2007
DOI: 10.1029/2006jb004670
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Percolation conditions in fractured hard rocks: A numerical approach using the three‐dimensional binary fractal fracture network (3D‐BFFN) model

Abstract: [1] We numerically investigate fracture connectivity and percolation conditions in fractured hard rocks using a three-dimensional binary fractal fracture network (3D-BFFN) model based on three fractal geometric parameters: the fractal dimensions (D 2 ) of the spatial distribution of fractures, the exponent of the power-law cumulative fracture length distribution (a), and the maximum fracture length (l max ) normalized by the domain length (L), l max /L. Numerical results clarify that the percolation threshold … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, many models have been developed with modified marked processes, especially for modelling different fracture shapes: the enhanced Baecher model [58] shown in Figure 1g (fractures can clip each other); the Baecher algorithm revised terminations (BART) model [33,41] shown in Figure 1h (fractures may have random sizes and shapes); the Poisson rectangle model [33] shown in Figure 1i (fractures are set as rectangles); and the random polygon model [21,46] shown in Figure 1j (fractures are set as random polygons). Models have also been developed with different point processes: the nearest neighbour model [33,34] shown in Figure 1k (this uses non-stationary Poisson point processes, see [21]); the war zone model [34] shown in Figure 1l; the Levy-Lee fractal model [33,41] shown in Figure 1m; the parent-daughter model [21,59] shown in Figure 1n; the binary fractal fracture network (BFFN) model [60,61] shown in Figure 1o; the non-planar zone model shown in Figure 1p; and the density-controlled DFN model shown in Figure 1q (which uses both a densitycontrolled Poisson point process and the random polygon models). In addition, some models have replaced the MPP by other methods: the GEOFRAC model shown in Figure 1r, which is based on Poisson line (2D) or Poisson plane (3D) processes (an improvement on the Veneziano model).…”
Section: Modelling Of Fracture Network In Rock Massesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, many models have been developed with modified marked processes, especially for modelling different fracture shapes: the enhanced Baecher model [58] shown in Figure 1g (fractures can clip each other); the Baecher algorithm revised terminations (BART) model [33,41] shown in Figure 1h (fractures may have random sizes and shapes); the Poisson rectangle model [33] shown in Figure 1i (fractures are set as rectangles); and the random polygon model [21,46] shown in Figure 1j (fractures are set as random polygons). Models have also been developed with different point processes: the nearest neighbour model [33,34] shown in Figure 1k (this uses non-stationary Poisson point processes, see [21]); the war zone model [34] shown in Figure 1l; the Levy-Lee fractal model [33,41] shown in Figure 1m; the parent-daughter model [21,59] shown in Figure 1n; the binary fractal fracture network (BFFN) model [60,61] shown in Figure 1o; the non-planar zone model shown in Figure 1p; and the density-controlled DFN model shown in Figure 1q (which uses both a densitycontrolled Poisson point process and the random polygon models). In addition, some models have replaced the MPP by other methods: the GEOFRAC model shown in Figure 1r, which is based on Poisson line (2D) or Poisson plane (3D) processes (an improvement on the Veneziano model).…”
Section: Modelling Of Fracture Network In Rock Massesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two DFN metrics are worth being mentioned (Maillot et al, ): the total fracture surface per unit volume (often named p 32 Dershowitz & Herda, ), which controls permeability of dense networks (Kirkpatrick, ; Oda, ), and the percolation parameter p , which controls the network connectivity (Bour & Davy, , ; de Dreuzy et al, ; Nakaya & Nakamura, ): p32=π4Vθll2n(),lθnormaldlnormaldθ0.5emp=π28normalVθll3n(),lθnormaldlnormaldθ …”
Section: Relationship Between Fracture Network Densities and Elastic mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two DFN metrics are worth being mentioned [Maillot et al, 2016]: the total fracture surface per unit volume (often named 32 [Dershowitz and Herda, 1992]), which controls permeability of dense networks [Kirkpatrick, 1973;Oda, 1985] and the percolation parameter , which controls the network connectivity [Bour and Davy, 1997;de Dreuzy et al, 2000;Nakaya and Nakamura, 2007]:…”
Section: Relationship Between Fracture Network Densities and Elastic mentioning
confidence: 99%