Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

Analytical solution of coupled stress-flow-transport processes in a single

rock fracture
Zhihong Zhao a,n, Lanru Jing a, Ivars Neretnieks b, Luis Moreno b
a
Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
b
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: A closed-form solution is presented for modeling the coupled stress-flow-transport processes along a
Received 9 July 2010 single fracture embedded in a porous rock matrix. Necessary assumptions were made to simplify the
Received in revised form subject into a two-dimensional (2D) problem, considering the changes of fracture aperture and matrix
20 December 2010
porosity under various stress conditions. The cubic law was assumed to be valid for the fluid flow in the
Accepted 22 February 2011
fracture, with an impermeable rock matrix. For transport mechanisms, advective transport along
Available online 11 March 2011
the fracture, longitudinal hydrodynamic dispersion in the flow direction, and the matrix diffusion were
Keywords: considered in three different transport models under constant concentration or constant flux (Danck-
Single rock fractures werts’) inlet boundary conditions. This analytical solution can be used as a constitutive model, or as an
Analytical solution
example for validation of similar constitutive models, for modeling the coupled hydro-mechanical-
Stress
chemical (HMC) processes in fracture networks of crystalline rocks. The influences of stress/deformation
Fluid flow
Transport processes on different transport mechanisms in a single fracture under different inlet boundary conditions
were studied for the first time. The results show that changes of fracture, as controlled by a combination of
normal closure and shear dilatancy, have a significant influence on the solute concentration distribution
both along the fracture and in the rock matrix, as well as on the solute residence/breakthrough time,
especially when shear-induced dilatancy occurs. Under compressions, the decreasing matrix porosity
slightly increases the solute concentration along the fracture and in the rock matrix.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction closed-form solution for the coupled stress-flow-transport processes

The fracture networks in crystalline rocks, for example, gran-
ites, provide the major pathways for groundwater flow and
contaminant migration. The fractures’ dominating influence on
flow and transport processes is an important issue in many
scientific or technical fields, such as geological radioactive waste
repositories, naturally fractured petroleum, and geothermal reser-
voirs in crystalline rocks (Jing, 2003; Jing and Stephansson, 2007).
Due to the in situ stresses, the pattern and flow rate of ground-
water in crystalline rocks are influenced by fracture deformation,
which, in turn, have an impact on mass transport processes. In the
past, the mechanical, hydraulic, and mass transport processes in rock
fractures were most often studied separately in different branches of
geosciences, and the combined effects of stress/deformation on fluid
flow and mass transport have not been investigated using analytical
solutions, despite the fact that the individual processes of stress,
flow, or transport have been extensively investigated by using
analytical or numerical modeling. In this paper, we present a
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhzhao@kth.se (Z. Zhao).
in a single rock fracture, for the first time, to the authors’ knowledge.
Mass transport through single rock fractures is a complex
natural phenomenon including different mechanisms, such as
advection and hydrodynamic dispersion, matrix diffusion, and
sorption reactions (Bodin et al., 2003a, 2003b). Since the 1970s, a
large number of analytical, semianalytical, or numerical models
have been proposed to simulate contaminant transport processes
in single rock fractures and fracture networks, using random walk
particle tracking techniques (Neretnieks, 1980; Tang et al., 1981;
Moreno and Rasuson, 1986; Moreno et al. 1988). However, the
effects of the coupled stress-flow processes on these complicated
transport mechanisms have not been studied, compared with its
potential importance in practice for subsurface engineering and
environmental protections.
Mathematical models of coupled stress/deformation, ground-
water flow, and solute transport processes in fractured rocks
could be developed by using either equivalent porous continuum
or discrete element method (DEM) models. For the equivalent
continuum models, the governing equations, derived based on the
principles of continuum mechanics, are solved numerically to
describe the macroscopic behavior of the fractured rocks, while
overlooking the details of the fracture network geometry. It is the

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.02.015
1438 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449
most commonly applied modeling approach used for large-scale
problems of either sparsely or heavily fractured rocks. The DEM
models, on the other hand, explicitly represent the geometry and
contact mechanisms of blocks (rock matrix) and fracture systems,
based on the solutions of the equations of motion of the blocks,
and the constitutive models of rock matrix (block materials) and
fractures, respectively. A closed-form solution for the coupled
stress/deformation, fluid flow, and mass transport processes in a
single fracture, therefore, can serve as an effective tool contribut-
ing to establish the constitutive models of rock fractures for DEM
modeling approaches.
The main objective of this paper is to develop an analytical
solution for the coupled stress-flow-transport problems in a
single fracture bounded by porous rock matrix, considering the
change of fracture aperture and rock matrix porosity resulting
from stress/deformation, steady fluid flow, and different disper-
sive and diffusive processes of solute transport. The model
represented by this solution can be especially useful for safety/
performance assessments of underground radioactive waste repo-
sitories in fractured crystalline rocks, since the simulation of
radioactive nuclide transport process depends largely on the
validity and reliability of the models of the stress-flow-transport
in individual rock fractures.
2. Conceptual model
The simplest mathematical model of a single rock fracture is
the smooth parallel plate model, which assumes that the two
walls of a fracture can be represented by two nominally smooth
and parallel surfaces (Snow, 1965), separated by an initial
aperture of 2b [L] (Fig. 1). Considering a single fracture embedded
in a saturated porous rock matrix, with a contaminant source
located at the origin of the fracture (x¼ 0), the solute particles are
then transported by the groundwater flow along the fracture (the
advection), and may also diffuse in and out of the porous matrix.
Although the parallel plate assumption differs from the natural
fractures with rough surfaces, it remains, however, the basis of
many complicated modeling approaches for flow and transport
processes at the local scale (Bodin et al., 2003b). It can provide the
basic insights for fluid flow and solute transport through an
individual rock fracture under different stress conditions. More
importantly, the parallel plate model is the necessary condition
for deriving a closed-form solution for such a complex problem of
coupled stress-flow-transport processes in a single fracture,
because such an analytical solution does not exist for natural
fractures of rough surfaces. This, however, does not prevent
considerations of some mechanical effects of roughness on the
mechanical component of the closed-form solution indirectly, as
described in Section 3.
z
Ss S
2b 0 D
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of parallel plate model for fractures (after Bodin et al., 2003b).
Besides the parallel plate model as noted above, in order to
derive an analytical solution, the following basic assumptions
were also adopted:
(1) The model was defined in a 2D space, with the fracture
aperture much smaller than its length.
(2) The hydraulic aperture of the fracture was assumed to be
equal to its mechanical aperture, and a residual aperture
always existed even under high compression stress. This
could be regarded as an indirect consideration of the effects
of rock fractures surface roughness in reality.
(3) The effect of fluid pressure and its variation on fracture
deformation in the flow direction was assumed to be negli-
gible, which indicates that the fracture surfaces always
remain parallel during the deformation/displacement pro-
cess. This assumption is reasonable because usually ground-
water flows under small hydraulic pressure gradients
through a fracture in subsurface rocks in practice.
(4) The fracture aperture changes due to normal closure or shear
dilatancy were described by commonly adopted mechanical
constitutive models of rock fractures in the field of rock
mechanics, in order to simplify the derivation of the final
analytical solution. This assumption is reasonable, since the
scope of the study is the effect of the stress on the flow and
transport processes, not the complicated stress/deformation
processes in details.
(5) Transverse dispersion within the fracture was neglected,
compared to longitudinal dispersion. This means that the
solute concentration was assumed to be equal at the fixed
fracture section.
(6) The permeability of the porous matrix was sufficiently low to
hinder water flow, but contaminant particles could enter the
rock matrix by molecular diffusion.
With the above conceptualization and assumptions, we can
explicitly describe the individual mechanical, hydraulic, and
transport processes in single fractures, separately, and then
combine them together to generate a closed-form solution for
coupled stress-flow-transport processes in a single rock fracture.
3. Coupled stress-flow-transport processes
3.1. Mechanical process
When stress is applied to rocks, both the fractures and the rock
matrix will move and/or deform, which results in changes in
fracture aperture and matrix porosity. These changes influence
groundwater flow and contaminant transport in fractures, as well
as the diffusion of solutes into and out of the rock matrices.
T: tensile strength
kn: nonlinear
normal stiffness
ks T D: dilation
x
kn S: slider
Ss: shear strength
ks: nonlinear shear
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449
3.1.1. Normal closure behavior
It has been demonstrated that the normal closure of a rough
rock fracture is typically nonlinear under compressive normal
stress; i.e., the normal stiffness of a fracture increases with
increasing normal stress (Goodman, 1976; Swan, 1983; Cook,
1992; Rutqvist and Stephansson, 2003), and finally levels off to
some asymptotic value at high values of the compressive normal
stress (Jaeger et al., 2007). The most commonly applied fracture
normal closure model is Bandis’ hyperbolic function (Fig. 2b;
Bandis et al. (1983)):
 
un
sn ¼ kn0 , ð1Þ
1un =unmax
where sn [M/LT2] is the normal stress (compression positive), kn0
[M/L2T2] is the initial normal stiffness at a prescribed stress state,
un [L] is the normal displacement of the fracture, and unmax [L] is
the maximum normal displacement, approached asymptotically
with increasing normal stress. The basic parameters kn0 and unmax
are determined by experiments (Barton et al., 1985). The frac-
ture’s normal closure can be expressed by rearranging Eq. (1) as
sn
un ¼ : ð2Þ
kn0 þ sn =unmax
It is noted here that those parameters in the above equation
depend on the stress paths of normal compressive loading–
unloading cycles (Jing and Stephansson, 2007). Barton et al.
σn
un
Fig. 2. Fracture closure behavior under normal compression (after Bandis et al., 1983). (a) Compressive loading-unloading cycles and (b) normal stress — normal
displacement curve.
 
p
r
us
ud
udmax
us
Fig. 3. Mechanical behavior of fractures during direct shear testing under constant normal stress (after Jing and Stephansson, 2007). (a) Conceptual model and (b)
simplified model.
1439
(1985) suggested that in situ fractures probably behave in a
manner similar to the third or fourth loading cycles (Fig. 2a).
3.1.2. Shear behavior
Fracture displacement during shear is inherently a coupled
process, in which both normal and shear displacements occur
(Jaeger et al., 2007). Fig. 3a shows the typical, although much
idealized, shear stress–shear displacement behavior of a fresh
rock fracture under constant normal stress conditions, during
direct shear tests under laboratory test conditions. During this
process, the most important mechanism is the so-called shear
dilatancy, i.e., the increase of fracture aperture during shear
displacement due to roughness of the fracture surfaces. Various
empirical models have been suggested to simulate the dilatancy
phenomenon in the past, with varying degrees of success. The
simplest approach is to use a dilation angle relating the normal
and tangential displacements of a fracture:
ud ¼ us tan fd , ð3Þ
where ud [L] is the shear dilatancy, us [L] is the shear displacement
and fd is the dilation angle. Note that we did not consider a
dilation angle that varies with normal stress and shear displace-
ment in this study, but assumed that the dilation angle was a
constant for deriving a closed-form solution.
A simplified model, as shown in Fig. 3b, was adopted to
approximate the behavior of rock fractures during shear
(Fig. 3a), so that the final analytical model can capture the main
σn
un
p
r
us
(I) (II) (III)
ud
udmax
φd
us
up ucs
1440 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449
mechanical features without losing necessary generality. The
peak shear stress, tp [M/LT2], is determined by the Mohr–
Coulomb criterion, characterized by a cohesion (C) and a frictional
angle (f):
9t9r C þ sn tan f ¼ tp : ð4Þ
Before reaching the peak shear stress, the shear stiffness, ks, is
assumed to be constant. In the case of
jtj Z tp , ð5Þ
one has
t ¼ signðus Þtp , ð6Þ
where sign( ) is the sign function, which extracts the sign of the
shear displacement, i.e., the shear direction.
Dilatancy starts to occur at the onset of slip of the fracture,
governed by the dilation angle. The accumulated dilation is
limited by a critical value of shear displacement, ucs [L], corre-
sponding to the observation that crushing of asperities at large
shearing would eventually prevent continued increase of dila-
tancy. In this way, three functions are employed to describe the
dilatancy during three different stages (I, II, and III in Fig. 3b) of
the shear displacement:
8 where Qx [L3/T] is the volumetric flow rate, w [L] is the fracture
> 0 us r up with up ¼ tp =ks ðIÞ
< width, m (Pa s) is the dynamic viscosity, x [L] is the coordinate
ud ¼ us tan fd up rus r ucs ðIIÞ : ð7Þ
>
: u tan f
cs d u s Z ucs ðIIIÞ
3.1.3. Hydraulic aperture
Experimental results typically show that an apparent residual
aperture, bres [L], exists in rock fractures even under high
compressive stresses, when fracture appears to be nominally
closed by compression (Witherspoon et al., 1979; Raven and
Gale, 1985; Pyrack-Nolte et al., 1987; Cook, 1992; Renshaw,
1995). Additionally, the residual aperture may vary with sizes of
the tested fracture specimen, which was not considered in this
paper. Therefore, the resultant hydraulic aperture can be
expressed as
2b ¼ bres þ ðunmax un Þ þ ud , ð8Þ
where un and ud are determined by Eqs. (2) and (7), respectively.
3.1.4. Rock matrix porosity
Rock matrix porosity, y, changes under the in situ stresses and
can be defined as a function of volume change of micropores in
the rock matrix (Han and Dusseault, 2003). In this study, Eq. (9)
relates the increment in matrix porosity to the increment in
compressive stress and was adopted because of the explicit
inclusion of stress (Zimmerman, 1991):
dy ¼ ½Cbc ð1yÞCm dsn , ð9Þ
2 2 2 2
where Cbc [L T /M] and Cm [L T /M] are effective bulk compressi-
bility and rock matrix compressibility, respectively. Note that sn
is the compressive stress acting on the rock matrix. In this study
we assumed that it was equal to the stress applied on the fracture
surfaces. Because Cm is usually small enough to be negligible,
Eq. (9) can be simplified into
dy ¼ Cbc ð1yÞdsn : ð10Þ
In reality, Cbc is stress dependent and can be measured by
laboratory tests. Based on experimental data, Zimmerman (1991)
derived an empirical relation for stress-dependent Cbc as
Cbc ¼ a1 þa2 ea3 sn , ð11Þ
where a1, a2 and a3 are constants determined from curve fitting of
the test data; the unit of sn is MPa here.
Therefore, the stress-dependent porosity of rock matrix can be
written as
a3 sn
ea3 sni Þ
y ¼ 1ð1yi Þea1 ðsn sni Þa2 =a3 ðe , ð12Þ
where yi is the initial matrix porosity at zero stress. This relation
links stress with rock porosity that, in turn, is related to matrix
diffusion process.
3.2. Fluid flow process
The conceptual model shown in Fig. 1 a fracture model for
fluid flow in rock fractures with a possible analytical solution
(Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996), represented by the well-
known cubic law. With a horizontal fracture of constant cross-
section in the x direction, one can argue that the fluid velocity is
negligible in the y and z directions. With these simplifications and
the ‘‘no-slip’’ boundary condition, the relation between the flow
rate and the hydraulic pressure gradient can be represented by
the cubic law (Bear, 1972):
2b3 dp
Qx ¼ w , ð13Þ
3m dx
along the fracture axis, and dp/dx [MT2/L2] is the hydraulic
pressure gradient.
The average flow velocity of a steady flow state flow can be
obtained by dividing the flux, Qx, by the cross-sectional area, 2wb [L2]:
Qx b2 dp
v¼ ¼ : ð14Þ
2wb 3m dx
This equation links the change of flow velocity in fracture with
the stress-dependent aperture. Furthermore, it transfers the
effects of stress to the advective transport in fracture, as well as
other transport mechanisms.
3.3. Transport process
Generally speaking, contaminant transport and spreading in
the fractured porous media are influenced by many causes, such
as advective transport along the connected fractures, longitudinal
hydrodynamic dispersion within the fractures in the flow direc-
tion, matrix diffusion (solute particles going into and out of the
micropores in rock matrices), adsorption onto the fracture walls,
adsorption within the matrix, or decay for radioactive nuclides. It
is expected that some of them are affected significantly by the
in situ stresses. Many more details on stress effects on particle
transport in single fracture are presented in Section 4.
In the past three decades, the analytical solutions for represent-
ing solute transport in single fractures for different initial and
boundary conditions have been extensively studied and developed.
Among them, Tang et al. (1981) derived a general analytical solution
for contaminant transport along a discrete fracture seated in a
porous rock matrix, considering all the transport mechanisms noted
above. Additionally, various solutions in semianalytical forms for
different boundary conditions at the inlet were also proposed
(Neretnieks, 1980; Rasmuson and Neretnieks, 1981; Moreno and
Rasuson, 1986; Berkowitz and Zhou, 1996; Sun and Buschec, 2003;
Shih, 2007). Although these models considered many processes,
mechanisms, and factors, they did not consider the effect of the
stress/displacement process of the fractures and the effects of matrix
pore volume changes due to matrix deformation. It is also difficult to
identify or explore the contributions of different individual transport
mechanisms in a fundamental study. Therefore, in the following
section, three transport models and two inlet boundary conditions
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449 1441

are considered in this research, in order to examine the stress effects
on different transport mechanisms.
To represent the contaminant transport processes in the
conceptual fracture model as shown in Fig. 1, two coupled, one-
dimensional (1D) governing equations are usually needed: one for
the fracture and the other for the porous matrix. The coupling
conditions are the continuity of fluxes and concentrations along
the fracture surface. In this study, we first assume that the
continuous source concentration is constant c0 at the inlet, the
the constrictivity and tortuosity are difficult to measure and to be
separated experimentally, an empirical relation of Archie’s law
(Archie, 1942) is often used to relate the effective diffusion
coefficient to the porosity:
m
De ¼ D y : ð20Þ
The exponent m can take the values between 1.3 and 4 for
different rocks but is often taken to be 1.6 for granites (Ruffet
1:6
et al., 1995). Therefore, one has De ¼ y D and Dm ¼ y D .
0:6

same as defined by Tang et al. (1981). The boundary conditions 2

Da [L /T] is the apparent diffusion coefficient, which is defined as
for the concentration along the fracture are
De
cf ð0,tÞ ¼ c0 , ð15aÞ Da ¼ , ð21Þ
ðy þ rm Km Þ

cf ð1,tÞ ¼ 0, ð15bÞ where rm [M/L3] is the bulk density of the matrix, and Km is the
distribution coefficient that was defined by Freeze and Cherry
cf ðx,0Þ ¼ 0: ð15cÞ (1979) as the mass of solute adsorbed per unit volume of matrix
The boundary conditions for the concentration of matrix are divided by the concentration of solute in solution. Neretnieks (1980)
clarified the distinction between effective and apparent diffusivities.
cm ðx,b,tÞ ¼ cf ðx,tÞ, ð16aÞ
Da is usually used for describing instationary diffusion (Eq. (18)),
whereas De is used in the literature for flux calculation (Eq. (17)).
cm ð1,z,tÞ ¼ 0, ð16bÞ
The term (y þ rmKm) is called rock capacity, a. The volume sorption
cm ðx,z,0Þ ¼ 0, ð16cÞ coefficient rmKm is equal to zero if no sorption or retardation occurs.
The value of rock capacity a is then equal to that of porosity y; i.e.,
where cf [M/L3] is the volumetric concentration of solute in the Da ¼Dm for the conservative contaminant transport.
fracture, written as a function of location and time cf(x,t); cm [M/L3] Without detailed derivation, we present only the final solu-
is the volume concentration of solute in the porous matrix, written tions of Eqs. (17) and (18) below, under the boundary conditions
as cm(x,z,t); N represents the infinite. The boundary condition of (Eqs. (15) and (16)) (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959; Neretnieks, 1980):
constant inlet concentration is the most used one in the modeling,
which may corresponds to a contaminant which is dissolved in the tw De !
cf b Da0:5
fluid to a concentration determined by its solubility in practice ¼ erfc ðfor fractureÞ, ð22Þ
c0 2ðttw Þ0:5
(Moreno and Rasuson, 1986). However, the contaminant is trans-
ported by advection and hydrodynamic dispersion in the fractures, !
and the concentration at the locations close to the inlet can be cm ðtw =bÞðDe =D0:5 0:5
a Þ þ zb=Da
significantly influenced by the boundary conditions when the ¼ erfc ðfor matrixÞ, ð23Þ
c0 2ðttw Þ0:5
value of the Péclet number is small. In other words, much more
contaminant mass may be introduced into the fractures due to the where tw is water residence time, and is equal to tw ¼ x=v.
large dispersive flux at the inlet boundary when dispersion is
strong. In order to meet the mass conservation condition, the
constant flux (Danckwerts’) inlet boundary conditions were pro-
posed (Danckwerts, 1953), and the corresponding solutions were 3.3.2. Transport model II
derived by Rasmuson (1986) and Moreno and Rasuson (1986). Based on the transport model I presented above, we added the
They are presented as transport model III in later section. hydrodynamic dispersion term in the fracture. The governing
equation for the solute transport process of a fracture then becomes
3.3.1. Transport model I 
The simplest particle transport model in a single fracture is the @cf @cf @2 cf De @cm 
þv Df  ¼ 0, ð24Þ
one only considering the advective transport in the flow direction @t @x @x2 b @z z ¼ b
and matrix diffusion, without dispersion or adsorption. Consider-
ing the mass balance of solute in the fracture and in the pores of where Df [L2/T] is the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient, which
the matrix, respectively, one can obtain the following differential describes the spreading of a tracer pulse by local variations in
equations of solute transport (Neretnieks, 1982): velocity and molecular diffusion. It can be expressed as Df ¼
 aL vþ D , where aL [L] is the dispersivity in the direction of the
@cf @cf De @cm  fracture axis (Bear, 1972). Detwiler et al. (2000) proposed a complex
þv  ¼ 0 ðfor fractureÞ, ð17Þ
@t @x b @z z ¼ b theoretical model of Df dependent on the Péclet number (Pe), but
we use the first one for simplicity in this study. Together with
@cm @2 cm 2
Eq. (18), one obtains the following solutions for t 4 x2 =4x DL :
¼ Da ðfor rock matrixÞ, ð18Þ
@t @z2
where v [L/T] is the mean fluid velocity in the fracture (Eq. (14)); !
 Z 1
De [L2/T] is the effective diffusion coefficient, which is related to cf 2 v 2 x2 v2
the pore diffusion coefficient Dm [L2/T] and the rock matrix ¼ pffiffiffiffi exp x exp x  2
c0 p 2Df l 16x Df 2
porosity in the following form: !
De ¼ yDm : ð19Þ x2 De 1
erfc 2D
pffiffiffiffiffiffi 2
dx ðfor fractureÞ, ð25Þ
D 2 0:5
4bx f a 2ðtðx =4x Df ÞÞ
Neretnieks (1980) defined the pore diffusion coefficient as
Dm ¼ D ðd=o2 Þ, where D* [L2/T] is the molecular diffusion coeffi-  Z !
cm 2 v 1
2 x2 v2
cient in the fluid, d is the pore constrictivity ( o1), and o is the ¼ pffiffiffiffi exp x exp x  2
tortuosity, which is a function of rock matrix porosity. Because
c0 p 2Df l 16x Df 2
1442 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449

0 1
2 D
determine the actual integration range. The equations can also
B4bxx2 D pe ffiffiffiffi þ Dzb0:5 C
be solved directly by Mathmatica or other commercial computa-
B f Da a C
erfcB  0:5 C dx ðfor matrixÞ: ð26Þ
@ A tion software.
x2
2 t 2
4x D f

4. Model behavior verification

3.3.3. Transport model III
As noted before, constant inlet concentration boundary con- Because there are no available experimental results published
dition is an approximation only, if the hydrodynamic dispersion is in the existing literatures and no laboratory experiments con-
present (Rasmuson, 1986). The correct one ensuring the mass sidering coupled stress-flow and transport processes with matrix
conservation is the constant flux (Danckwerts’) boundary at inlet, diffusion and dispersion were ever performed, we apply the above
which is expressed as (Danckwerts, 1953) solutions to an example to demonstrate the effect of stress on the
@ contaminant transport of a rock fracture in a porous rock matrix.
vc0 ¼ vcf ð0,tÞDf c ð0,tÞ: ð27Þ
@x f We test the sensitivity of the different transport mechanisms,
It is corresponding to a constant flux vc0 at x ¼0 and there is no such as advection, matrix diffusion, and longitudinal hydrody-
hydrodynamic dispersion for xo0 (Moreno and Rasuson, 1986). namic dispersion, to the normal closure, shear dilatancy, and
The solutions for the governing equations of Eqs. (24) and (18) stress-dependent matrix porosity, respectively. The material
under the constant inlet flux boundary condition (Eq. (27)) properties are given in Table 1.
were derived by Rasmuson (1986) and Moreno and Rasuson The three transport models with different longitudinal disper-
(1986): sivities under the initial condition of zero stress applied after 10
 Z 1   years are compared in Fig. 4. Without normal stress applied, the
cf v v v
¼ exp x exp  x initial fracture aperture was 30 mm, and the groundwater velocity
c0 D Df Df in the fracture was 7.5  10  7 m/s for a hydraulic pressure gradient
" f x
!
 Z 1 of 10 Pa/m (or water head gradient of 0.001 m/m). If only consider-
2 v 2 x2 v2
pffiffiffiffi exp x exp x  2
ing the pure advection in the fracture, the contaminant would be
p 2Df l 16x Df 2 expected to travel far enough after 10 years, to make contaminant
0 1 3
x2 De 1 concentration equal to c0 in the fracture. However, the relative
B pffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:5 C 7
 erfc@4bx2 Df Da  2
Adx5dy ðfor fractureÞ, concentration in the fracture decreased to a very small value after
2 t x2 x¼8 m, if the matrix diffusion is considered, indicating that diffu-
4x Df
sion of the contaminant (for example, radioactive nuclides) into the
ð28Þ rock matrix probably is one of the more significant transport
 Z 1   mechanisms, especially for final safety assessment of a potential
cm v v v
¼ exp x exp  x repository of radioactive waste (Neretnieks, 1980).
c0 Df Df Df
" x
!
For larger longitudinal dispersivity of aL ¼1 m, the longitudinal
 Z hydrodynamic dispersion increases the contaminant concentra-
2 v 1
2 x2 v2
 pffiffiffiffi exp x exp x  2 tion in the fracture or in the rock matrix at the initial state under
p 2Df l 16x Df 2
0 1 3 the constant concentration inlet boundary (Fig. 4a and c), which is
2
De ffiffiffiffi
x
2
p þ zb
0:5
in line with the results shown by Tang et al. (1981). However,
B4bx Df Da Da C 7 under constant flux boundary conditions, the relative solute
erfcB
@
 0:5 Cdx7dy
A 5 ðfor matrixÞ: ð29Þ
2 t x2
2
concentration estimated by transport model III is smaller than
4x Df
that from transport model I in the locations closer to the inlet
(x o3 m), due to the influence of longitudinal hydrodynamic
3.4. Solutions for coupled stress-flow-transport process dispersion. After that part, longitudinal hydrodynamic dispersion

Combining Eqs. (8) and (14), we obtain the average velocity of

groundwater for a steady-state flow in a single fracture as Table 1
Material properties of groundwater, rock matrix, and fracture.
1  2 dp
v¼ bres þðunmax un Þ þ ud : ð30Þ
12m dx Material parameters Value
Then substituting the updated half aperture b of the fracture
Groundwater
(Eq. (8)), the mean fluid velocity v obtained from Eq. (30), and the Hydraulic pressure gradient, dp/dx (Pa/m) 10
effective and apparent diffusion coefficients (Eqs. (20) and (21)) Dynamic viscosity, m (Pa s) 1.0  10  3
due to the changed matrix porosity represented by Eq. (12) into
Intact rock
the three transport models presented above (Eqs. (22), (23), (25), Initial matrix porosity, y 0.01
(26), (28), and (29)), one can have the solutions for the coupled Empirical constants, a1, a2, a3 (  10  4,  10  4, 1) 0.82, 5.35, 0.12
stress-flow-transport process in the fracture–matrix system as Cementation factor, n 1.6
shown in Fig. 1, and examine the effect of stress on solute Fractures
transport in the single fracture. We did not present the complete Normal stiffness at zero stress state, kn0 (GPa/m) 434
expression here to save space. Shear stiffness, ks (GPa/m) 434
Dispersivity along fracture, aL (m) 0.5
To evaluate the integrals in the transport models II and III
Diffusivity in water, Dn (m2/s) 1.6  10  9
(Eqs. (25), (26), (28), and (29)), we used the Gauss–Legendre Frictional angle, | (deg) 24.9
quadrature technique with 100 Gauss points. It was found that Cohesion, c (MPa) 0
the numerically significant portion generally extends over a Critical shear displacement for dilation, Ucs (mm) 3
smaller range, even though the integrand theoretically extends Shear dilation angle, fd (deg) 5.0
Residual aperture, bres (mm) 5
from l to infinity (Tang et al., 1981). In this way, before the Maximum normal displacement, Dunmax (mm) 25
integration, a prior scanning procedure was carried out to
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449 1443

αL=1m αL=0.1m
1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

For fracture

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Distance along fracture (m) Distance along fracture (m)

1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

For matrix

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance into matrix (m) Distance into matrix (m)

Fig. 4. Comparison among the different transport models under the initial conditions without stress applied. Two longitudinal dispersion coefficients (aL ¼1 and 0.1 m)
were assumed to study the sensitivity of the transport model to the inlet boundary conditions.

increases the contaminant concentration in the fracture (Fig. 4a). process of increasing normal stress, and it increases the contami-
The same phenomenon exists in the matrix for the constant flux nant concentration along the fracture and especially in the rock
inlet boundary also (Fig. 4c). Three transport models give similar matrix. In Fig. 5c and d, the relative concentration from the
concentration profiles for smaller longitudinal dispersivity of transport model III is higher than that from transport model I,
aL ¼0.1 m (Fig. 4b and d), which indicates that the longitudinal indicating indirectly an important role of dispersion in the
dispersion plays a negligible role in this case. The concentration fractures. Without considering the hydrodynamic dispersion, it is
discontinuity at the inlet for transport model III is also illustrated almost impossible for particles to diffuse into rock matrix under
in Fig. 4a. The effects of constant concentration or flux inlet compressive stress of 10 MPa at this short time scale (t¼10 years).
boundary conditions are demonstrated here, and the same trend Fig. 6 presents the same information as in Fig. 5, except that it
can be found in the following results with stress applied. is at a long time scale (t ¼50 years). With the longer time, the
(1) Normal closure effect by pure normal compression: In this contaminant concentrations both along the fracture and in the
case, we mainly study the effect of the fracture aperture closure rock matrix further increase (compared with the results at the
under an increasing normal stress on the mass transport along the time scale of 10 years), and the effects of stress become more
fracture and into the rock matrix, without considering the shear obvious. However, the general trend remains the same. Fig. 6c
dilatancy and matrix porosity changes. The issues of the shear shows that the relative concentration estimated by transport
dilatancy and matrix porosity change are treated in the later model I without dispersion becomes larger than that of transport
sections. model III after a longer time, but the relative concentration of
Fig. 5 shows the concentration profiles along the fracture and transport model I is still smaller than that of transport model III
in the rock matrix (x¼2 m) at a short time scale (t¼10 years), in Fig. 6d. Considering the relative concentration in the fracture at
under two normal stresses of 5 and 10 MPa, respectively. The x¼2 m, transport model I gives a larger value in Fig. 6a than that
results illustrate that the contaminant concentrations both along of transport model III, and inverse in Fig. 6b. It is concluded that
the fracture and in the rock matrix decrease with the increasing larger concentrations in the fracture induce larger concentrations
normal stress value, regardless of what transport models are used. in the rock matrix, and after a long enough time the concentration
For transport model III, the concentration at the inlet decreases of transport model I will be larger than that of transport model III,
with increasing stress too. The fracture’s normal closure reduces both in fracture and in matrix.
the transport activity in the fractured rocks. However, the effect of Figs. 7 and 8 show the influence of the normal stress on
hydrodynamic dispersion becomes more significant during the breakthrough curves for the fracture (x¼2 m) and the matrix
1444 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449

5 MPa 10MPa
1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

For fracture

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Distance along fracture (m) Distance along fracture (m)

1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0
For matrix

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance into matrix (m) Distance into matrix (m)

Fig. 5. Concentration profiles along the fracture and into the matrix (x ¼2 m) at the short time scale (t¼ 10 years), under normal stress of 5 and 10 MPa.

(x¼2 m, z¼0.1 m), respectively. Under the initial condition of no becomes more significant, when the fluid velocity (or fracture
stress, the breakthrough curves for models I and II overlap very aperture) becomes smaller.
much after longer times, indicating that the influence of hydro- (2) Shear dilatancy effect: To examine the effect of shear
dynamic dispersion is negligible then. However, at the beginning displacement of the fracture, we fix the normal stress at 5 MPa,
period of transport, relative concentration increases more quickly and increase the shear displacement gradually to produce shear
with longitudinal dispersion under constant concentration inlet dilatancy. From Eqs. (4) and (7), the fracture aperture would start
conditions. Due to less contaminant mass introduced under to increase by shear dilatancy, when shear displacement us
constant flux inlet conditions, the relative concentrations of becomes larger than 5.3 mm. Fig. 9 shows the concentration
transport model III are lower than the others after a long time. profiles along the fracture and in the rock matrix (x ¼2 m) at
The normal stress decreases the fracture aperture and flow rate, the short time scale (t ¼10 years), with the shear displacement of
and in turn the rate of contaminant concentration in the fracture 0.1 and 0.2 mm, respectively. The influence of increasing shear
and the rock matrix. When a normal stress of 5 MPa is applied, displacement is just the inverse of that of increasing normal
the hydrodynamic dispersion in transport model II increases the stress. The shear dilatancy increases fracture aperture, then flow
rate of contaminant concentration in the fracture and the rock rate, and finally the rate of contaminant concentration in the
matrix compared with transport model I. The same phenomena fracture and the rock matrix. The influence of inlet boundary
happen for transport model III after the transport start immedi- conditions becomes less significant when large shear dilatancy
ately, but its relative concentration is smaller after a long time. happens, because the advection becomes more significantly
From the above results, it can be seen that the fracture induced from increasing fluid velocity.
aperture closure induced by normal stress plays an important (3) Effect of matrix porosity change: Under normal stress
role in the flow and transport in fractured rocks. It is expected conditions, the influences of matrix porosity change on transport
that the extent of fracture closure would become smaller with mechanisms are investigated by comparison between the results
further increase of the normal stress, because the normal stiffness with and without considering matrix porosity changes, under the
increases with the increasing normal stress. In this way, the compressive normal stress of 5 and 10 MPa, respectively (Fig. 10).
impact of normal stress would decrease under high normal For the concentration profiles along the fracture, if we consider
stresses, especially when fracture aperture is close to its residual the matrix porosity change under normal stresses, the concentra-
aperture value. The influence of hydrodynamic dispersion tion along the fracture increases significantly, compared with the
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449 1445

5 MPa 10 MPa
1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0
For fracture

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

Distance along fracture (m) Distance along fracture (m)

1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

0.6 0.6
For matrix

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance into matrix (m) Distance into matrix (m)

Fig. 6. Concentration profiles along the fracture and into the matrix (x¼ 2 m) at the long time scale (t ¼50 years), under normal stress of 5 and 10 MPa.

1.0

0.8
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

0.6

0.4

Model I
0.2 Model II
Model III

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (years)
Fig. 7. Comparison of breakthrough curves for the fracture at x ¼ 2 m, between the initial case with zero normal stress (solid lines) and the case under the normal stress of
5 MPa (dash lines).
1446 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449

1.0

0.8

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0 0.6

0.4

Model I
0.2 Model II
Model III

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (years)

Fig. 8. Comparison of breakthrough curves for the matrix (x¼ 2 m, z¼ 0.1 m), between the initial case with zero normal stress (solid lines) and the case under the normal
stress of 5 MPa (dash lines).

0.1mm 0.2mm
1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

For fracture

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Distance along fracture (m) Distance along fracture (m)

1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c0

0.6
For matrix

0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance into matrix (m) Distance into matrix (m)

Fig. 9. Concentration profiles along the fracture and into the matrix (x ¼2 m) at the short time scale (t¼ 10 years), under shear displacements of 0.1 and 0.2 mm.
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449 1447

5 MPa 10 MPa
1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 0.8 Model III
Model III

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0
For fracture

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Distance along fracture (m) Distance along fracture (m)

1.0 1.0

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
0.8 Model III 0.8 Model III
R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

R e la tive c o n c e n tra tio n c /c 0

0.6
For matrix

0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance into matrix (m) Distance into matrix (m)

Fig. 10. Comparison of concentration profiles for the fracture and matrix (x¼ 2 m) between the cases with (dash lines) and without (solid lines) considering the matrix
porosity change under normal stress conditions, at the short time scale (t ¼10 years).

case of constant matrix porosity. Under higher normal stress, this based on the assumptions listed in Section 2. Some important
difference becomes more obvious (Fig. 10a and b). The decreasing outstanding issues are addressed below.
matrix porosity caused by increasing the normal stress, inducing The 2D geometrical model was used mainly for its simplicity,
decreasing diffusion coefficients, makes the particles more diffi- with homogeneous material properties for the rock matrix, in
cult to diffuse into the rock matrix. The concentration in the rock order that a closed-form solution is possible. The stress/deforma-
matrix also increases with decreasing matrix porosity, due to the tion relation of the matrix, the groundwater flow velocity, and
increasing normal stress, compared with the case with constant contaminant transport along fracture or into rock matrix are
matrix porosity (Fig. 10c and d). The possible reason is that larger assumed to be 1D. Their validities depend on the configuration
contaminant concentration gradient at the fracture wall tends to of the particular rocks and fractures. For example, if the rock
push more particles into the matrix pores. matrix is heterogeneous with large porosity, the contaminant
distribution in the rock matrix may become a 2D problem, and
the groundwater flow through porous matrix should not be
5. Discussion and conclusions neglected. Therefore, it is emphasized here that the present model
is only appropriate for rocks with small matrix porosity. If there
An analytical solution for coupled stress-flow-transport processes are significant groundwater exchanges between the micropores in
in a single rock fracture was developed to consider the influence of matrix and fractures, the model presented in this paper should
stress/displacement on the contaminant transport through individual not be directly used.
rock fractures. This model explicitly integrates the mechanical, flow, Across the fracture section, the groundwater velocity and
and transport processes in a single rock fracture into a compact contaminant concentration are assumed to be uniform, following
mathematical form, by linking the stress and transport processes the parallel plate model of a constant aperture. For fractures with
through changes of aperture and matrix porosity, based on the cubic variable apertures, the above assumption is not valid. However,
law and Archie’s law, respectively. Therefore, it can be directly used for fractures with aperture of micrometer scale, under relatively
as a simple constitutive model for modeling the coupled hydro- lower hydraulic pressure gradient and at the time scale of
mechanical-transport processes in fracture networks in crystalline performance/safety assessments for underground radioactive
rocks. However, it is noted here that the validity of this model is waste repositories, the above assumption may still be applicable.
1448 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449
The model in this paper was derived based on some empirical
mechanical models, so its validity largely depends on the range of
validity of those empirical models and associated parameters.
Actually, the main contribution of this paper is to highlight the
importance of the coupled stress-flow-transport processes in
fractured crystalline rocks. Any other mechanical models can
replace those models used here, as long as they can consider
the changes of fracture aperture and matrix porosity under stress,
explicitly in compact mathematical function forms, to meet the
requirements of special rocks or sites, and the resultant equations
can be integrated analytically.
There are a large number of material parameters and empirical
constants in the present model. How to obtain the reasonable
values for them from laboratory or in situ experiments remains to
be a difficult problem and no attempt has been made to test
coupled stress-flow-transport processes in a single rock fractures
with quantitative representations of transport mechanisms, vari-
ables, and parameters, so far, due to experimental difficulty. The
uncertainties in measuring the material properties have an
important influence on the final assessments of radioactive waste
repositories. Moreover, these properties and parameters always
vary among different sites.
Constant concentration inlet boundary results in large dispersive
flux at the inlet boundary for large hydrodynamic dispersion coeffi-
cient at the beginning of transport, and more solute mass is injected
in the fracture and rock matrix after a long time. Constant flux
boundary conditions, however, can eliminate the extra dispersive flux
at the inlet, which is more proper physically, but induces an artificial
discontinuity at the inlet boundary. If the longitudinal hydrodynamic
dispersion is neglected, the constant flux boundary condition
becomes the same as the constant concentration boundary condition.
The different results between these two boundary conditions indicate
that it is a crucial factor for modeling. The concentrations noted in
this paper are resident concentrations, and more information on the
transformation and to distinguish between flux concentrations and
resident concentrations can be found in Kreft and Zuber, (1978), Van
Genuchten and Parker (1984), Rasmuson (1986), and Moreno and
Rasuson (1986).
In the transport models presented in this paper, adsorption on
the walls of fracture and within the matrix pores, and the
radioactive decay were not included, but there are many available
transport models considering these issues in the literature (Tang
et al., 1981; Sudicky and Frind, 1984; Cormenzana, 2000; Sun and
Buschec, 2003). The basic mechanical and flow models presented
here can be directly coupled with other transport models con-
sidering adsorption and decay without major difficulties. The
present model can also be further extended to a system with
multiple parallel fractures or other initial boundary conditions,
with the known analytical transport solutions (Sudicky and Frind,
1982; West et al., 2004).
From the present study, stresses do have a significant influence
on the groundwater flow and contaminant transport in rock
fractures, through changing the fracture aperture and matrix
porosity. The fracture closure under normal stress and the
dilatancy during shear are the two major mechanisms controlling
the fluid flow and transport in the fractures, and consequently
influence the groundwater velocity in fractures, contaminant
concentration distribution, and breakthrough time. The results
show that matrix porosity changes corresponding to actual stress
conditions should not be neglected in practice, even though we
assumed that the porosity was really small in this study and only
matrix diffusion was considered.
Some basic concluding remarks are presented below.
(1) Fracture’s normal closure decreases the contaminant con-
centrations both along the fracture and into the rock matrix,
but the dilatancy increases the corresponding contaminant
concentrations.
(2) The importance of the hydrodynamic dispersion depends on
the fluid velocity, inlet boundary conditions, and time scales.
(3) With decreasing matrix porosity, the concentrations both
along the fracture and in the rock matrix increase.
(4) The transport models should be chosen according to practical
conditions, after the nonnegligible transport mechanisms are
identified first.
The above outstanding issues and limitations are identified for
future research. Among them, the validity range of the parallel
plate model of the fractures, the effect of fracture roughness, and
the influence of water pressure in fracture and pore pressure in
micropores of matrix will be considered in future studies.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the financial support from the Swedish
Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. (SKB) through the
international DECOVALEX-2011 project.
References
Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some
reservoir characteristics. Petroleum Technology 146, 54–62.
Bandis, S., Lumsden, A.C., Barton, N.R., 1983. Fundamentals of rock joint informa-
tion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geome-
chanics Abstracts 20, 249–268.
Barton, N.R., Bandis, S., Bakhtar, K., 1985. Strength, deformation and conductivity
coupling of rock joints. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 22, 121–140.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York, 764 pp.
Berkowitz, B., Zhou, Z., 1996. Reactive solute transport in a single fracture. Water
Resource Research 32 (4), 901–913.
Bodin, J., Delay, F., de Marsily, G., 2003a. Solute transport in a single fracture with
negligible matrix permeability: 1. Fundamental mechanisms. Hydrogeology
Journal 11, 418–433.
Bodin, J., Delay, F., de Marsily, G., 2003b. Solute transport in a single fracture with
negligible matrix permeability: 2. Mathematical formalism. Hydrogeology
Journal 11, 434–454.
Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C., 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids, New York, 2nd ed.
Oxford University Press, 510 pp.
Cook, N.G.W., 1992. Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and seismic
behaivor and properties under normal stress. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 29 (3), 198–223.
Cormenzana, I., 2000. Transport of a two-member decay chain in a single fracture:
simplified analytical solution for two radionuclides with the same transport
properties. Water Resource Research 36 (5), 1339–1346.
Danckwerts, P.V., 1953. Continuous flow systems: distribution of residence times.
Chemical Engineering Science 2, 1–13.
Detwiler, R.L., Rajaram, H., Glass, R.J., 2000. Solute transport in variable-aperture
fractures: an investigation of the relative importance of Taylor dispersion and
macrodispersion. Water Resource Research 36 (7), 1611–1625.
Freeze, R.A., Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
604 pp.
Goodman, R.E., 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rocks.
West Publishing Company, San Francisco, 472 pp.
Han, G., Dusseault, B.M., 2003. Description of fluid flow around a wellbore with
stress-dependent porosity and permeability. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 40, 1–16.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.W., 2007. Fundamentals of Rock
Mechanics, 4th ed. Blackwell Publishing, 488 pp.
Jing, L., 2003. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in
numerical modelling for rock mechanics and rock engineering. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 40, 283–353.
Jing, L., Stephansson, O., 2007. Fundamentals of Discrete Element Methods for
Rock Engineering—Theory and Application. Elsevier Science Publishers,
Rotterdam 562 pp.
Kreft, A., Zuber, A., 1978. On the physical meaning of the dispersion equation and
its solutions for different initial and boundary conditions. Chemical Engineer-
ing Science 33, 1471–1480.
Moreno, L., Rasuson, A., 1986. Contaminant transport through a fissured porous
rock: impact of the inlet boundary condition on the concentration profile in
the frock matrix. Water Resource Research 22 (12), 1728–1730.
 Z. Zhao et al. / Computers & Geosciences 37 (2011) 1437–1449
Moreno, L., Tsang, Y.W., Tsang, C.F., Hale, F.V., Neretnieks, I., 1988. Flow and tracer
transport in a single fracture: a stochastic model and its relation to some field
observations. Water Resource Research 24 (12), 2033–2048.
Neretnieks, I., 1980. Diffusion in the rock matrix: an important factor in radio-
nuclide retardation? Journal of Geophysical Research 85 (B8), 4379–4397.
Neretnieks, I., 1982. Tracer movement in a single fissure in granitic rock: some
experimental results and their interpretation. Water Resource Research 18 (4),
849–858.
Pyrack-Nolte, L.J., Myer, L.R., Cook, N.G.W., Witherspoon, P.A., 1987. Hydraulic and
mechanical properties of natural fractures in low-permeability rock. In:
Herget, G., Vongpaisal, S. (Eds.), Proceedings 6th International Congress on
Rock Mechanics. Montreal, Canada, pp. 225–232.
Rasmuson, A., 1986. Exact solution of some models for the dynamics of fixed beds
using Danckwerts’ inlet condition. Chemical Engineering Science 41 (3),
599–600.
Rasmuson, A., Neretnieks, I., 1981. Migration of radionuclides in fissured rock: the
influence of micropore diffusion and longitudinal dispersion. Journal of
Geophysical Research 86 (B5), 3749–3758.
Raven, K.G., Gale, J.E., 1985. Water flow in a natural rock fracture as a function of
stress and sample. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 22 (4), 251–261.
Renshaw, C.E., 1995. On the relationship between mechanical and hydraulic
apertures in rough-walled fractures. Journal of Geophysical Research 100
(B12), 24629–24636.
Ruffet, C., Dardot, M., Gueguen, Y., 1995. Surface conductivity in rocks: a review.
Surveys in Geophysics 16 (1), 83–105.
Rutqvist, J., Stephansson, O., 2003. The role of hydromechanical coupling in
fractured rock engineering. Hydrogeology Journal 11, 7–40.
Shih, D.C.F., 2007. Contaminant transport in one-dimensional single fractured
media: semi-analytical solution for three-member decay chain with pulse and
Heaviside input sources. Hydrological Processes 21, 2135–2143.
1449
Snow, D.T., 1965. A parallel model of fractured permeable media. Ph.D. disserta-
tion. University of California, 331 pp.
Sudicky, E.Q., Frind, E.O., 1982. Contaminant transport in fractured porous media:
analytical solutions for a system of parallel fractures. Water Resource Research
18 (6), 1634–1642.
Sudicky, E.A., Frind, E.O., 1984. Contaminant transport in fractured porous media:
analytical solutions for a two-member decay chain in a single fracture. Water
Resource Research 20 (7), 1021–1029.
Sun, Y., Buschec, T.A., 2003. Analytical solutions for reactive transport of N-mem-
ber radionuclide chains in a single fracture. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
62–63, 695–712.
Swan, G., 1983. Determination of stiffness and other joint properties from rough-
ness measurements. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 16, 19–38.
Tang, D.H., Frind, E.O., Sudicky, E.A., 1981. Contaminant transport in fractured
porous media: analytical solution for a single fracture. Water Resource
Research 17 (3), 555–564.
Van Genuchten, M.Th., Parker, J.C., 1984. Boundary conditions for displacement
experiments through short laboratory soil columns. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 48, 703–708.
West, M.R., Kueper, B.H., Novakowski, K.S., 2004. Semi-analytical solutions for
solute transport in fractured porous media using a strip source of finite width.
Advances in Water Resources 27, 1045–1059.
Witherspoon, P.A., Amick, C.H., Gale, J.E., Iwai, K., 1979. Observations of a potential
size effect in experimental determination of the hydraulic properties of
fractures. Water Resource Research 15, 1142–1146.
Zimmerman, R.W., 1991. Compressibility of Sandstones, Developments in Petro-
leum Science, vol. 29. Elsevier, New York, 181 pp.
Zimmerman, R.W., Bodvarsson, G.S., 1996. Hydraulic conductivity of rock frac-
tures. Transport in Porous Media 23, 1–30.