Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Structural Geology

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

The use of topology in fracture network characterization

David J. Sanderson a, c, *, Casey W. Nixon b
a
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
b
Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
c
Reservoir Development, BP, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames TW16 7BP, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In two-dimensions, a fracture network consist of a system of branches and nodes that can be used to
Received 8 September 2014 define both geometrical features, such as length and orientation, and the relationship between elements
Received in revised form of the network e topology. Branch lengths are preferred to trace lengths as they can be uniquely defined,
9 January 2015
have less censoring and are more clustered around a mean value. Many important properties of networks
Accepted 21 January 2015
Available online 31 January 2015
are more related to topology than geometry.
The proportions of isolated (I), abutting (Y) and crossing (X) nodes provide a basis for describing the
topology that can be easily applied, even with limited access to the network as a whole. Node counting
Keywords:
Fracture
also provides an unbiased estimate of frequency and can be used in conjunction with fracture intensity to
Network estimate the characteristic length and dimensionless intensity of the fractures. The nodes can be used to
Topology classify branches into three types e those with two I-nodes, one I-node and no I-nodes (or two con-
Geometry nected nodes). The average number of connections per branch provides a measure of connectivity that is
almost completely independent of the topology. We briefly discuss the extension of topological concepts
to 3-dimensions.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Networks of discontinuities control many of the physical prop-
erties of rocks and their characterization is important in many areas
of geology. The abundance and arrangement of the discontinuities
may control physical properties, such as stiffness, strength, porosity
and permeability (Adler and Thovert, 1999; others). For the pur-
poses of this paper we will use the term ‘fracture’ to refer to any
type of discontinuity, only referring to different types of ‘fracture’
(joints, faults, deformation bands, stylolite, etc.) where this is
relevant to discussion of the underlying physical process.
A fracture network can be regarded as a system of fractures
developed within the same rock volume. A network may involve a
number of distinct fracture sets, which may or may not intersect.
These generally evolve over time and vary in their spatial distri-
bution (e.g. Adler and Thovert, 1999). The individual fractures can
be described by a range of attributes such as orientation, size, age,
morphology, etc. Many of these attributes are geometrical (length,
angle, etc.) or involve some form of classification (fracture type,
* Corresponding author. Bldg 7, Room 5030, Faculty of Engineering and the
Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
E-mail address: d.j.sanderson@soton.ac.uk (D.J. Sanderson).
mineral fill, etc.). Fracture sets can be characterized by the statis-
tical distribution of these attributes (i.e. averages, ranges, etc.). The
geometry of fractures is established by measurement, and usually
involves the spatial orientation of the fracture surface, together
with some physical dimension, such as trace length, area or volume.
These topics are widely discussed in the literature (e.g. Priest, 1993;
Adler and Thovert, 1999).
In general, fractures will interact with each other and the rock
matrix to control the physics of the rock (e.g. Zimmerman and
Main, 2003). Thus, it is not just the geometry of the fractures that
controls rock properties, but also the relationships between indi-
vidual fractures or fracture sets; a simple example of such a feature
is the connectivity of the fractures. We will use the term ‘topology’
to describe the relationships between these geometrical objects.
Topology has often been used to characterize and describe complex
network structures in the natural, engineering and social sciences
(e.g. Latora and Marchiori, 2002; Ravasz and Barab
asi, 2003;
Boccaletti et al., 2006). In general, topology is an area of mathe-
matics that deals with the abstraction and generalization of spatial
relationships such as connectivity and continuity. Essentially it
refers to properties that are unchanged by continuous trans-
formation (i.e. strains, but not tearing) of the space in which the
objects are embedded. Such transformations change the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2015.01.005
0191-8141/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
geometrical properties (lengths and angles), but not the topology; a
concept familiar in many areas of structural geology. As such, the
description and characterization of topology generally involves
dimensionless parameters (Jing and Stephansson, 1997) that are
invariant to scale changes and continuous transformation.
In this paper, we introduce some simple techniques to charac-
terize the topology of a fracture network. In 2-dimensions this in-
volves recognition that a network comprises a system of branches
and nodes (Fig. 1), which may be used to provide important addi-
tional parameters to characterize the network. We will show that
topology helps in the general characterization of fractures and,
most importantly, allows us to make some estimates of the network
properties, even where there is limited access to the network as a
whole. In this paper we will address the following objectives:
1) To outline simple methods for the topological analysis of frac-
ture networks.
2) To explain how topology links different measures used to
characterize fracture size and abundance;
3) To promote the use of branches, rather than trace lengths, in
analysis of fracture systems;
4) To provide practical guidelines for the determination of fracture
measures, especially in situations where we have limited access
to the network;
5) To identify sources of error and bias in these measures, and
minimize these.
More specifically, topology is fundamental to an understanding
of connectivity of individual fractures within the network.
Although we will touch on this subject, it will be the subject of a
subsequent paper.
2. Network topology
2.1. Basic concepts of lines, nodes and branches
In 3-dimensions, any system of fractures will consist of a
number of finite surfaces or planes that either terminate at tip lines,
or intersect with other planes at intersection (or branch) lines. In 2-
dimensions, the fracture surfaces intersect a surface of inspection
(often an exposure surface or bedding plane) to form a finite line e
the fracture trace (Fig. 1). These fracture traces will either terminate
at tips, or intersect and abut other fracture traces.
In this paper we consider the topology of a 2-D fracture network
to consist of lines, nodes and branches, where each line consists of
one or more branches with a node at each end (Fig. 1). Following
branch
Y line or branch requires 2 nodes, it is implicit in Eqs. (1)e(4) that
A branch
I will be omitted from the analysis of that area. In this way lines are
X
Y further discussion in Sections 3 and 4).
Y
X
I B
node
Y since these will not change with transformation of a given sampling
Fig. 1. Fracture trace (AeB), with associated intersecting fractures (dashed), showing
arrangement of nodes and branches: I-nodes (circles); Y-nodes (triangles); X-nodes
(diamonds).
Manzocchi (2002), we can recognize 3 types of node e isolated tips
(I-nodes); crossing fractures (X-nodes); and abutments or splays (Y-
nodes or T-nodes). In the case of a random array of lines (Fig. 2a),
each line will consist of two I-nodes, with additional intersections
represented by X-nodes. For many ‘natural’ fracture networks,
however, fractures terminate against (or abut) pre-existing frac-
tures, producing many Y-nodes (Fig. 2b). In the case of regular
lattices, a fourth type of node (V in Fig. 2c) exists at which two tips
coincide. This is due to the position of the nodes determining the
lines in such lattices, whereas in continuum percolation (random
lines) and natural examples it is the lines that determine the nodes.
Thus, the probability of a V-node occurring in a natural network is
negligible.
2.2. Node counting
The proportion of I-, Y- and X-nodes can be used to characterize
a fracture network (Manzocchi, 2002; Ma €kel, 2007), and these
proportions may be plotted on a triangular plot (Fig. 3). Such a
classification is topological rather than geometrical as it is un-
changed by any continuous transformation of the network.
Since I- and Y-nodes represent the tip of ONE line, the number of
lines (NL) is given by:
NL ¼ 1=2ðNI þ NY Þ (1)
This is a very useful relationship in counting the number of lines
in a given area, especially where many of the lines extend outside
the sample area, and is equivalent to the tip-counting procedure
advocated by Mauldon (1994) and Rohrbaugh et al. (2002) and is
discussed further in Section 4.
Each branch will have two nodes, with an I-node contributing to
one branch, a Y-node to 3 branches and an X-node to 4 branches.
Hence the number of branches (NB) is
NB ¼ 1=2ðNI þ 3NY þ 4NX Þ (2)
Thus, the ratio of number of branches to lines is
NB =NL ¼ ðNI þ 3NY þ 4NX Þ=ðNI þ NY Þ
¼ ðPI þ 3PY þ 4PX Þ=ðPI þ PY Þ (3)
Where PI, PY and PX represent the proportion of each type of node.
Since PI þ PY þ PX ¼ 1 or PX ¼ 1  PI  PY, Eq. (3) can be written more
simply as:
NB =NL ¼ ð4  3PI  PY Þ=ðPI þ PY Þ (4)
Eqs. (1)e(4) allow us to determine the number of lines or
branches by simply counting the number of nodes. In addition,
these equations also allow us to convert the number of lines to the
equivalent number of branches. Since the definition of a complete
lines and branches that extend beyond the sampled area are
counted as ½ and that those cutting through the area of sampling
only counted a total of once in non-overlapping sample areas (see
Whilst node counting within a finite area is a basic geometrical
descriptor and has dimensions of [L]2, the proportions of nodes,
and measures derived from these, are basic topological descriptors,
space.
Fig. 4a shows how the ratio NB/NL varies with the topology of the
network. A system of isolated fractures will be dominated by I-
nodes and NB/NL / 1, whereas a system of long, closely-spaced,
 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66 57

I I
I Y Y X Y Y
X X
X Y X I
I I
X X
Y Y X V I

I
X I Y Y V
X X I Y V
I
I I

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Network topology defined by the arrangement of lines and nodes: a) random array of lines as generated in stochastic models; b) schematic representation of a fracture
network; c) network generated by random selection of branches on a square grid.

I Deformation band
Fault
Joint
Stochastic line
simulations

Y X
Fig. 3. Triangular plot of the proportion of node types for different networks (after Manzocchi (2002)). Three natural fracture networks (from Sanderson and Zhang (1999)) and two
random line simulations show how the fracture network topology is characterized. The dashed lines show specific numbers of intersections per line (see Fig. 4b), with CL ¼ 2
representing a limit above which a spanning cluster is not possible and CL ¼ 3.57 the value widely reported from random line simulations, see text for details.

cross-cutting fractures will be dominated by X-nodes and NB/NL / poorly connected fracture networks) and 10 (e.g. compare Figs. 3
∞. A system dominated by abutting fracture terminations (Y-nodes) and 4).
will have NB/NL z 3. Natural fracture networks may vary between Another parameter that is easily determined from the node
these extremes, but generally have values between 2 (typical for count is the average number of connections per line (CL). Since a

I I
NB / NL CL 1

2
2

3 3

4 4
5
6
7
8
10 10

20

Y X Y X
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Triangular plots of node proportions. (a) ratio of number of branches to lines (NB/NL) and (b) average number of connections per line (CL), showing how these vary with
network topology.
58 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66

connection must be either a Y- or X-node and each of these will

provide a connection on two lines, we have: a)

CL ¼ 2ðNY þ NX Þ=NL (5a)

CL ¼ 4ðNY þ NX Þ=ðNI þ NY Þ (5b)

CL ¼ 4ðPY þ PX Þ=ðPI þ PY Þ
The number of connections per line (CL) has been widely used as
a measure of connectivity (Balberg and Binenbaum, 1983;
Berkowitz, 1995; Manzocchi, 2002), with CL ¼ 3.57 (Fig. 3) being
the value simulated for percolation of a system of random lines of
fixed length (Balberg et al., 1984). However, CL is not independent of
topology, as can be seen in Fig. 4b, where networks with no isolated
nodes plot along the XeY axis and would be completely connected,
yet have very different values of CL.
b)
(5c)
Fig. 6. Comparison of branch and fracture traces. (a) Shows a trace map of fractures e
it is a matter of interpretation how one relates different parts of the traces to one
another. (b) Shows the same network with the unambiguously identified nodes and
branches.
is NI: (3NY þ 4NX). Thus the probability of the end of any branch
being an isolated (PI) or connected (PC) node is given by:

2.3. Branch classification

Every branch has two nodes that can be used to classify it into
one of 6 types: IeI, IeX, IeY, YeY, YeX, XeX. As nodes can be
grouped into isolated (I) nodes and connecting (C, i.e. X- or Y-
nodes), we can simplify the branches into three main topological
groups: IeI (isolated) branches, IeC (partly connected) branches,
and CeC (doubly connected) branches, as proposed by Ortega and
Marrett (2000) for fracture traces. We use this scheme to plot a
triangular diagram of the proportion of branch types (Fig. 5a).
Networks that plot towards the IeI corner of the triangle have a
high proportion of isolated branches and, hence, a low level of
connectivity. Networks that plot towards the CeC corner of the
triangle have a high proportion of interconnected branches.
From the number of different node types, we can derive an
average number of connections per branch (CB) where:
CB ¼ ð3NY þ 4NX Þ=NB
This gives a dimensionless number in the range 0e2 that is a
useful measure of connectivity. There is not a one-to-one mapping
between the nodal classification and the branch classification
(Fig. 5b) as Eq. (6) is not entirely independent of topology.
Each branch ends at a node, but an I-node produces just one end,
a Y-node produces 3 and an X-node produces 4, giving a total of
(NI þ 3NY þ 4NX) ends. The proportion of isolated to connected ends
PI ¼ NI =ðNI þ 3NY þ 4NX Þ
PC ¼ ð3NY þ 4NX Þ=ðNI þ 3NY þ 4NX Þ
If there is a random assignment of nodes to branches the
probability of each branch type is:
PII ¼ PI2 ; PIC ¼ PI PC ; PCC ¼ PC2
These values plot on the ternary branch diagram (Fig. 5a) as a
single line with increasing values of CB. Any departure from this line
indicates correlations between the node types at opposite ends of a
branch, rather than differences in underlying topology. For
example, fully connected networks of Y and X nodes have the same
connectivity with CB ¼ 2. This reinforces the idea that the number
of connections per branch (CB) is a more useful measure of con-
nectivity than the more widely used measure of connections per
line (CL).
(6)
Fig. 5 shows results from two strike-slip fault networks from
north Devon, UK: network A from Westward Ho! (Nixon et al.,
2011) and network B from off Hartland Point (Nixon et al., 2012).
Note that network A (Westward Ho!) is more connected, with
CB ¼ 1.7, and a high proportion of CeC branches. Network B
(Hartland) is not so well connected, forming only local clusters of
faults, with CB ¼ 1.1, and a dominance of IeC branches (~50%) with
similar proportions of IeI and CeC branches (~25% each).

Fig. 5. (a) Branch classification plot that shows proportions of different branch types with numbers 0 to 2.0 indicating connections per branch (CB). The curve shows results from
random assignment of node types to branches, based on probabilities discussed in text; we would expect samples of branches to cluster around this curve. A and B are examples
from two studies of fault networks from Hartland Point and Westward Ho, respectively. (b) Values of number of connections per branch (CB) on the triangular plot showing
proportions of different nodes, together with corresponding node proportions for networks A and B.
 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
2.4. Why use branches rather than fracture traces?
There are at least three practical problems routinely encoun-
tered when characterizing fracture networks in terms of trace
length.
2.4.1. Non-uniqueness of fracture traces
In a network of interconnected fractures, it is often difficult to
recognize a unique fracture trace that connects two terminating
nodes (either I-type or Y-type), particularly where there is splaying
or branching of fractures (Fig. 6a). On the contrary two adjacent
nodes of any type are always connected by a uniquely identifiable
branch (Fig. 6b), hence, it is much easier to identify fracture
branches than entire fracture traces, and this can nearly always be
done in a consistent and reproducible manner.
2.4.2. Censoring
In exposures of finite size, many fractures extend beyond the
sampling area (Fig. 6a). This is particularly common when exam-
ining data from wells or boreholes. In such cases, the frequency and
length of fractures will be subject to a sampling bias, generally
referred to as censoring. A detailed discussion of this problem may
be found in many engineering geology publications (e.g. Priest,
1993; Pickering et al. 1995; Riley, 2005). By definition, the length
of a branch is less than or equal to that of an entire trace, hence the
degree of censoring of the branch lengths will be less than for trace
lengths (Fig. 6b). Corrections exist for this censoring effect in the
case of negative exponential and log normal distributions (Priest,
1993), but not for power-laws. Thus, correcting the length of frac-
ture branches is a more tractable procedure but one we will not
explore here.
2.4.3. Branch distributions
Commonly, fracture trace lengths have been shown to exhibit
power-law (e.g. Bour and Davy, 1999; Clark et al., 1999) or negative
exponential (Priest and Hudson, 1981) distributions, both of which
are difficult to characterize in regions of limited exposure and/or
where small fractures may not be consistently sampled (or not
sampled at all). In most fracture systems the longer traces will have
the greater number of connected fractures (CL) and, hence, be
Lognormal
3.0 100.0
2.0 %N
SD
H
1.0 W 10.0
0.0
-1.0 1.0
-2.0
-3.0 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000 0 1000
Length (m)
(a)
Fig. 7. Plots of branch lengths (continuous lines) and trace lengths (dashed lines) of faults from Westward Ho! (W) and off Hartland Point (H). (a) Standard deviation plotted against
log (length) with straight line indicating log normal distribution; note good fit for branches, deviation for longer trace lengths. (b) Log (cumulative percentage) plotted against
length, with straight line indicating negative exponential distribution. (c) Log (cumulative percentage) plotted against log (length) with straight line indicating power-law
distribution.
59
divided into a larger number of branches. This results in the
branches having a narrower range of lengths, the distributions of
which generally conform to a negative exponential or log normal
(occasionally normal) distribution. These distributions are less
affected by restricted sample ranges and hence their means
(characteristic lengths) are more easily determined. Fig. 7 shows
some plots of cumulative percentages of branches (continuous
lines) and traces (dashed lines) lengths of faults from an extensive
sub-marine platform of Hartland Point (Nixon et al., 2012) and a
more restricted coastal platform from Westward Ho! (Nixon et al.,
2011). These data support the idea that branch lengths conform
best to a log normal or negative exponential distribution (Fig. 7 a,
b), whereas fault traces conform better to power-law distributions,
although the traces from Westward Ho! are still best represented
by a log normal distribution, probably due to the censoring of their
lengths (Pickering et al., 1995).
2.5. Why is topology important?
Two fracture systems could contain the same geometrical ele-
ments, defined in terms of the orientation and trace length, but
have very different topologies. Fig. 8 illustrates a simple example of
this. Network A contains two sets of fractures at a high angle to one
another and arranged with dominantly abutting contacts, as is
typical of a system of master and cross-joints (e.g. Gross, 1993). We
can take the same geometrical elements and place them more
randomly to form network B. The two networks have the same
geometry, as defined by their number, orientation and mean
length; they thus have the same fracture intensity and character-
istic length, and, hence, the same dimensionless intensity. Clearly
network A, with a well-developed spanning cluster of fractures, is
much more highly connected than network B. If the fractures were
conductive, network A would be expected to have a much greater
permeability that B. This illustrates that it is important to include
topology in the characterization of a network.
Another way of looking at this example is that one may have
characterized the geometry of the fractures in terms of their ori-
entations, lengths, fracture intensity, etc., but that this information
is not sufficient to produce a sensible model of the fractures.
Network B could be viewed as a stochastic model of the input
-ve Exponential Powerlaw
100.0
%N
10.0
W
H H
1.0
W
0.1
2000 3000 1 10 100 1000 10000
Length (m) Length (m)
(b) (c)
60 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66

A - cross-joint network B - stochastic network

I

Y X
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Comparison of two fracture networks with the same geometry of individual fractures in terms of number, orientation and lengths of the individual factures, but different
topology. Trace-map (a) shows the fractures arranged in a system of cross-joints, (b) has a random (stochastic) placement of the same elements. Nodes are identified as in Figs. 1 and
2. (c) Shows the topology based on the proportions of nodes in (a) and (b).

geometry derived from A, and this sort of realization is easily coded Dimension of Feature
in discrete fracture network models. Clearly such stochastic
0 1 2 3
modelling will fail to capture the topology of the network and,
number length area volume
hence, may fail to model the underlying physical properties of the
system.
P10 P11
Dimension of Sampling Region

line
1
1-D frequency = Dimensionless
3. Measures of fracture abundance and size fracture intensity intensity

In this section, we focus on developing a simple scheme for the

topologically based analysis of fracture networks. The approach P20 P21 P22
area
2

emphasises the use of node counting in the evaluation of the Fracture Dimensionless
2-D
abundance of branches and indicates where some established pa- frequency intensity intensity
rameters need to be interpreted in terms of the topology.
P30 P32 P33
Volume
3

3.1. The Pxy system

3-D Fracture Dimensionless
frequency intensity intensity
Fractures can be sampled in 1-dimension (scan-lines, bore-
holes), 2-dimensions (maps, surface exposures) or 3-dimensions
Fig. 9. Pxy system and terms used for these in this paper. The columns show the di-
(rock volumes). Information on the fractures may simply be their mensions of the features measured; the rows represent the dimension of the sampling
number (or frequency), trace length or surface area. This range of region. The dimensionless intensity is obtained by multiplying the fracture intensity in
information and sampling space has given rise to a wide range of each row by the characteristic fracture length. For further discussion see text.
methodology and associated terms being used to describe fracture
abundance. Much of the methodology was rationalized by
The term fracture intensity is used to express the total trace
Dershowitz and Einstein (1988), and Dershowitz and Herda (1992),
length per unit area, as originally suggested by Dershowitz and
who define a number of measures of fracture abundance by Pxy,
Einstein (1988), see also Rohrbaugh et al. (2002). In this usage
where x denotes the dimension of the sampling region and y the
fracture intensity has dimensions [L1], and the concept is
dimension of the feature being measured (Fig. 9). There is, however,
extended to 1- and 3-dimensions for measures with the same di-
still a lot of inconsistency in the terms applied to these different
mensions (Fig. 9). Note that this term is often referred to as fracture
measures.
density in the geological literature (e.g. Nixon et al., 2012). Spacing
Frequency is used for any sample of the number of fractures (NL),
may be regarded as the inverse of intensity and has an unambig-
and can be normalized by the line length (L), sample area (A) or
uous meaning for fracture networks when expressed in this way.
volume (V) to define:
Spacing as a measure of the distance between fractures only has
h i meaning for a single set of sub-parallel fractures and as such has no
Linear frequency : FL ¼ P10 ¼ NL =L has dimensions L1
clear meaning for random or multiple sets of fractures.
A third term, dimensionless intensity, is reserved for measures
h i
Areal frequency : FA ¼ P20 ¼ NL =A has dimensions L2 that are dimensionless [L0]. Because of the common usage of in-
tensity (as defined above), we will always refer to these dimen-
sionless measures as dimensionless intensity.
Volumetric frequency : FV ¼ P30 In this paper we do not attempt to discuss or justify this ter-
h i minology, but simply seek to adopt a consistent use of three terms
¼ NL =V has dimensions L3
(frequency, intensity and dimensionless intensity) to describe quite
specific aspects of fracture abundance. The term density has been
This follows the original usage of frequency defined by
used by different communities, and at different times, for all three
Dershowitz and Herda (1992) and has been widely applied (e.g.
of these measures, and to avoid this confusion we propose that the
Priest, 1993), but subsequently referred to as fracture density (e.g.
term density be abandoned.
Mauldon, 1994; Rohrbaugh et al., 2002).
 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66 61

Thus in 2-D areas, there are 3 possible measures of fracture the scan-line one obtains the Linear Frequency, which in 1-D is the
abundance: same as the Fracture Intensity (Fig. 9). However, to study fracture
h i networks requires 2- or 3-dimensional sampling. As 3-dimensional
Aerial Frequency P20 ¼ NL =A dimension L2 (7) rock volumes are difficult, often impossible, to sample completely,
much of our characterization and interpretation of fracture net-
h i works depends on 2-dimensional samples, usually in the form of
Fracture intensity P21 ¼ SL=A ¼ NL LC =A dimension L1 trace maps, image logs of well surfaces or slabs from core. The
orientation of the sample plane with respect to the fractures is
(8)
important and needs to be considered carefully in the experimental
. h i design and interpretation of the data (see Section 3.3 and 4). In
Dimensionless intensity P22 ¼ NL L2C A ¼ P21 $LC dimension L0 some cases a 2-dimensional approach may be justified, for example
sampling on bedding planes where fractures are orthogonal to
(9)
bedding, or using dip-sections to sample steeply inclined faults and
fractures with similar strike.
where LC is the characteristic length (LC), and is most simply defined
as the arithmetic mean of the line lengths, hence:
3.2. Parameters for fracture branches
LC ¼ SL=NL (10)
These definitions are interrelated, with values changing by a The parameters P20, P21 and P22 (as defined in the previous
factor of LC as one moves from left to right through each column in section) are all based on determining the number and length of
Fig. 9. It is possible to use aperture rather than LC to form a individual fracture traces. As discussed in Section 2.4, trace lengths
dimensionless intensity, which is essentially equivalent to porosity. are often difficult to measure and subject to bias. For these reasons
Whilst this may have useful applications in fracture characteriza- the concepts of branch length and branch number are introduced
tion, its use in the analysis of topology becomes meaningless. and defined in terms of the network nodes.
In practice, the simplest way to determine P22 and LC is to Branch length (B) is the length between two adjacent nodes that
determine the aerial frequency (P20) and fracture intensity (P21) and are linked by a fracture. Branch number (NB) is the number of such
from Eqs. 7e10, above: branches. The characteristic branch length (BC) is the average branch
length and is best estimated as SLB/NB.
P22 ¼ ðP21 Þ2 =P20 (11) The parameters P20, P21, P22 for lines (above) can be replaced by
their corresponding ‘branch’ values:
and h i
Frequency B20 ¼ NB =A dimension L2 (18)
LC ¼ P21 =P20 ¼ P22 =P21 (12)
h i
In 3-dimensions, there are 3 widely used measures of fracture Intensity B21 ¼ SLB =A ¼ NB BC =A dimension L1 (19)
abundance:
h i . h i
Volumetric Frequency P30 ¼ NL =V dimension L3 (13) Dimensionless intensity B22 ¼ NB B2C A dimension L0

. h i (20)
1
Fracture intensity P32 ¼ SAi =V ¼ NL L2C V dimension L For any network, the sum of the branch lengths and line lengths
(14) are the same. Hence, length and branch determinations of intensity

. h i
Dimensionless intensity P33 ¼ NL L3C V dimension L0
(15)

where LC is a characteristic line length and Ai is the area of indi-

vidual fracture surfaces.
The dimensionless intensity (P33) is related to the fracture in-
tensity (P32) by

P33 ¼ P32 $LC ¼ P31 $L2C ¼ P30 $L3C (15)

Hence:

LC ¼ ðP32 =P30 Þ1=2 (16)

and
.
1=2
P33 ¼ ðP32 Þ3=2 P30 (17)

Fracture attributes can also be sampled in 1-dimension along

scan-lines and this provides the basis for data collection in many Fig. 10. Geometry for the Terzaghi correction in a well or borehole (a) and on a map
applications, particularly in engineering geology and well logging. surface (b). q is the angle between the normal to the fracture and the axis of the sample
By counting the number of fractures and dividing by the length of line or borehole.
62 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66

are the same (i.e. B21 ¼ P21), but the frequency and dimensionless
intensity are different and given by:
. dimensional samples should then be equivalent to the 3-
B22 ¼ ðB21 Þ2 B20
and
BC ¼ B21 =B20
3.3. Determination of fracture intensity
The parameter most easily and uniquely defined from field
measurement of a fracture network is the fracture intensity, with
dimensions [L1]. This is usually determined from the number of
fractures intersecting a line traverse (a form of node counting) or
measurement of the total line length within a trace map area. In
both cases, the raw measurements of intensity are biased by the
orientation of the fractures relative to the sample line or plane. A
correction procedure, following Terzaghi (1965), should be adopted
as illustrated in Fig. 10. The corrected fracture intensity provides an
unbiased estimate of abundance and values determined from 1-, 2-
(21) dimensional intensity (P32) as discussed in Section 4.
The probability of encountering a fracture is proportional to the
apparent spacing (S0 ) along a scan-line. This can be related to the
true spacing (S), since S0 ¼ S/cosq (Fig. 10), where q is the angle
(22) between the pole to the fracture and the scan-line. Orientation bias
is corrected by weighting each fracture by the factor 1/cosq, and has
been used widely in engineering geology, especially in the esti-
mation of fracture intensity and spacing. This correction is easily
implemented in 3-dimensions as it is simply the scalar (or dot)
product of two unit vectors, cos q ¼ n.a, where n is normal to the
fracture and a parallel to the well axis.
The Terzaghi correction is often applied to fracture data from
wellbores, usually by assuming that the fractures completely
intersect the cylindrical volume of the core or wellbore. This is only
valid where the fracture is large in relation to the well diameter and
breaks down for small fractures and those sub-parallel to the
wellbore axis. This is important for power-law size distributions,

Fig. 11. Example of fracture traces in relation to a circular sample area of diameter 1 unit. (a) Full extent of fractures intersecting the circle; (b) trace length of fractures inside circle;
(c) intersections of fracture traces with circumference of circle; (d) basis of correction factor for a set of equally-spaced parallel lines; (e) barycentres of fracture traces; (f) tips of
fractures within circle.
 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
particularly with high scaling exponents and, hence high pro-
portions of small fractures. These effects have been analysed by
Davy et al. (2006), who derive a more sophisticated correction
procedure.
Trace lengths from planar maps can also be corrected in a
similar way by using the angle (q) between the normal to the
fracture and sampling plane. For a horizontal map, where d is the
dip of the fracture, the correction is 1/sind, since q ¼ 90  d.
A useful strategy, that also illustrates the value of node counting,
is to use circular scan-lines for trace maps (Mauldon, 1994;
Mauldon et al., 2001; Rohrbaugh et al., 2002, Fig. 11). A circle can
be considered as representing a line that has all orientations
equally represented (in 2-dimensions) and, hence, the potential to
provide less biased samples than straight lines. The procedure is to
count NE, the number of intersections of fractures with a circle of
diameter D (Fig. 11c). The intensity (P10) is then calculated as
P10 ¼ ðNE =circumferenceÞ$p=2
Since the circumference ¼ p D, Eq. (24) simplifies to
P10 ¼ 1=2ðNE =DÞ
The factor p/2 in Eq. (23), represents an average correction
derived as follows (Fig. 11d). Consider equally-spaced lines parallel
to x-axis that are sampled along a circular scan-line of radius r ¼ D/
2. The number of lines intersected (NE) is given by:
NE ¼ 4r=s ¼ 2D=s
0 ) is
where s is true spacing. The apparent intensity (P10
0
P10 ¼ NE =circumference ¼ ð4r=sÞ=ð2prÞ ¼ 1=s$2=p ¼ P10 $2=p
Hence P10 ¼ P100 . p/2, where p/2 is the factor in Eq. (23), and this
leads to Eq. (25). Mauldon et al. (2001) give a more rigorous proof
and show that Eq. (24) gives an unbiased estimate of intensity.
3.4. Determination of frequency, branch length and dimensionless
intensity
As defined in this paper, the frequency, intensity and dimen-
sionless intensity are related to one another by the characteristic
length, either through the trace length (Eqs. (7)e(18)) or the branch
length (Eqs. (18)e(22)). One way to determine frequency and
dimensionless intensity would be to determine the characteristic
trace length (LC) or branch length (BC). This is often impractical due
to the effects of censoring, although BC than LC.
An alternative is to try to produce an unbiased estimate of fre-
quency and then to use this, together with the intensity (B21 ¼ P21),
to calculate the remaining parameters. Since the branch parameters
are determined by the nodes (as in Section 2), it follows that the
number of lines (NL) and branches (NB) can be evaluated in terms of
the number (NI, NY, NX) of different node types.
Consider the situation of some fractures in a circular sample area
(Fig. 11a) of diameter D ¼ 1, hence area A ¼ p/4. There are 12 frac-
tures within the circle, although many of these pass out of it
(Fig. 11a). If we use NL ¼ 12, the frequency will be overestimated. The
total line length within the circle can be determined unambiguously
as SL z 4.8 (Fig. 11b), hence, the fracture intensity P21 ¼ 4.8/(p/
4) ¼ 6.1. We could also estimate this from the intersections with the
circumference of the circle (Fig. 11c, as in Section 3.3).
Fig. 11e shows the centres of the traces and there are 8 within
the circle. Hence the true value of NL ¼ 8, and this is the value that
should be used to calculate the frequency (P20 ¼ 8/A z 10.2). In this
case, counting lines that leave the circle produces a 50%
63
overestimate of the frequency and such overestimates are a com-
mon feature of “trace counting”. The problem is that if the circle
represented the physical bounds of our sample (say a core or well
image), we would not be able to locate the centres and determine
the correct frequency. One solution is to count the number of
fracture tips (i.e. I- and Y enodes; Fig. 11f) within the circle
(NT ¼ 15) and from this we can use NL ¼ ½ NT (as in Eq. (1)) to
estimate the probable number of fractures (Mauldon et al., 2001;
Rohrbaugh et al., 2002). Using NT ¼ 15, gives NL ¼ 7.5, which
agrees well with the observed 8 centres.
Using SL ¼ 4.8, this gives an estimate of the characteristic trace
length LC ¼ 4.8/7.5 ¼ 0.64, which looks reasonable from Fig. 11a. In
general, this strategy works well if LC is less than the minimum
distance across the sample area (for equant shaped areas this is
zA½). Having estimated the intensity and characteristic length, we
are now in a position to determine the dimensionless intensity
from Eq. (9), giving P22 ¼ P21*LC z 3.9.
(23)
4. Discussion e application to well data
(24) In this section we outline how topology-based characterization
can be applied to core and image data from wells and boreholes. For
some fracture attributes, such as orientation and thickness (aper-
ture) it is relatively easy to produce estimates from core or image
logs, for others, such as size and connectivity, it is extremely diffi-
cult, especially where the length-scale of the fractures is much
(25) greater than the diameter of the well. Some procedures exist that
allow estimation of the length-scale of fractures based on the
relative frequency of complete fracture traces, average inclination
to well axis and well diameter (Ozkaya, 2003). In all cases we also
need to consider the bias introduced by the orientation of the well.
4.1. Abundance and orientation measures in a well
A well or borehole provides a range of sampling opportunities
(Fig. 12):
a) 1-dimensional samples treat the well as a line that intersects
fractures within the rock volume (Fig. 12a). By counting the
number of fractures (N) and dividing by line length (L) we
determine the 1-dimensional intensity (P10). If we can deter-
mine the orientation of the fractures relative to the well axis (q)
we may apply the Terzaghi correction, hence P10 ¼ N/(L cosq).
b) 2-dimensional samples examine surfaces within the well, e.g.
the wall of the wellbore, or the outer surface or slabbed section
of a core. Fig. 12b shows the situation for a slabbed core where
we are able to measure the trace length (T ¼ D/cosq) and
determine P21 ¼ N/(L cosq). Note that the value of P21 ¼ P10 if the
Terzaghi corrections are applied.
c) 3-dimensional samples, where we have the opportunity to
extract information about surface areas and volumes (i.e. mea-
sure P32, P30 directly). The recent use of techniques like CT-
scanning has opened up new observational possibilities of this
type. From Fig. 12c, fracture area ¼ N (1/4 p T D) and the volume
of the cylinder ¼ 1/4 p D2. Since T ¼ D/cosq, P32 ¼ N/(L cosq), as in
the 1- and 2- dimensional analysis.
Thus, the Terzaghi correction produces robust measures of
fracture intensity that are not dependent on the dimensionality of
the sampling space. In Fig. 12, only planes (fractures) that cut across
the cylindrical volume of the well or core are considered and we
can obtain geometrical information on intensity and orientation.
The measures that are usually missing are those of fracture fre-
quency and characteristic length.
64 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
Fig. 12. Comparison of relationships between intensity estimates in 1-, 2- and 3-dimensions from a well-bore.
4.2. Topology from a well
Access to surfaces and volumes allows us to see more of the
relationships between fractures, and hence to access their topology.
Obviously if the length scale of the fractures is much greater than
the diameter of the well this is still a very limited view. Intersection
of a fault network by a few wells, provides information on the in-
dividual faults but little insight into the nature of the fault network
as a whole. There are, however, many situations where wells
intersect fracture systems on a scale where it is possible to make
some observations on the nature of the branches and nodes.
Fig. 13 shows a hypothetical example of an interpreted image log
with 5 fractures, belonging to two orientation sets e one dipping
steeply ENE the other gently to the SSW. Three of the fractures cut
entirely across the well (B, C, D), one tips in the well (E) and the
other (A) abuts against fracture B. Fracture C cross-cuts both B and
D. Thus there are four nodes (one I-node, one Y-node and two X-
nodes). The resulting topology plots in the lower-right part of the
IYX triangle. The axis of the well intersects all 5 fractures, producing
an uncorrected estimate of P10 ¼ 5 m1. Application of the Terzaghi
correction gives an estimate of fracture intensity P32 z 7 m1,
which can be confirmed by measuring the areas of the ellipses and
part-ellipses in Fig. 12c. If required one could apply the Terzaghi
correction to the orientation data to improve estimates of
orientation.
Counting the nodes and tips (as in Section 2) produces estimates
of the number of fractures as 1 and number of branches as 6. These
can then be used to estimate the characteristic line and branch
lengths (LC ¼ 1.4 m and BC ¼ 0.23 m). These values make sense since
only two of the 5 fractures have tips in the well volume whereas
there are 4 intersections, suggesting branch lengths on the order of
the well diameter (0.2 m). This illustrates how the branch/node
topology can be utilized to extract more information on the fracture
network. The topology itself suggests that the network may well be
connected since there is a dominance of X and Y nodes, but further
analysis is needed to confirm this.
5. Conclusions
Fracture networks consist of a system of fractures developed
within the same rock volume. In two-dimensions, a system of
branches and nodes can be used to define both the length and
orientation of the fractures e two essential features of their ge-
ometry. Branch lengths are preferred to trace lengths as they can be
more uniquely defined, have less censoring and are more clustered
around a mean value. It is relatively easy to convert branch mea-
sures into trace lengths as the topology defines the ratio of the
number of branches to lines.
Topology essentially describes the relationship between frac-
tures in a network. It has two main impacts on fracture charac-
terization. Firstly, node counting and branch analysis can help
determine the orientation, frequency and intensity of fractures.
Secondly, the proportions of different types of nodes provide a basis
 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
Fig. 13. An example of the extraction of topology from an image log. (a) Interpreted image log showing extracted nodes and branches; (b) 3-D reconstruction of fractures; (c) equal-
area stereogram showing 2 fracture sets; (d) classification of nodal topology.
for describing the topology that can be easily applied even with
limited access to the network as a whole.
Plots of the proportions of I-, Y- and X-nodes provide a simple
summary of some aspects of the topology and are useful in dis-
tinguishing different networks. The plot describes topology rather
than geometry since it is unchanged by any continuous trans-
formation of the network. The nodes can be used to classify
branches into three types e IeI, IeC and CeC branches. Again this
provides a useful classification of network topology, but the main
value may be that the average number of connections per branch
(CB) appears to provide a measure of connectivity that is almost
completely independent of the topology, although this needs to be
examined further.
Node counting provides an unbiased estimate of frequency and
can be used in conjunction with fracture intensity to estimate the
characteristic length and dimensionless intensity of the fractures.
The latter provides a measure of fracture development that is in-
dependent of scale and has many practical applications. The frac-
ture intensity (number of fracture intersections per unit length, line
length per unit area, surface area per unit volume) is the most
fundamental measure of fracture abundance and has units of [L]1.
Raw measurements can easily be corrected to provide an unbiased
estimate and such estimates are equivalent for sampling in
different dimensions.
Determining both the geometry and topology of fractures allows
us to improve the characterization of fracture networks, both in
terms of the efficiency of the methodology and the range of derived
parameters. Conversely, in the modelling of fractures it is important
to honour both the geometry and topology of the network, with
65
topology being essential to the interpretation of characteristics
such as connectivity. In this paper we emphasise the practicality of
capturing aspects of topology, even in cases, such as in a well or
borehole, where it is not possible to image the network as a whole.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Tom Manzocchi, Jon Bull, Tom Blen-
kinsop, Steve Dee and Robert Humphreys for discussion of various
aspects of this work. C.W. Nixon acknowledges financial support
from NERC Case studentship (NE/H524922/1) with BP. We are
grateful for reviews by Tom Blenkinsop and David Healy that hel-
ped clarify parts of the paper.
References
Adler, P.M., Thovert, J.F., 1999. Fractures and Fracture Networks. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Balberg, I., Binenbaum, N., 1983. Computer study of the percolation threshold in a
two-dimensional anisotropic system of conducting sticks. Phys. Rev. B 28,
3799e3812.
Balberg, I., Anderson, C.H., Alexander, S., Wagner, N., 1984. Excluded volume and its
relation to the onset of percolation. Phys. Rev. B 30, 3933e3943.
Berkowitz, B., 1995. Analysis of fracture network connectivity using percolation
theory. Math. Geol. 27, 467e483.
Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., Hwang, D., 2006. Complex net-
works: structure and dynamics. Phys. rep. 424, 175e308.
Bour, O., Davy, P., 1999. Clustering and size distributions of fault patterns: theory
and measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 2001e2004.
Clark, R.M., Cox, S.J.D., Laslett, G.M., 1999. Generalizations of power law distribu-
tions applicable to sampled fault-trace lengths: model choice, parameter esti-
mation and caveats. Geophys. J. Int. 136, 357e372.
66 D.J. Sanderson, C.W. Nixon / Journal of Structural Geology 72 (2015) 55e66
Davy, P., Darcel, C., Bour, O., Munier, R., de Dreuzy, J.R., 2006. A note on the angular
correction applied to fracture intensity profiles along drill core. J. Geophys. Res.
111, B11408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004121.
Dershowitz, W.S., Herda, H.H., 1992. Interpretation of fracture spacing and intensity.
In: Tillerson, J.R., Wawersik, W.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd U.S. Sympo-
sium on Rock Mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, Sante Fe, New Mexico,
pp. 757e766.
Dershowitz, W.S., Einstein, H.H., 1988. Characterizing rock joint geometry with joint
system models. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1, 1e51.
Gross, M.R., 1993. The origin and spacing of cross joints - examples from the
Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara coastline, California. J. Struct. Geol. 15,
737e751.
Jing, L., Stephansson, O., 1997. Network topology and homogenization of fractured
rocks. In: Jamtveit, B., Yardley, B.W. (Eds.), Fluid Flow and Transport in Rocks.
Mechanisms and Effects. Chapman & Hall, Oxford, pp. 191e202.
Latora, V., Marchiori, M., 2002. Is the Boston subway a small-world network? Phys.
A Stat. Mech. Appl. 314, 109e113.
Ma €kel, G.H., 2007. The modelling of fractured reservoirs: constraints and potential
for fracture network geometry and hydraulics analysis. Geol. Soc. Lond. 292,
375e403. Special Publications.
Manzocchi, T., 2002. The connectivity of two dimensional networks of spatially
correlated fractures. Water Resour. Res. 38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2000WR000180.
Mauldon, M., 1994. Intersection probabilities of impersistent joints. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 31, 107e115.
Mauldon, M., Dunne, W.M., Rohrbaugh, M.B., 2001. Circular scanlines and circular
windows: new tools for characterizing the geometry of fracture traces. J. Struct.
Geol. 23, 247e258.
Nixon, C.W., Sanderson, D.J., Bull, J.M., 2011. Deformation within a strike-slip fault
network at Westward Ho!, Devon U.K.: domino vs conjugate faulting. J. Struct.
Geol. 33, 833e843.
Nixon, C.W., Sanderson, D.J., Bull, J.M., 2012. Analysis of a strike-slip fault network
using high resolution multibeam bathymetry, offshore NW Devon U.K. Tecto-
nophysics 541e543, 69e80.
Ortega, O., Marrett, R., 2000. Prediction of macrofracture properties using micro-
fracture information, Mesaverde Group sandstones, San Juan basin, New
Mexico. J. Struct. Geol. 22, 571e588.
Ozkaya, S.I., 2003. Fracture length estimation from borehole image logs. Math. Geol.
35, 737e753.
Pickering, G., Bull, J.M., Sanderson, D.J., 1995. Sampling power-law distributions.
Tectonophysics 248, 1e20.
Priest, S.D., 1993. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering. Chapman & Hall,
New York, p. 473.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1981. Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace length
using scanline surveys. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 18, 183e197.
Ravasz, E., Baraba
si, A.-L., 2003. Hierarchical organization in complex networks.
Phys. Rev. E 67, 1e7.
Riley, M.S., 2005. Fracture trace length and number distributions from fracture
mapping. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B08414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003164.
Rohrbaugh, M.B., Dunne, W.M., Mauldon, M., 2002. Estimating fracture trace in-
tensity, density, and mean length using circular scan lines and windows. Bull.
Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 86, 2087e2102.
Sanderson, D.J., Zhang, X., 1999. Critical stress localization of flow associated with
deformation of well-fractured rock masses, with implications for mineral de-
posits. In: McCaffrey, K., Lonergan, L., Wilkinson, J.J. (Eds.), Fractures, Fluid Flow
and Mineralisation, Geological Society Special Publication, vol. 155, pp. 69e81.
Terzaghi, R.D. Sources of error in joint surveys, Geotechnique 15, 287e304.
Zimmerman, R., Main, I., 2003. Hydromechanical behavior of fractured rocks. In:
Gueguen, Y., Bouteca, M. (Eds.), Mechanics of Fluid Saturated Rocks, Interna-
tional Geophysics Series, vol. 89, pp. 361e419.