Effect of Shear Stress and Displacement on the Hydraulic Properties of a Marble Fracture with Sand

Abstract:

A test apparatus was developed to study shear-flow coupling properties for a marble fracture with sand. Experimental tests include shear stress-flow coupling process and shear displacement-flow coupling process. The shear stress-flow coupling test results, revealed that mechanical aperture keeps constant during shear, and that hydraulic aperture and conductivity decrease almost linearly with increasing shear stress. The shear displacement-flow coupling test results showed that hydraulic behavior under shear displacement includes two phases. During the first about 0.05mm shear displacement, hydraulic aperture and conductivity decrease with increasing shear displacement, and mechanical aperture remains constant or increases only by several microns of magnitude. After shear displacement is up to about 0.05mm, the fracture dilates remarkably, and hydraulic aperture and conductivity increase with shear displacement increasing.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 306-308)
• Pages: 1503-1508
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.306-308.1503
• Online since: March 2006
• Authors: Cai Hua Liu, Cong Xin Chen, Xia Ting Feng
• Keywords: Hydraulic Properties, Rock Fracture, Shear Displacement, Shear Stress

References

[1] Snow D T. Rock fracture spaces, openings and porosities. J Soil Mech. 1968: 94(SM1): 73-91.

DOI: 10.1061/jsfeaq.0001097

[2] Louis C. A study of groundwater flow in jointed rock and its influence on the stability of rock masses. Ph.D. thesis. University of Karlsruhe. French. (1968).

[3] Jones F O. A laboratory study of the effects of confining pressure on fracture flow and storage capacity in carbonate rocks. J Petrol technol. 1975: 21(1): 151-195.

DOI: 10.2118/4569-pa

[4] Iwai K. Fundamental studies of fluid flow through a single fracture. Ph.D. thesis. University of California. Berkeley. 1976. 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear di spl acement ( μ m) Hydraul i c conduct i vi t y(cm/ sec) 0. 114MPa 0. 214MPa 0. 314MPa 0. 414MPa 0. 514MPa 1. 16 1. 21 1. 26 1. 31 1. 36 0 200 400 600 Shear di spl acement ( μ m) Hydr aul i c conduct i vi t y( cm/ sec) 0. 114MPa 0. 214MPa 0. 314MPa 0. 414MPa 0. 514MPa 0. 88 0. 93 0. 98 1. 03 1. 08 0 200 400 600 800 Shear di spl acement ( μ m) Hydraul i c apert ur e(mm) 0. 114MPa 0. 214MPa 0. 314MPa 0. 414MPa 0. 514MPa (a) (b) (c) Fig7. Curves between hydraulic conductivity and shear displacement, (a), (b), (c) for water head 44cm, 75cm, 94cm respectively.

[5] Kranz RL, Frankel AD, Engelder T. Scholz CH. The permeability of whole and jointed barre granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1979; 16: 225-34.

DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(79)91197-5

[6] Gangi AF. Variation of whole and fractured porous rock permeability with confining pressure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1978; 15: 249-57.

DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(78)90957-9

[7] Witherspoon PA, Wang JSY, Iwai K, Gale JE. Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resources Res. 1980; 16(6): 1016-24.

DOI: 10.1029/wr016i006p01016

[8] Tsang YW. Channel model of flow through fractured media. Water Resources Res. 1987; 23(3): 467-79.

DOI: 10.1029/wr023i003p00467

[9] Liu JS. Flow formulas for a single fracture with normal stress. Chinese J of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology. 1988; 5(2): 32-28.

[10] Su BY, Zhan ML, Wang Y. An experimental study on stress-flow coupling of rock fracture. Chinese J of Rock and Soil engineering. 1997; 19(4): 73-77.

[11] Z. Chen, S.P. Narayan, Z. Yang, S.S. Rahman. An experimental investigation of hydraulic behavior of fractures and joints in granitic rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2000; 37: 1061-1071.

DOI: 10.1016/s1365-1609(00)00039-3

[12] T. Esaki, S. Du, Y. Mitani, K. Ikusada, L. Jing. Development of a shear-flow test apparatus and determination of coupled properties for a single rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1999; 36: 641-650.

DOI: 10.1016/s0148-9062(99)00044-3

[13] Makurat A, Barton N, Rad NS, Bandis S. Jiont conductivity variation due to normal and shear deformation. IN: Proc. Int. Symp. on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkama. 1990. pp.535-40.

[14] Mohanty S, Chowdhury AH, Hsiung SM, Ahola MP. Single fracture flow behavior of Apache Leap Tuff under normal and shear loads. CNWRA 94-024. San Antonio, TX: Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis, (1994).

[15] Olsson, W. A. and Brown, S. R., Hydromechanical response of a fracture undergoing compression and shear. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 1993: 30: 845-851.

DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(93)90034-b

[16] Gentier, S., Lamontagne, E., Archambault, G. and Riss, J., Anisotropy of flow in a fracture undergoing shear and its relationship to the direction of shearing and injection pressure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., (Paper No. 094), 1997: 34: 3-4.

DOI: 10.1016/s1365-1609(97)00085-3

[17] I. W. Yeo, M. H. De freitas, R. W. Zimmerman, Effect of shear displacement on the aperture and permeability of a rock fracture. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci, 1998: 35: 1051-1070.

DOI: 10.1016/s0148-9062(98)00165-x

[18] De Marsily, G., Quantitative Hydrogeology. Academic Press, San Diego, (1986).

[19] Yu Bing. An experimental study on stress-flow coupling characteristic of rock fractures. PH.D. thesis. TsingHua University, Beijin, (1993).

[20] Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K. Strength, deformation and conductivity coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstracts. 1985; 22(3): 121-40.

DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9