Surname1

Name

Instructor

Course

Date

How to Determination the Hydraulic Normal Fracture Stiffness of Hard Rocks Using Well Tests

Introduction

A compressible porous medium which contains fluids is subjected to deformation with

alteration of fluid pressures. The relationship between fluid flow in geo-mechanics and

mechanical deformation is identified as a hydro-mechanical coupled method which is learned in

porous elasticity theory. Crystalline hard rocks, has less permeability, plenty of the underground

water flow takes place in fault fractures and joints. Laboratory experiments and field testing in

such rocks have shown that the rate of flow along singular joints are very reactive to joint

apertures alteration. Therefore, the significant technique for hydro-mechanical coupling

processes in hard rocks is the rate of fluid flow and deformation taking place in the region of

fractures (Rutqvist, 519).

The hydro-mechanical coupled behavior of rock fractures experiences a growing concern

on nuclear waste establishments as a concern in enactment of valuation of waste nuclear

repositories. The inflow inside a fracture foreseen by analyses of geo-hydrology in which the

magnitude is higher. One likely purpose for reduced flow-in rates which can be stresses induced

by excavation in the stressed region the fracture. Stresses drives the fractures near the drift to

close or open in order to strongly impact on the permeable hydraulic.

Mechanical features are basic parameters for depicting deformation in rocks for design

and analyzation. Determination of rocks in-situ constraints is hard, particularly for rocks that are
 Surname2

jointed. Mechanical properties determination of jointed rocks stays to be most hard exercise in

mining fields. In the properties of the rocks, the deformation characteristic is one of the best

illustrative of mechanical property failure (Cheema & Tariq 11). Distinctive parameters for

describing deformation properties, for example, bulk modulus, stiffness and young modulus, are

characterized to represent strain and stress of rocks and joints. Despite the fact that rocks are

made up of solid rocks and fractures, rock deformities occur primarily in cracks, particularly

when exposed to minimal stress. The normal stiffness is a vital parameter in hard rocks.

The normal fracture stiffness of rocks is described as the proportion of normal stress to

the fracture displacement. In-situ research is used to measure the displacement of the fracture

with stress as a function. Lab tests on done on a few samples does not effectively predict the

deformation of hard rocks. Majority of the in situ results for modulus of deformation utilized

today, can likewise be utilized to get normal stiffness, for example, hydraulic jacking includes

troublesome test methods, which suggest that they are costly and wastes time. Plenty of the

strategies listed above can give sensible values for deformation properties in vast-area of rocks

(Rutqvist et.al, 267).

Normal stiffness estimation of deformation modulus and normal fracture stiffness is,

consequently, done on numerous geo-mechanical investigations on fractured hard rock. Hydro-

mechanical coupling, is a critical issue and a deep exploration on the topic of hydrogeology and

mechanics of rock, which may have the capacity to solve the issue. Different studies explain

about the relationship between crack effective stiffness and fluid flowing in one fracture under

the influence of normal stress. Rutqvist, utilized well testing technique to find the normal

stiffness of cracks in rocks, he did some work in the analysis of mechanical properties of large

rocks. Researches have demonstrated that underground water is often found in discontinuities
 Surname3

and in solitary discontinuity flow. Various analysts try to estimate in situ removal fracture

displacements under the influence of stress and also during well testing. As indicated by

dependency on stress the displacement in joints, porosity of rocks which dependent on stress.

Different studies demonstrate that porousness of hard rocks reduces with depth. Geostatic

normal stress and the increase in depth shows that they are directly proportional to each other;

the dependency on depth of permeability may be connected towards stress dependency aperture

joint which is regulated by normal fracture stiffness. Therefore, the latter relationship proposes

another approach to estimate the normal fracture stiffness by considering dependency on depth

penetrability. As an outcome the relationship of permeability and difference in height is achieved

from various wells in the study region utilizing measurable strategies, calculation of hydraulic

normal fracture stiffness may denote the deformational fracture parameters in vast rocky area

(Perras et.al, 545).

The hydro-mechanical characteristics of fractures in rock are artificially investigated to

derive association amid permeability, geostatic effective stress, and normal stiffness of fracture.

In light of this relationship depth dependency penetration results acquired through the hydraulic

injection tests in rocks is used to evaluate the stiffness fractures.

Hydro-mechanical characteristics of rock fractures and joints.

The depth dependency of transmissivity in rock fractures has been established in

hypothesis, as illustrated in figure.1 below. Viable stress subjected on the slanted surface of a

joint under geostatic state can estimated in order to generate hypothetical connection amid

dependency on depth and transmissivity of joints by utilizing the parameter of stiffness (Rutqvist

et.al 2553). It is important to indicate that lab research on single rock fractures demonstrated that

ordinary closure and shear increase can altogether modify the transmissivity of cracks. On the
 Surname4

other hand, with regards to crack systems containing various fractures, the adjustment in

transmissivity is dictated by closure of fractures which result from stress. Impact of shear stress

on joint closure has been avoided in this study.

Permeability

Depth

σ z′
Depth, h
h

Normal stiffness, Kn
β σ H′
σ n′ Stress,σ n′

Aperture, b

Transmissivity, T

Illustration.1 Diagrammatic outline of technique used to approximate normal stiffness

fracture by applying the variation in depth height penetrability with application of data acquired

from hydraulic tests.

Normal stiffness in relation to joint closure

Design and analysis of rock mechanics, normal stiffness is used as an example of

important constraints to gauge deformational attributes that rocks possess. The increment in

ordinary stresses, the joint opening diminishes. Ordinary stress and displacement correlation is

exceptionally nonlinear, which is empirically depicted by a few models. As per Cheema & Tariq,

normal fracture stiffness Kn, is illustrated as follows:

 Surname5

'
dσ ' −dσ n
K n= = eq.1
du n db

where un -normal displacement b - joint aperture σ 'n - normal effective stress.

Numerous empirical representations have been established to provide a clear

relationship between joint closure and normal effective stress. Amongst them, is a single

version of logarithmic representation given by Last and Harper which can represented as:

σ 'n
[ ( )]
b=br 1− Aln
σr
' Eq.2

br – aperture of the fracture in relation to normal stress, σ 'r, = represents the fluid flow

pressure, A = represent a constant.

In general, the closure behavior change of joints with an effective normal stress may be

designated by the model b=b ( σ 'n )for example, given by mathematical expression Eq.2 Varied

normal fracture stiffness results at diverse stress values are referred to in the function in Eq.1.

Equations used for estimating the normal fracture stiffness from hydraulic tests

Despite the fact hydraulic tests have been performed at various depths, as illustrated in

Illustration. 1a, in rock mass joints within an area where similar type of rocks can be found

which have same geological configuration, the data for depth dependent porousness is important

in the estimation of normal fracture stiffness for the extensive rock fractures. It can be

represented as:
2
−3 y e [ ( λ+1 ) + ( λ−1 ) ] cos 2 β T 3
k n= Eq.3
12uf 13 dT
2 ( )ρg dh
 Surname6

Equation 3 provides the approximated normal stiffness for single joints by studying

transmissivity depth dependency. Though, it may be protracted to the states where the hydraulic

tests are measured on different joints which are parallel having average spacing (Yao, 383). The

overall transmissivity acquired from injection tests in the study section are applied when

calculating the average transmissivity for single joints which is essential for application in

equation. 3. In locations where the flow conductance is regulated by joint sets having constant

angle of dip, the method above is more applicable.

Eq. 3 might also be used for a group of joints set especially at the time when the same

value vertical and horizontal geostatic stress is recorded, i.e., λ=1., Eq. 3 in this situation can be

represented as
2
−3 y e T 3
kn=
12uf 13 dT Eq.4

( )
ρg dh

When joints have different spacing and aperture, it is hard to determine the actual single

joint transmissivity. Equation. 4 in this condition provides the normal stiffness average of the

joints.in the rock

Area of study

Xiaolangdi reservoir, has been constructed along River Yellow, it among the most

difficult ventures the Chinese have done because of the exceptional topographical region, vast

scale and muddled geographical conditions. In view of high residue substance in River Yellow in

addition to the building topographical condition of the dam territory dregs and surge release a lot

force which are directed towards the left side of the river banks thus keeping sediment from

amassing in water entries and outlets (Yao, 384). Therefore, various hydrogeological and

building geographical information about the left side bank are accessible in field examinations.
 Surname7

The left-hand side of the banks is composed of rocks which are mostly purple-red in

color, they have thick medium which is related to calcareous rocks and also siltstones

intercalated using mud rocks and is also relatively linked to claystone, with an aggregate

thickness of 350 m. In light of these attributes, the stones can be grouped into six subgroups, to

be specific B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6. In view of a few techniques to gauge the stress on the field

study, current stress is predominantly geostatic stress.

Preparatory contextual analysis, the B4 development over the groundwater level is

utilized. The water table is essentially made up of thick fine sandstone, claystone, having

thickness of nearly 60 meters. The B4 arrangement has the most reduced measure of siltstone and

claystone, around 1.6percent. Thusly, this arrangement experiences cracking effectively. In view

of estimations of breaks in a passage through the B4 development, the plunge edge of most

noticeable cracks, which represent about

Hydraulic injection test

The packer tests, which are also referred to injection test, are the most fundamental and

widespread techniques illustrating in-situ porousness in fractured rocks. It’s a moderately

cheap technique and may determine differences in porousness with depth distance and also in

diverse strata. The packer tests in China are essential afore hydropower stations construction, it

is a national standard requirement. Thus, several permeability values are obtained from

injection tests and are often accessible in dam sites, it is an essential for the current study

(Rutqvist et.al, 267).

Illustration. 3, shows water injected into the test regions, it is isolated using two

packers, then spread under the impact of external pressure into the hard rock. The rate of flow

can be applied to denote the rock mass permeability around the test region. Relying on the test
 Surname8

application, test length regions varies from 10cm to 10m. Thus, single fracture, groups of

fractures or even an entire formation of rock which can be secluded using packers. Injection

tests at various depths might be measured to formulate aquifer profiles parameters along wells.

The injection test intervals in China are usually of length 5 m which agrees to the

national standardization, and singular absorptions (ω) are used to article the injection test. Unit

absorption, ω, can be described as the rate of flow of water injected inside the hard rocks for

every meter of injection test in the area under study with pressure influence of water per meter,

which is represented by the equation L min-1m-1m-1. The mathematical representation can be

illustrated as shown below;

Q
ω= Eq.5
∆h. L

where Q represent inflow rate, L - length of a test region, ∆h - injection pressure(m).

Based on the initial China standard, when carrying out an injection test, the pressure

injected is retained at a constant value, which is equivalent to 0.35 Mega Pascal, and is

considerably lesser than the pressure injection used in several countries with a high pressure of

up to one Mega Pascal. In comparison to the used pressure in the hydraulic fracturing

regeneration testing is observed that the least horizontal stress ranges between fifty and ten

Mega Pascal., it is practical to make an assumption that there are no new fractures which are

induced and also the current faults have not been enlarged in the course of the injection test in

especially in the area of study. Additionally, an assumption is made that there are no turbulent

happenings at the time of test injection, which is normally assumed for hydraulic well testing;

thus, the application of cubic law to the accessible permeability values.

 Surname9

Illustration.2. A diagrammatic representation of the cross section map showing for B4

distribution on injection tests.

Manometer

Injection

Packer

Packer
s.

Quaternary deposits
and Weathering crust
Depth

5 6
T1 T1
Well
4
T1

Illustration.3 A map representation of the packer tests.

ω (L·min-1·m-1·m-1)
 Surname10

Basing on the well results, packer test values are grouped into 3: first test regions

containing sandstones intercalated by mud rocks, test regions containing sandstones which are

un-fractured, and test regions containing sandstones with fractures. In the present study, the 3rd

group data is only used (Yao, 379). Due to formation of dips, and erosion taking place in certain

areas, the depth showing the chosen packer test values vary from 4 to 134 m (Ill. two and four).

The plot of single absorption in fractured sandstone for every 5m interval against the depth

which is shown below.

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

0

30

60
Depth
(m)

90

120

150

Illustration. 4. Plot for unit absorption against the depth in the tested sections of fractured

sandstone.

Transmissivity of singular joints is applied in calculation of normal fracture stiffness. The

overall transmissivity (Tt), for packer testing, proposed by China, national standard is represented

below
 Surname11

Q L ω L
T t= ln = ln Eq.6
2 π ∆ h rw 2 π rw

rw represent borehole radius.

In most conditions, the impact of solid rock on the overall transmissivity might be

omitted. Subsequently, the relationship between overall transmissivity of the test sections and

single joint transmissivity can be estimated as:

Tt
T= Eq.7
m

where m - average number of joints in the test region.

Calculation of normal stiffness in fractures.

As portrayed in Ill. 4, robust spatial variation of permeability is observed in the fractured

rocks. It is difficult to directly determine the relationship of depth and permeability. A technique

is suggested below in order to establish depth and transmissivity relationship.

The different depths of every section are taken as the middle point of the injection test,

mean of the test regions is also recorded √3 T t , the resultant average of log h is recorded

concurrently. For instance, N equivalent to (1, 4, …., 28). A group of √3 T t −log h numerals is

then estimated. Linear regression method is useful in the creation of appropriate relationship.

The end results are denoted as shown in illustration.5 (Swan, 21).

The equation linked to the statistical pattern of dependence on depth transmissivity in the

research above.
1
( mT ) 3 =−A 1 log h+ A 0 Eq. 8
 Surname12

Mean 3 T t (( m 2 /d) 1/3 )

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

10

Depth (m)

100

Illustration. 5. Displacement height and transmissivity relationship.

K n (GPa/m)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

20
Kn
Lower bound
40
Upper bound
Depth (m)

60

80

100

120

140

Illustration.6. Calculated values of normal stiffness with change in depths.

A1 is approximated as 0.03854 (m2/d)1/3

A0 - 0.0978(m2/d)1/3. As illustrated in Illustration.5, every point is within the ninety-five

percent normal stiffness intervals.

 Surname13

We assume λ=1 then rewrite equation 4 using equation 9 to form an empirical formulae

as shown below:

1
1
− y e h ln 10 1
2.303 y e h m 3
( 12ρg )
k n=
uf
3

dT
1
3
( 12ρg )
=
uf
3
A1 Eq.9

d (log h)

The equation above, y e was determined to be 26103N/m3. The field fracture

measurements of the tunnel spacing, the fractures number in the test region( m), estimates to

around ten; physical parameters, μ and ρ, of underground water are presumed to equal that of

water under standard situations. The determination of the value of f is difficult, it is then

momentarily presumed to be two (Perras et.al, 532). The projected normal fracture stiffness has a

linear dependence on depth, as illustrated in the joined line in Illustration.6. The ninety-five

percent intervals of normal stiffness intervals, is calculated with the application of the slope of

lower and upper bounds as shown in Illustration.5, which are represented by the dotted line

figures.

Discussion

Normal fracture stiffness calculation applies a number of assumptions and certain

parameters are randomly chosen arbitrarily which may be unrealistic. Factors for instance, rock

types, tectonic activities, initial stress, rock weathering, and dissolution mineral may influence

the fractured rocks permeability. Test areas was characterized of sandstones and mud rocks

which are intercalated they also are packed with soils which is omitted during the analyzation.

Heavy weathering often take place in shallower rocks less than 2.5meters. The well log,

dissolution of mineral and sealing rarely take place in rocks underneath the strong weathering

regions in the present study region (Swan, 28). Unloading may lead to increase in joints number.
 Surname14

Basing on different observations made in the field in many tunnels over the formation, the joints

density is not significantly changed by the horizontal displacement from the entry of these

tunnels.

Consequently, it is conventional to approximate the effect of these aspects on the

permeability of rock fractures in the research zone which is weaker in comparison to geostatic

stress impact underneath height of 4.0meters. The state will not be evaluated quantitatively in the

study region due to limited researches. The distribution of permeability in hard rocks is mainly

triggered by tectonic activities and present stress, for instance, formed fractures during the paleo-

tectonic events and rock apertures is controlled by rocks present stress, in the study area it is

represented by the geostatic stress. This perspective is in agreement with Perras et.al.

Additionally, it is noted that unloading widens the joints initially existed. This is accounted for in

depth dependency geostatic stress form.

Also, 3 faults exist amidst the study territory, no injection test wells are capable of

penetrating these faults; therefore, it is first considered that the faults have minimal impact on

the results. The friction variable, f, is utilized to represent the roughness of the jointed surface,

and it is difficult to estimate. The results demonstrated in Illustration.6 are achieved by making

an assumption that the value of f is equivalent to 2. A sensibility investigation has done

directed by utilization diverse f values running from 1 - 5 to ascertain normal fracture stiffness

application. It is discovered that, the length of f is less than 4, majority of the computed normal

fracture stiffness values are within a range of ninety-five percent certainty as shown in

Illustration.6. In this way, it can be assumed that the decision of the value f might not impact

on the results of normal fracture stiffness.

 Surname15

In the computation of normal fracture stiffness utilizing equation.9, which is equated to 1,

which demonstrates that the horizontal stress is equivalent to vertical stress. In any case, the

assumption made for eq.9 is hardly true. Subsequently, the impact of λ during the computation of

normal fracture stiffness ought to be observed.

E mn (GPa)
0 5 10 15 20
0

20
Emn
Lower bound
40 Upper bound
Depth (m)

60

80

100

120

140

Conclusion

It was observed from field information that porousness of rocks will diminish with

dependence on depth. As indicated by the coupled hydro-mechanical hypothesis, dependency on

depth property of porousness in cracked media can be connected to dependency on stress for

joint gap that is regulated by normal fracture stiffness (Cheema & Tariq 10 et al. 295). The

current study, shows the relationship between transmissivity, normal fracture stiffness, and

geostatic stress which is established. Data for dependence on depth transmissivity obtained using

pressure controlled test (injection tests) are recommended to be connected in assessing the

normal fracture stiffness of rocks at distinctive depths. The pro of this technique is that evaluated

results are expressed to the scale of field design.

The Swan model used to portray the relationship of transmissivity and dependency on

depth of fractured hard rocks, prompts a straightforward correlation amid normal stiffness and
 Surname16

dependency on depth. As geostatic stress corresponds to depth dependency, an assumption can

be made that the direct relationship amid of normal stiffness and dependency on depth which is

an aftereffect of stiffness increments under the influence of typical stress (Swan, 35). Models

applied are different from the Swan model, the mathematical statement may be altered for

estimation of normal stiffness, and adjustments made on normal fracture stiffness with change in

depth.

The variance of normal fracture stiffness data acquired from application of different

technique remains restricted in hydraulic depth for test information. The preparatory study,

shows the variance of ordinary stress which is roughly begins at 0.25 - 3.5 Mega Pascal, and the

relating variance of normal fracture stiffness is around from 2.4 - 35GigaPascal for every meter,

which belongs to a similar magnitude as the information reported in literary works. Equal

continuum model is afterward used to ascertain the hard rocks modulus of deformation because

of estimations of modulus of deformation of solid rocks and normal crack spacing (Rutqvist,

520). The consequences of deformational modulus are as per in situ estimations and results from

converse examination, together with the nonlinear connection between modulus of deformation

and dependency on depth is showed. Subsequently, the computed results are dependable and

reliable.

Then again, there are instabilities connected related to the computed figures of modulus

of deformation and normal stiffness, similar to limitations of different techniques to acquire rock

stiffness in addition to distortion modulus of many rocks. One root of the research uncertainties

originates from assumptions utilized during the mathematical deduction of equations. An

additional root of uncertainties originates due to relationship of dependency on depth in relation

to transmissivities, gotten from the many penetrability values resulting from injection test. The
 Surname17

mentioned uncertainty cause cannot be avoided due to penetrability in cracked rocks being

heterogeneous. There are likewise different causes of uncertainties that originate from data

insufficiency in the study zone. For instance, the adjustment in crack spacing in relation to depth

dependence cannot be accessed; actual friction factor (f), is often hard to get; vertical stress (λ) to

horizontal stress are proportional, in situ estimations helps in the determination of the variable f.

Uncertainties attributed to inadequacy data may be resolved through further examinations in

addition to carrying out more field tests. From this research it is also derived that hydro-

mechanical properties such as velocities, rock matrix etc. affects the normal fracture stiffness.
 Surname18

Work Cited

Cheema, Tariq. "Depth dependent hydraulic conductivity in fractured sedimentary rocks-a

geomechanical approach." Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2014): 1-12.

Perras, Matthew A., and Mark S. Diederichs. "A review of the tensile strength of rock: concepts

and testing." Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 32.2 (2014): 525-546.

Rutqvist, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 32(5), 1995, pp 513-523.

Rutqvist, Jonny, et al. "Determination of fracture storativity in hard rocks using high‐pressure

injection testing." Water Resources Research 34.10 (1998): 2551-2560.

Rutqvist, J., O. Stephansson, and C-F. Tsang. "Hydraulic field measurements of incompletely

closed fractures in granite." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining

Sciences 34.3 (1997): 267-e1.

Swan, G. "Determination of stiffness and other joint properties from roughness measurements."

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 16.1 (1983): 19-38.

Yao, Yao. "Linear elastic and cohesive fracture analysis to model hydraulic fracture in brittle and

ductile rocks." Rock mechanics and rock engineering 45.3 (2012): 375-387.