Geol, 19(10): 1273–1284 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00047-3
43	Pearce C J, Thavalingam A, Liao Z, Bicanic N (2000). Computational aspects of the discontinuous deformation analysis framework for modeling concrete fracture. Eng Fract Mech, 65(2–3): 283–298 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(99)00121-6
44	Pietruszczak S, Xu G (1995). Brittle response of concrete as a localization problem. Int J Solids Struct, 32(11): 1517–1533 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(94)00231-K
45	Pollard D D, Segall P (1987). Theoretical displacements and stresses near fracture in rock: with applications to faults, joints, veins, dikes, and solution surfaces. In: Atkinson BK ed. Fracture Mechanics of Rock. London: Academic Press, 277–349
46	Price N J (1966). Fault and Joint Development in Brittle and Semi-brittle Rocks. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 15–31
47	Price N J, Cosgrove J W (1990). Analysis of geologic structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120–145
48	Ramsay J G, Huber M I (1987). The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology (Vol 2): Folds and Fractures. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–700
49	Savalli L, Engelder T (2005). Mechanisms controlling rupture shape during subcritical growth of joints in layered rocks. Geol Soc Am Bull, 117(3): 436–449 https://doi.org/10.1130/B25368.1
50	Secor D T (1965). Role of fluid pressure in jointing. Am J Sci, 263(8): 633–646 https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.263.8.633
51	Sibson R H (1996). Structural permeability of fluid-driven fault-fracture meshes. J Struct Geol, 18(8): 1031–1042 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(96)00032-6
52	Tang C A, Liang Z Z, Zhang Y B, Chang X, Xu T, Wang D G, Zhang J X, Liu J S, Zhu W C, Elsworth D (2008). Fracture spacing in layered materials: a new explanation based on two-dimensional failure process modeling. Am J Sci, 308(1): 49–72 https://doi.org/10.2475/01.2008.02
53	Tang C A, Liu H, Lee P K K, Tsui Y, Tham L G (2000). Numerical studies of the influence of microstructure on rock failure in uniaxial compression — Part I: effect of heterogeneity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 37(4): 555–569 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(99)00121-5
54	Tang C A, Tham L G, Lee P K K, Yang T H, Li L C (2002). Coupling analysis of flow, stress and damage (FSD) in rock failure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 39(4): 477–489 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00023-0
55	Taylor D W (1981). Carbonate petrology and depositional environments of the limestone member of the Carmel Formation, near Carmel Junction, Kane County, Utah. Brigham Young University Geology Studies, 28: 117–133
56	Thouless M D (1989). Some mechanics for the adhesion of thin films. Thin Solid Films, 181(1–2): 397–406 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6090(89)90508-7
57	Weibull W (1951). A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech, 18: 293–297
58	Wong T F, Wong R H C, Chau K T, Tang C A (2006). Microcrack statistics, Weibull distribution and micromechanical modeling of compressive failure in rock. Mech Mater, 38(7): 664–681 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2005.12.002
59	Wu H, Pollard D D (1995). An experimental study of the relationship between joint spacing and layer thickness. J Struct Geol, 17: 887–905 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(94)00099-L
60	Yin H M (2010). Fracture saturation and critical thickness in layered materials. Int J Solids Struct, 47(7–8): 1007–1015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.12.016
61	Zhu W C, Tang C A (2004). Micromechanical model for simulating the fracture process of rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng, 37(1): 25–56 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-003-0014-z
62	Zuo J P, Xie H P, Zhou H W, Peng S P (2010). SEM in-situ investigation on thermal cracking behavior of Pingdingshan sandstone at elevated temperatures. Geophys J Int, 181: 593–603

[1]	Jianwen WANG, Da ZHANG, Ying NAN, Zhifeng LIU, Dekang QI. Spatial patterns of net primary productivity and its driving forces: a multi-scale analysis in the transnational area of the Tumen River[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(1): 124-139.
[2]	Pingzhi FANG, Deqian ZHENG, Liang LI, Wenyong MA, Shengming TANG. Numerical and experimental study of the aerodynamic characteristics around two-dimensional terrain with different slope angles[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 705-720.
[3]	Yu LIU,Zhan-Ming CHEN,Hongwei XIAO,Wei YANG,Danhe LIU,Bin CHEN. Driving factors of carbon dioxide emissions in China: an empirical study using 2006--2010 provincial data[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(1): 156-161.
[4]	Rui XING,Zhiying DING,Sangjie YOU,Haiming XU. Relationship of tropical-cyclone-induced remote precipitation with tropical cyclones and the subtropical high[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2016, 10(3): 595-606.
[5]	Changhai WANG. Driving forces behind the construction of an eco-compensation mechanism for wetlands in China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2016, 10(3): 487-497.
[6]	Shou MA,Jianchun GUO,Lianchong LI,Leslie George THAM,Yingjie XIA,Chun’an TANG. Influence of pore pressure on tensile fracture growth in rocks: a new explanation based on numerical testing[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(3): 412-426.
[7]	Xinwen LI,Yongming SHEN. Numerical simulation of the impacts of water level variation on water age in Dahuofang Reservoir[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(2): 209-224.
[8]	Da AN, Yonghai JIANG, Beidou XI, Zhifei MA, Yu YANG, Queping YANG, Mingxiao LI, Jinbao ZHANG, Shunguo BAI, Lei JIANG. Analysis for remedial alternatives of unregulated municipal solid waste landfills leachate-contaminated groundwater[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2013, 7(3): 310-319.
[9]	Yuluan ZHAO, Xiubin LI, Liangjie XIN, Haiguang HAO. Geographic concentration and driving forces of agricultural land use in China[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2012, 6(1): 48-56.
[10]	Yun JIANG, Jie LIU, Qing CUI, Xianghua AN, Chunxu WU. Land use/land cover change and driving force analysis in Xishuangbanna Region in 1986---2008[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2011, 5(3): 288-293.
[11]	Kyungjeen PARK, X. ZOU, Gang LI. A numerical study on rapid intensification of Hurricane Charley (2004) near landfall[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2009, 3(4): 457-470.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed