Modeling the Approach of Non-mated Rock Fracture Surfaces Under Quasi-static Normal Load Cycles

Abstract

This paper examines the quasi-static behaviour of a non-mated rock fracture during the first and second loading cycles. Asperity deformation, substrate deformation, asperity interaction and gouge production are included in the modelling. The composite topography assumption is revisited, and the irregular fracture topography is idealized by representing the asperities as ellipsoidal surfaces. It is shown that the modelling can capture the closure behaviour and hysteresis response of rock fractures on both the first and second loading–unloading cycles with an acceptable accuracy. The model is then used to examine sensitivity of deformation behaviours to mechanical properties. It is shown that Young’s modulus of the rock is the most sensitive parameter with regard to the estimation of the closure behaviour of joints, followed by the compressive strength of the material, while the deformation is independent of the Poisson’s ratio variations in the range of ± 0.1. Moreover, while the closure behaviour is sensitive to variations in the joint roughness coefficient on the first loading cycle, this sensitivity reduces considerably on the second cycle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Adler PM (1992) Porous media: geometry and transports. Butterworth-Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aleynikov SM (2011) Spatial contact problems in geotechnics-boundary element method. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aliabadi M, Brebbia CA (1993) Computational methods in contact mechanics. Computational Mech Publ, Southampton

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ameli P, Elkhoury JE, Morris JP, Detwiler RL (2014) Fracture permeability alteration due to chemical and mechanical processes: a coupled high-resolution model. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1563–1573

    Google Scholar 

  5. Augustinus PC, Selby MJ (1990) Rock slope development in McMurdo Oasis, Antarctica, and implications for interpretations of glacial history. Geographysika Annalen A 72:55–62

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR (1983) Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 20:249–268

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bart M, Shao JF, Lydzba D, Haji-Sotoudeh M (2004) Coupled hydromechanical modeling of rock fractures under normal stress. Can Geotech J 41:686–697

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barton N, Stephansson O (1990) Rock joints. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints. Loen: AA Balkema

  10. Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K (1985) Strength, deformation and conductivity coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22:121–140

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boulon MJ, Selvadurai APS, Benjelloun H, Feuga B (1993) Influence of rock joint degradation on hydraulic conductivity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30:1311–1317

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brown SR, Scholz CH (1985) Closure of random elastic surfaces in contact. J Geophys Res 90:5531–5545

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gercek H (2007) Poisson’s ratio values for rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gladwell GML (1980) Contact problems in the classical theory of elasticity. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greenwood JA, Williamson JP (1966) Contact of nominally flat surfaces. P Roy Soc Lond A Mat 295:300–319

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hertz H (1882) Uber die Beruhrung fester elastischer Korper. J fur die Reine Angewandte Mathematic 92:156–171

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ivars DM, Pierce ME, Darcel C, Reyes-Montes J, Potyondy DO, Young RP, Cundall PA (2011) The synthetic rock mass approach for jointed rock mass modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:219–244

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jaeger JC (1971) Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. Geotechnique 21:97–134

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kamali A, Pournik M (2016) Fracture closure and conductivity decline modeling—application in unpropped and acid etched fractures. J Unconventional Oil Gas Res 14:44–55

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marache A, Riss J, Gentier S (2008) Experimental and modelled mechanical behaviour of a rock fracture under normal stress. Rock Mech Rock Engng 41:869–892

    Google Scholar 

  22. Misra A, Huang S (2012) Micromechanical stress-displacement model for rough interfaces: Effect of asperity contact orientation on closure and shear behaviour. Int J Solids Structures 49:111–120

    Google Scholar 

  23. Montgomery DC (2009) Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  24. Newman JC, Elber W (1988) Mechanical of fatigue crack closure. ASTM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nguyen TS, Selvadurai APS (1998) A model for coupled mechanical and hydraulic behaviour of a rock joint. Int J Numer Anal Met 22:29–48

    Google Scholar 

  26. Popov VL (2010) Contact mechanics and friction. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Physical principles and applications

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pyrak-Nolte LJ, Morris JP (2000) Single fractures under normal stress: the relation between fracture specific stiffness and fluid flow. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:245–262

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rezaei Niya SM, Selvadurai APS (2019) Correlation of joint roughness coefficient and permeability of a fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 113:150–162

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rezaei Niya SM, Phillips RK, Hoorfar M (2016) Sensitivity analysis of the impedance characteristics of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Fuel Cells 16:547–556

    Google Scholar 

  30. Selvadurai APS (1979) Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  31. Selvadurai APS (2004) Stationary damage modelling of poroelastic contact. Int J Solids Struct 41:2043–2064

    Google Scholar 

  32. Selvadurai APS, Atluri SN (eds) (2010) Contact mechanics in the engineering sciences. Tech Science Press, GA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Selvadurai APS (2015) Normal stress-induced permeability hysteresis of a fracture in a granite cylinder. Geofluids 15:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  34. Selvadurai APS (2020) In-plane loading of a bonded rigid disc embedded at a pre-compressed elastic interface: the role of non-linear interface responses. Mech Syst Signal Processing 144:106871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Selvadurai APS, Boulon MJ (1995) Mechanics of geomaterial interfaces, Studies in applied mechanics, vol 42. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  36. Selvadurai PA, Glaser SD (2015) Laboratory-developed contact models controlling instability on frictional faults. J Geophys Res 120:4208–4236

    Google Scholar 

  37. Selvadurai APS, Głowacki A (2017) Stress-induced permeability alterations in an argillaceous limestone. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:1079–1096

    Google Scholar 

  38. Selvadurai APS, Nguyen TS (1999) Mechanics and fluid transport in a degradable discontinuity. Eng Geol 53:243–249

    Google Scholar 

  39. Selvadurai APS, Yu Q (2005) Mechanics of a discontinuity in a geomaterial. Comput Geotech 32:92–106

    Google Scholar 

  40. Selvadurai APS, Suvorov AP, Selvadurai PA (2015) Thermo-hydro-mechanical processes in fractured rock formations during a glacial advance. Geosci Model Dev 8:2167–2185

    Google Scholar 

  41. Selvadurai PA, Parker JM, Glaser SD (2017) Numerical modeling describing the effects of heterogeneous distributions of asperities on the quasi-static evolution of frictional slip. Rock Mech Rock Engng 50:3323–3335

    Google Scholar 

  42. Selvadurai APS, Selvadurai PA, Suvorov AP (2018) Contact mechanics of a dilatant region located at a compressed elastic interface. Int J Eng Sci 133:144–168

    Google Scholar 

  43. Shi JQ, Durucan S (2016) Near-exponential relationship between effective stress and permeability of porous rocks revealed in Gangi’s phenomenological models and application to gas shales. Int J Coal Geol 154–155:111–122

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tang ZC, Liu QS, Xia CC, Song YL, Huang JH, Wang CB (2014) Mechanical model for predicting closure behavior of rock joints under normal stress. Rock Mech Rock Engng 47:2287–2298

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tang ZC, Jiao YY, Wong LNY (2017) Theoretical model with multi-asperity interaction for the closure behavior of rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 97:15–23

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vogler D, Settgast RR, Annavarapu C, Madonna C, Bayer P, Amann F (2018) Experiments and simulations of fully hydro-mechanically coupled response of rough fractures exposed to high-pressure fluid injection. J Geophys Res 123:1186–1200

    Google Scholar 

  47. Willner K (2003) Kontinuums- und kontaktmechanik. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Synthetische und analytische Darstellung

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wriggers P, Laursen TA (2007) Computational contact mechanics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Rezaei Niya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niya, S.M.R., Selvadurai, A.P.S. Modeling the Approach of Non-mated Rock Fracture Surfaces Under Quasi-static Normal Load Cycles. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54, 1885–1896 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02349-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Closure behaviour
  • Normal stress
  • Rock fracture
  • Hysteresis
  • Sensitivity analysis