1887
Volume 73, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Fractures are omnipresent features in the shallower regions of the Earth's crust. In the context of rock physics, fracture characterization techniques rely largely on the determination of normal fracture compliances. Despite being thoroughly investigated through wave propagation experiments, this parameter is seldom estimated locally. In this work, we measure and compare local displacement‐jump‐ and transmission‐related fracture compliances using forced oscillations and ultrasonic propagation techniques, respectively. The experiments are carried out on an aluminium standard and on four different sandstone samples that contain a single planar fracture, considering a range of axial stresses. The results show that, for most rocks, both transmission‐related and locally measured dry normal compliances are of the same order and also present similar tendencies with axial loads. However, transmission methods predict larger dry normal fracture compliances than those retrieved from local strain estimations. The results of this study may help to assess the validity of linear slip theory, which is widely used in fracture characterization efforts in the specific literature.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
2025-07-23
2026-02-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadi, M., A. D.Taleghani, and C.Sayers. 2016. “The Effects of Roughness and Offset on Fracture Compliance Ratio.” Geophysical Supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society205, no. 1: 454–463.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baird, A. F., J.‐M.Kendall, and D. A.Angus. 2013. “Frequency‐Dependent Seismic Anisotropy Due to Fractures: Fluid Flow Versus Scattering.” Geophysics78, no. 2: WA111–WA122.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakku, S. K., M.Fehler, and D.Burns. 2013. “Fracture Compliance Estimation Using Borehole Tube Waves.” Geophysics78, no. 4: D249–D260.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakulin, A., V.Grechka, and I.Tsvankin. 2000a. “Estimation of Fracture Parameters From Reflection Seismic Data‐Part I: HTI Model Due to a Single Fracture Set.” Geophysics65, no. 6: 1788–1802.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakulin, A., V.Grechka, and I.Tsvankin. 2000b. “Estimation of Fracture Parameters From Reflection Seismic Data‐Part II: Fractured Models With Orthorhombic Symmetry.” Geophysics65, no. 6: 1803–1817.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbosa, N. D., E.Caspari, J. G.Rubino, A.Greenwood, L.Baron, and K.Holliger. 2019. “Estimation of Fracture Compliance From Attenuation and Velocity Analysis of Full‐Waveform Sonic Log Data.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth124, no. 3: 2738–2761.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbosa, N. D., J. G.Rubino, E.Caspari, and K.Holliger. 2017. “Extension of the Classical Linear Slip Model for Fluid‐Saturated Fractures: Accounting for Fluid Pressure Diffusion Effects.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122, no. 2: 1302–1323.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Berryman, J. G., and G. M.Hoversten. 2013. “Modelling Electrical Conductivity for Earth Media With Macroscopic Fluid‐Filled Fractures.” Geophysical Prospecting61: 471–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chapman, S., S.Lissa, J.Fortin, and B.Quintal. 2024. “Poroelastic Response of a Fractured Rock to Hydrostatic Pressure Oscillations.” Geophysical Research Letters51, no. 20: e2024GL109992.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Guo, J., J. G.Rubino, S.Glubokovskikh, and B.Gurevich. 2017. “Effects of Fracture Intersections on Seismic Dispersion: Theoretical Predictions Versus Numerical Simulations.” Geophysical Prospecting65, no. 5: 1264–1276.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hardin, E., C.Cheng, F.Paillet, and J.Mendelson. 1987. “Fracture Characterization by Means of Attenuation and Generation of Tube Waves in Fractured Crystalline Rock at Mirror Lake, New Hampshire.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth92, no. B8: 7989–8006.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Henkel, H., T. C.Ekneligoda, and S.Aaro. 2010. “The Extent of Impact Induced Fracturing From Gravity Modeling of the Granby and Tvären Simple Craters.” Tectonophysics485, no. 1‐4: 290–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Herwanger, J., M.Worthington, R.Lubbe, A.Binley, and J.Khazanehdari. 2004. “A Comparison of Cross‐Hole Electrical and Seismic Data in Fractured Rock.” Geophysical Prospecting52, no. 2: 109–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobday, C., and M.Worthington. 2012. “Field Measurements of Normal and Shear Fracture Compliance.” Geophysical Prospecting60, no. 3: 488–499.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hudson, J., E.Liu, and S.Crampin. 1997. “The Mean Transmission Properties of a Fault With Imperfect Facial Contact.” Geophysical Journal International129, no. 3: 720–726.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. King, M., L.Myer, and J.Rezowalli. 1986. “Experimental Studies of Elastic‐Wave Propagation in a Columnar‐Jointed Rock Mass.” Geophysical Prospecting34, no. 8: 1185–1199.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lubbe, R.2005. “A Field and Laboratory Investigation of the Compliance of Fractured Rock.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford.
  18. Lubbe, R., J.Sothcott, M.Worthington, and C.McCann. 2008. “Laboratory Estimates of Normal and Shear Fracture Compliance.” Geophysical Prospecting56, no. 2: 239–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lubbe, R., and M.Worthington. 2006. “A Field Investigation of Fracture Compliance.” Geophysical Prospecting54, no. 3: 319–331.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Mavko, G. M.1979. “Frictional Attenuation: An Inherent Amplitude Dependence.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth84, no. B9: 4769–4775.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Minato, S., and R.Ghose. 2016. “AVO Inversion for a Non‐Welded Interface: Estimating Compliances of a Fluid‐Filled Fracture.” Geophysical Journal International206, no. 1: 56–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Möllhoff, M., C.Bean, and P.Meredith. 2010. “Rock Fracture Compliance Derived From Time Delays of Elastic Waves.” Geophysical Prospecting58, no. 6: 1111–1122.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nakagawa, S.2013. “Low‐Frequency (<$<$ 100 Hz) Dynamic Fracture Compliance Measurement in the Laboratory.” Paper presented at the ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium.
  24. Pyrak‐NolteL.1996. “The Seismic Response of Fractures and the Interrelations Among Fracture Properties.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts33: 787–802.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pyrak‐Nolte, L. J., L. R.Myer, and N. G.Cook. 1990. “Transmission of Seismic Waves Across Single Natural Fractures.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth95, no. B6: 8617–8638.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pyrak‐Nolte, L. J., and D. D.Nolte. 2016. “Approaching a Universal Scaling Relationship Between Fracture Stiffness and Fluid Flow.” Nature Communications7, no. 1: 10663.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Rubino, J. G., G. A.Castromán, T. M.Müller, L. B.Monachesi, F. I.Zyserman, and K.Holliger. 2015. “Including Poroelastic Effects in the Linear Slip Theory.” Geophysics80, no. 2: A51–A56.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sayers, C. M.2007. “Introduction to this Special Section: Fractures.” The Leading Edge26, no. 9: 1102–1105.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Sayers, C. M.2009. “Seismic Characterization of Reservoirs Containing Multiple Fracture Sets.” Geophysical Prospecting57, no. 2: 187–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Sayers, C. M., A. D.Taleghani, and J.Adachi. 2009. “The Effect of Mineralization on the Ratio of Normal to Tangential Compliance of Fractures.” Geophysical Prospecting57, no. 3: 439–446.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Schoenberg, M.1980. “Elastic Wave Behavior Across Linear Slip Interfaces.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America68, no. 5: 1516–1521.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schoenberg, M., and J.Douma. 1988. “Elastic Wave Propagation in Media With Parallel Fractures and Aligned Cracks.” Geophysical Prospecting36, no. 6: 571–590.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Szewczyk, D., A.Bauer, and R. M.Holt. 2016. “A New Laboratory Apparatus for the Measurement of Seismic Dispersion Under Deviatoric Stress Conditions.” Geophysical Prospecting64: 789–798.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Verdon, J. P., and A.Wüstefeld. 2013. “Measurement of the Normal/Tangential Fracture Compliance Ratio (ZN/ZT) During Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Using S‐Wave Splitting Data.” Geophysical Prospecting61: 461–475.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Worthington, M., and R.Lubbe. 2007. “The Scaling of Fracture Compliance.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications270, no. 1: 73–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Yong, R., J.Ye, Q.‐F.Liang, M.Huang, and S.‐G.Du. 2018. “Estimation of the Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) of Rock Joints By Vector Similarity Measures.” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment77: 735–749.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhou, Z., E.Caspari, N. D.Barbosa, A.Greenwood, and K.Holliger. 2022. “Mechanical Compliance of Individual Fractures in a Heterogeneous Rock Mass From Production‐Type Full‐Waveform Sonic Data.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth127, no. 8: e2022JB024302.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhou, Z., E.Caspari, N. D.Barbosa, and K.Holliger. 2024. “Normal and Shear Compliance Estimation for Inclined Fractures Using Full‐Waveform Sonic Log Data.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing62: 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
Loading
On the Normal Compliance of Individual Fractures: Comparing Wave‐Propagation and Local Displacement‐Jump Estimations on Rock Cores
Geophysical Prospecting 73, e70050 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70050
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Keywords: parameter estimation; rock physics; seismics; wave

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error