Rock Mech Rock Eng DOI 10.1007/s00603-015-0760-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Stress-Induced Permeability Evolution Model for Fissured Porous Media Jianjun Ma1
•
Jun Wang1
Received: 16 October 2014 / Accepted: 19 April 2015 Springer-Verlag Wien 2015
Abstract A unified permeability evolution model is proposed to capture the evolution of permeability induced by stress. This model is formulated within a conventional permeability–porosity power function, with special attentions being paid to the effects of shear deformation-induced tortuosity and compaction-induced closure of fissures through a permeability resistance parameter. This model contains a small amount number of parameters, which can be calibrated based on conventional experiments. The proposed model is validated through comparison between model simulation and experimental results for sandstones under a wide range of confining pressures. Good performance demonstrates the capability of the proposed permeability evolution model. Keywords Permeability resistance Shear deformation Compaction Fissures’ closure Tortuosity
1 Introduction Transport properties of underground reservoirs depend largely on the permeability of geo-formations, which has been receiving much attention in sequestration of CO2, extraction of fluids and isolation of hazardous and radioactive waste. In these applications the host rock is typically characterised by fissures and pores, thus geoformation is often classified as fissured porous media. The permeability of fissured porous media is generally & Jianjun Ma
[email protected] 1
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou 325035, China
regarded as a function of the in situ stress, the internal microstructures of the solid matrix, and the complex interactions of fluid flow and volume change of the solid skeleton. Thus, understanding the effect of stress on permeability plays a significant role in quantifying fluid flow in geo-formations. Permeability is generally defined as the ability of a medium to allow the passage of fluid (Friedman 1977). Experimental investigation is the main avenue for examining the permeability evolution in rock under hydro-mechanical conditions. Current work in this area is primarily confined to the laboratory experimentation, with a few investigations conducted on-site. In laboratory, triaxial compression, extension and hybrid tests are conducted to study the effects of hydrostatic and deviatoric stress and the damage effect on rock mass (David et al. 1994; Zhu et al. 2007). These works reveal that the changes of permeability and porosity strongly coincide with each other. Friedman (1977) and Zhu et al. (2007) highlighted that under mechanical conditions, only the variation of the effective ‘‘inter-connected’’ porosity rather than the total porosity should be taken into account in the evolution of permeability with loading. Nevertheless, it is difficult to address such effective porosity based on current technology, thus the total porosity is still preferred for convenience. To predict permeability evolution of rock subject to different loading scenarios, many permeability evolution models have been developed. Notable contributions include the network model (Bernabe´ et al. 2010; Pan et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 1996; Zhu and Wong 1999), the discrete model (Cheng-Haw et al. 2007) and the constitutive model (Bouteca et al. 2000; Crawford and Yale 2002; Gessner 2009; Morris et al. 2003; Pride and Berryman 1998; Rudnicki 2001; Yale 2002). Although these models are proposed taking into account either the microstructures of
123
J. Ma, J. Wang
solid matrix, or the in situ stress, or the variation of porosity, most of these models are not complete, further development is required to precisely predict permeability evolution. For instance, in the network model developed by Zhu et al. (1995) and Bernabe´ (1991), the shape and size of the fracture space is idealised to the extent that it may not capture the true response of the fracture to fluid flow in large-scale fields. Among these remarkable contributions, one of the most widely accepted constitutive models is the generalised power law, which is formulated in the permeability–porosity space, the log (permeability)–log (porosity) space and the semi-log space (Bernabe´ et al. 2003; Morris et al. 2003; Zhu et al. 2007). These models are simple and enable engineers to predict the main trend of permeability in general applications. However, they are unable to accurately capture permeability evolution in various loading paths. For example, under low to medium confining pressure, these models are inadequate for modelling permeability evolution where the rock sample undergoes shear-enhanced dilatancy after peak strength point. The possible reason, as pointed out by Morris et al. (2003), is that permeability evolution during shear-enhanced dilatancy results from increased tortuosity as some pore spaces have been increased but also have been isolated. However, the way to directly estimate tortuosity has not been found from current literature. Thus, further modifications to constitutive models are highly required. Some investigators (Vajdova et al. 2004) have only considered the effects of inelastic strain, whereas others (Main et al. 2000; Ngwenya et al. 2003) have only taken into account the axial strain. Although these models make some acceptable predictions, the basic mechanisms of these models are not reasonable or rigorous. Specifically, some deformations are recoverable in general; thus part of the reduced permeability may be recovered after unloading, which has been proved by the experimental work on Westerly Granite (Zoback and Byerlee 1975). Furthermore, shear deformation is regarded as the main role in the evolution of tortuosity; thus it is not accurate to consider the inelastic strain or the axial strain only. In this paper, a unified and complete constitutive model is proposed to address the stress-induced permeability evolution in fissured porous media subject to various loading paths. This is done by introducing a permeability resistance parameter, which gives more considerations to the effects of tortuosity and fissures’ closure. The proposed model is applied to fissured porous sandstones under a wide range of confining pressure. Comparison between model simulation and experimental results demonstrates that the characteristics of permeability evolution in fissured porous media are captured appropriately in all cases considered.
123
2 Permeability Evolution Model It is widely accepted that only the effective porosity (e.g. connected pores and fissures) could provide channels for fluid flow. However, in reality, it is difficult to identify the effective porosity during various deformation processes. Therefore, a simple, but effective, way to address permeability evolution is to analyse the relationship between permeability and the overall porosity. However, there is no universal permeability–porosity relationship that is valid for all fissured porous media because the closure of fissures and the development of tortuosity induced by stress would affect the permeability during deformation. To address the effect of these factors, a unified permeability resistance parameter (s) is introduced to capture the effects of increased fissures’ closure and tortuosity on permeability. 2.1 Permeability Resistance Parameter For a reference configuration (state A), two configurations, state B and C would be induced corresponding to shear deformation and compaction, respectively. Within this context, sc and st are introduced to quantify the effects of increased resistance to fluid flow due to fissures’ closure (state C) and tortuosity (state B), respectively. Thus, the total permeability resistance parameter is expressed in a simple form: s ¼ sc þ st
ð1Þ
Notice that sc and st are merely permeability resistance parameters relative to a reference state (initial permeability ko and initial porosity uo ) and the corresponding changes in porosity and deformation. 2.1.1 Increased Fissures’ Closure In compression tests, the effective mean stress has been found to be a significant role in controlling permeability evolution. Mean effective stress renders increased closure of fissures, which consequently causes a progressive reduction in the permeability. The consequence of compaction is characterised by dead ends and isolated pore/fissure spaces. Similarly, a certain amount of these fissures would be closed during both shear dilatancy and compaction. The only difference between shear dilatancy and compaction is that shear compaction may be characterised by more closure of fissures than its counterpart. The dilatancy-induced closure of micro-cracks also has been investigated by experimental study and theoretical analysis on Westerly granite (Zoback and Byerlee 1975). The change in the fluid permeability resistance factor due to compaction is in turn related to mean effective stress as:
A Stress-Induced Permeability Evolution Model… Table 1 Model parameters in this study Material constant (fissures’ closure) a
Material constant (tortuosity) b
Mean effective stress parameter v
Shear strain parameter 1
Permeability parameter Z
1
2000
1
1.5
3
material; r0o is the current mean effective stress and r0oi is the reference mean effective stress. It is noted that, all the variables in Eq. (2) are nonnegative, thus sc is proportional to the mean effective stress and is inversely proportional to fluid pressure. This in turn captures the enhancement of permeability due to increasing in fluid pressure when maintaining a constant total stress, i.e. fluid injection in deep reservoir. 2.1.2 Increased Tortuosity
Fig. 1 Comparison of the model simulation and experimental data for hydrostatic tests for Berea, Darley Dale and Adamswiller sandstones: a permeability–mean effective stress, and b permeability–porosity
r0 sc ¼ a 0o roi
v ð2Þ
where sc is value of the permeability resistance factor due to increased fissures’ closure; a is the permeability resistance parameter for fissures’ closure; v is the mean effective stress parameter, which is a constant for a certain
In the context of fissured porous media, tortuosity is traditionally defined as the ratio of effective path length through which fluid flows to the shortest straight-line and straight-forward distance, from the ‘flow in point’ to the ‘flow out point’ (Scott 2001). Therefore, tortuosity serves as an additional barrier within the fissured porous media that prevents direct fluid flow along a straight-forward linear path. On a microscopic level, the value of tortuosity depends on the fabric of the fissured porous media. However, it is impossible to identify such fabric in rock materials soundly, even if advanced CT or SEM (scanning electron microscopy) is applied. For macroscopic deformation, a model is generally applied to address the tortuosity based on experimental observations (Zhu et al. 2007). In triaxial compression tests, when the deviatoric stress increases, shear-enhanced compaction or dilatancy may occur and continue until failure. From a microscopic view, the current fabric within fissured porous media changes significantly upon shear deformation. Specifically, shear deformation may distort current flow paths, thus increasing the barriers to fluid flow. For a macro-scale solution, without taking into account the increased tortuosity of every single possible flow path, an average permeability resistance st is introduced to address the effect of the increased overall tortuosity induced by shear deformation. Based on experimental observations (David et al. 1994; Zhu et al. 2007), it is reasonable to define the increased permeability resistance st as a function of the shear strain. st ¼ bðeq Þ1
ð3Þ
where b is the permeability resistance parameter for tortuosity, eq is the total shear strain, and 1 is the shear strain parameter, which is a constant for certain materials. Shear strain in conventional triaxial tests is defined as eq ¼ 2 ðe1 e3 Þ=3, which is back calculated through axial
123
J. Ma, J. Wang Fig. 2 Experimental data: porosity–deviatoric stress and shear strain–deviatoric stress plots for Darley Dale sandstone under triaxial test [after Zhu and Wong (1997)]
strain and volumetric strain; where e1 and e3 are axial and lateral strains, respectively. All the variables in Eq. (3) are non-negative. 2.1.3 Permeability Resistance Function To elucidate the effects of the mean effective stress and shear deformation on the permeability evolution, permeability resistance function is developed to estimate the contribution of increased fissures’ closure and tortuosity to the evolution of permeability. 0 v 1 r s ¼ a 0o þb eq ð4Þ roi 2.2 Permeability Evolution Model A complete permeability evolution model is developed, which introduces a permeability-resistant parameter (s) to quantify the effects of fissures’ closure and tortuosity on permeability. Z n u 1 k ¼ ko ð5Þ uo s where k and ko are the current and reference permeabilities, respectively; u is the current porosity and uo is the reference porosity; Z and n are the parameters of permeability and permeability resistance, respectively. The second term of Eq. (5), ðu=uo ÞZ , along with the conventional permeability–porosity approach (Bernabe´ et al. 2003; Morris
123
et al. 2003; Zhu et al. 2007), addresses the effect of the total porosity on permeability, which means that the change in porosity includes the increased porosity induced by the fracturing of new micro-cracks, as well as the decreased porosity caused by pore collapse. The last term, ð1=sÞn , captures the effects of fissures’ closure (sc ) and tortuosity (st ) on permeability evolution.
3 Parameter Identification The main advantage of this model is that all model parameters can be calibrated based on experimental data. In the equation of permeability resistance (Eq. 4), a and b are material constants, v and 1 are the mean effective stress and the shear strain parameters, respectively. The permeability resistance parameter n is a material constant, can be calibrated based on experimental observation. The permeability exponential parameter z is suggested to be 3 to maintain a unified relationship between permeability and porosity. In the permeability evolution equation (Eq. 5), reference porosity (/o ¼ eo =ð1 þ eo Þ or initial void ratio eo ) is obtained through some physical testing methods, i.e. grinding powder and liquid infiltration tests. Current porosity (/ ¼ e=ð1 þ eÞ) can be calculated based on volumetric strain (ev ¼ e1 þ 2e3 in triaxial test), which can be predicted by some constitutive models, i.e. bounding surface model (Ma 2014) and single hardening model (Lade and Kim 1995). The solids in fissured porous media is assumed
A Stress-Induced Permeability Evolution Model…
Fig. 3 Comparison of model simulation and experimental data for Darley Dale sandstone, permeability versus deviatoric stress: a pc = 5, 10, 20 MPa and b pc = 100, 200 MPa
to be non-deformable in general, and the volumetric change mainly comes from the change in pore space: De ¼ ð1 þ eo Þev , thus current porosity can be expressed as: /¼
e eo ð1 þ eo Þev ¼ 1 þ e 1 þ ½eo ð1 þ eo Þev
ð6Þ
Thus, the shear strain in Eq. (4) also can be back calculated with available data of volumetric and axial strains predicted some constitutive models (Lade and Kim 1995; Ma 2014). In isotropic compression tests, there is no shear deformation, thus the permeability resistance parameter (s) is contributed by sc (Eq. 2) only, the value of which is not less than 1 due to the nature of the multiplicative function. Thus, in the initial stage, sc ¼ 1, and r0o (the current mean
Fig. 4 Comparison of model simulation and experimental data for Darley Dale sandstone, permeability versus porosity: a pc = 5, 10, 20 MPa and b pc = 100, 200 MPa
effective stress) is equal to r0oi (the reference mean effective stress), yielding the material parameter a ¼ 1. The value of exponential parameter v is recommended to be 1 for the purpose of simplicity, which is also consistent with the conventional approach of permeability–effective mean stress relationship in literature, such as Rice (1992) and David et al. (1994). In direct shear test, the main contribution of permeability resistance comes from the increased tortuosity. Similarly, the expression of tortuosity is a multiplicative function; the value of Eq. (3) is no less than 1 as defined. Thus, st is 1 at the initial stage and may be extreme large in some ultimate cases. For the lower band, tortuosity is likely to increase when the current shear strain eq goes beyond a threshold value eqt , which meets the initial state condition as:
123
J. Ma, J. Wang Fig. 5 Experimental data: porosity–deviatoric stress and shear strain–deviatoric stress plots for Berea sandstone under triaxial test [after Zhu and Wong (1997)]
st ¼ bðeqt Þ1 ¼ 1
ð7Þ
For ultimate conditions, the tortuosity values may be on the order of 100–1000, according to the numerical results on general porous media (Scott 2001). However, these extreme conditions may not be the representative of all fissured porous media, as some mediums with high porosities would have lower average tortuosity. Thus, based on the numerical investigation of general porous media conducted by Scott (2001), the upper limit of tortuosity for fissured porous media is assumed to be 90 when an ultimate shear strain equ is approached. st ¼ bðequ Þ1 ¼ 90
ð8Þ
Considering Eqs. (7) and (8), 1 equ ¼ 90 eqt
ð9Þ
After studying some experimental observations (Zhu et al. 2007), it is reasonable to assume that the value of ultimate shear strain is around 20 times the shear strain threshold value, indicating 1 ¼ 1:5 for sandstones. Also, the threshold value of shear strain for most fissured porous rocks is around 0.6 %, thus, the material parameter for tortuosity b is back calculated to be 2151 for sandstones through Eq. (7). For the purpose of simplicity, b is suggested to be 2000 in this study. These model parameters analysed above are listed in Table 1.
123
4 Model Validation To examine the permeability evolution model, simulation result is compared with experimental data for sandstones under both hydrostatic and triaxial compressive tests from Zhu and Wong (1997). Darley Dale and Berea sandstone samples were cored perpendicular to the bedding, and Adamswiller sandstone samples were cored parallel to the bedding. The shape of the sandstone samples is cylindrical, with diameter being 18.4 mm and length of 38.1 mm. All rock samples were fully saturated. A fixed pore water pressure of 10 MPa was applied, and the strain rate was controlled at a constant value of 5 105 (Zhu and Wong 1997). The permeability along the loading axial was measured, and permeability versus porosity/deviatoric stress was plotted together to examine the proposed model. The model simulation results are represented by lines, whereas the experimental data are plotted by discrete symbols. 4.1 Isotropic Tests The initial porosities (under 3 MPa effective confining pressure) for Berea, Darley Dale and Adamswiller sandstones are 21, 14 and 23 %, respectively. All experiment results, including axial strain, volumetric strain, mean effective stress and permeability were reported in the literature (Zhu and Wong 1997). The permeability resistance parameter n ¼ 2=3 is adopted for all sandstone samples.
A Stress-Induced Permeability Evolution Model…
Fig. 6 Comparison of model simulation and experimental data for Berea sandstone, permeability versus deviatoric stress: a pc = 5, 10 MPa and b pc = 40, 160, 250 MPa
Fig. 7 Comparison of model simulation and experimental data for Berea sandstone, permeability versus porosity: a pc = 5, 10 MPa and b pc = 40, 160, 250 MPa
4.2 Triaxial Tests Figure 1 shows that the model simulations agree very well with experimental results. Under isotropic compressive loading, the existing fissures tend to close, and this process is also characterised by the reduction of both porosity and permeability (Fig. 1a). As a result, some equivalent channels may be blocked by these closures. Accordingly, the permeability decreases as the porosity decreases (Fig. 1b). As aforementioned, there is no unique relationship that can be identified for permeability–porosity, which is due to the effects of closure of fissures on the permeability evolution. The proposed model takes into account such effects at macroscopic level, thus the model is able to capture the stress-induced permeability evolution of fissured porous media under isotropic test.
Figures 3, 4, 6 and 7 illustrate the comparison between the model simulation and experimental data in triaxial tests from the literature: the variation of permeability–deviatoric stress (Figs. 3, 6) and the relationship between permeability–porosity (Figs. 4, 7). All experiment results, including axial strain, volumetric strain, shear stress, mean effective stress and permeability were reported in the work of Zhu and Wong (1997). The conventional porosity–deviatoric stress and shear strain–deviatoric stress were also plotted to help understand the behaviours of rocks, see Figs. 2 and 5. The permeability resistance parameters n used in this analysis are: 0.75 for Darley Dale sandstone, and 1 for Berea sandstone.
123
J. Ma, J. Wang
4.2.1 Darley Dale Sandstone Figure 2 shows the experimental results of Darley Dale sandstone in triaxial tests: porosity–deviatoric stress and shear strain–deviatoric stress plots. Rock sample experienced shear-enhanced compaction under high confining pressures (100–200 MPa) or dilatancy under low confining pressures (5–20 MPa). Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that permeability evolution is reasonably captured by the presented model. Specifically, under low confining pressures (Fig. 3a: 5–20 MPa), rock samples undergo shear-enhanced compaction in the first stage, where permeability reduces along with reduction of porosity (Fig. 4a). Then rock samples enter into the second-stage shear-enhanced dilatancy when continuing loading, this stage is typically characterised by increasing porosity. This increase in porosity, against the general law of permeability–porosity relationship, does produce decrease instead of increase in permeability, which has not been captured by most permeability evolution models. The continuing reduction in permeability is captured by the proposed model through taking tortuosity and fissures’ closure into consideration when shear deformation occurs. Under high confining pressures (Fig. 3b: 100–200 MPa) deformation is featured with shear-enhanced compaction, the permeability keeps decreasing with the reduction of porosity (Fig. 4b). A unique relationship between permeability and porosity/deviatoric stress is obtained through considering the shear deformation-induced tortuosity and compaction-induced closure of fissures. 4.2.2 Berea Sandstone Berea sandstone samples were tested under a wide range of confining pressures: low pressures (pc = 5, 10 MPa), a medium pressure (pc = 40 MPa) and high pressures (pc = 160, 250 MPa); the corresponding deformations are brittle, brittle–ductile transition and ductile, respectively (Fig. 5). Applying deviatoric stress, initially porosities in all rock samples dropped, then reduction in porosity had been observed for rocks under medium to high pressure, while dilatancy for low-pressure cases. Model simulations match the experimental data appropriately for all cases (Figs. 6, 7). Similar to the case of Darley Dale sandstone in Sect. ‘‘Darley Dale sandstone’’, a unique relationship between permeability and porosity/deviatoric stress is obtained for rock samples under different confining pressures. With increasing in shear deformation-induced tortuosity and compaction-induced closure of fissures, permeability decreases with both decreasing of porosity under shearenhanced compaction and increasing of porosity under shear-enhanced dilatancy.
123
Note that, for Berea sandstone under lower confining pressures (Fig. 7a), there is some deviation from experimental date in the shear compaction stage. In general, a dramatic reduction of permeability has been observed soon after increasing effective mean stress, which is mainly due to the closure of fissures. However, Berea sandstone samples under low confining pressures (pc = 5, 10 MPa) behave differently as if the fissures did not close that much compared with model prediction. This slight overestimation mainly comes from the permeability resistance parameter for fissures’ closure (a) and the mean effective stress parameter (v). Thus, in further study, a large set of experimental data is required to investigate the influence of each model parameter on the behaviour of the model for specific loading conditions. Nevertheless, the main trend of permeability evolution in both shear-induced compaction and dilatancy has been captured. For rocks under a wide range of confining pressures, a unified, small number of model parameters have been applied, which also demonstrates the capability of the proposed model.
5 Conclusions A unified permeability evolution model is formulated within a conventional permeability–porosity power function to describe the development of permeability induced by stress. The effects of shear deformation-induced tortuosity and compaction-induced closure of fissures have been captured by a permeability resistance parameter. This model contains a small amount number of parameters, which can be calibrated based on conventional experiments. The proposed model is validated through comparison between model simulation and experimental results for sandstones under a wide range of confining pressures. Good performance demonstrates the capability of the proposed constitutive permeability evolution model. Acknowledgments Authors thank Dr. Gaofeng Zhao for his constructive comments and review of this manuscript. Authors’ acknowledgement is also given to the anonymous reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 51278383, No. 51238009 and No. 51025827), Key Scientific and Technological Innovation Team of Zhejiang province (No. 2011R50020), Key Scientific and Technological Innovation Team of Wenzhou (No. C20120006). These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged.
References Bernabe´ Y (1991) Pore geometry and pressure dependence of the transport properties in sandstones. Geophysics 56:436–446 Bernabe´ Y, Mok U, Evans B (2003) Permeability-porosity relationships in rocks subjected to various evolution processes. Pure appl Geophys 160:937–960
A Stress-Induced Permeability Evolution Model… Bernabe´ Y, Li M, Maineult A (2010) Permeability and pore connectivity: a new model based on network simulations. J Geophys Res 115:B10203 Bouteca MJ, Sarda JP, Vincke O (2000) Constitutive law for permeability evolution of sandstones during depletion. In: Proceedings of the SPE international symposium on formation damage control, Lafayette, LA, USA, pp 81–86 Cheng-Haw L, Chen-Chang L, Bih-Shan L (2007) The estimation of dispersion behavior in discrete fractured networks of andesite in Lan-Yu Island, Taiwan. Environ Geol 52:1297–1306 Crawford BR, Yale DP (2002) Constitutive modeling of deformation and permeability: relationships between critical state and micromechanics. In: Proceedings of the SPE/ISRM rock mechanics in petroleum engineering conference, Irvint, Texas, 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (SPE), pp 288–297 David C, Wong T-F, Zhu W, Zhang J (1994) Laboratory measurement of compaction-induced permeability change in porous rocks: implications for the generation and maintenance of pore pressure excess in the crust. Pure appl Geophys 143:425–456 Friedman M (1977) Porosity, permeability, and rock mechanics—a review. In: Proceedings of 17th symposium on rock mechanics, preparation, site characteristics, Snowbird, UT, USA Gessner K (2009) Coupled models of brittle-plastic deformation and fluid flow: approaches, methods, and application to mesoproterozoic mineralisation at mount Isa, Australia. Surv Geophys 30:211–232 Lade PV, Kim MK (1995) Single hardening constitutive model for soil, rock and concrete. Int J Solids Struct 32:1963–1978 Ma J (2014) Coupled flow deformation analysis of fractured porous media subject to elasto-plastic damage. Ph.D Thesis, The University of New South Wales, Australia Main IG, Kwon O, Ngwenya BT, Elphick SC (2000) Fault sealing during deformation-band growth in porous sandstone. Geology 28:1131–1134 Morris JP, Lomov IN, Glenn LA (2003) A constitutive model for stress-induced permeability and porosity evolution of Berea sandstone. J Geophys Res 108:2485 Ngwenya BT, Kwon O, Elphick SC, Main IG (2003) Permeability evolution during progressive development of deformation bands in porous sandstones. J Geophys Res 108:2343
Pan JB, Lee CC, Lee CH, Yeh HF, Lin HI (2010) Application of fracture network model with crack permeability tensor on flow and transport in fractured rock. Eng Geol 116:166–177 Pride SR, Berryman JG (1998) Connecting theory to experiment in poroelasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 46:719–747 Rice JR (1992) Fault stress states, pore pressure distributions, and the weakness of the San Andreas fault. Fault Mech Transp Prop Rocks 51:475–503 Rudnicki JW (2001) Coupled deformation–diffusion effects in the mechanics of faulting and failure of geomaterials. Appl Mech Rev 54:483–502 Scott DC (2001) An assessment of reasonable tortuosity values. Pharm Res 18:1797–1800 Vajdova V, Baud P, Wong T-F (2004) Permeability evolution during localized deformation in Bentheim sandstone. J Geophys Res 109:B10406 Yale DP (2002) Coupled geomechanics-fluid flow modeling: effects of plasticity and permeability alteration. SPE/ISRM rock mechanics conference, 20–23 October 2002, Irving, Texas Zhu W, Wong TF (1996) Permeability reduction in a dilating rock: network modeling of damage and tortuosity. Geophys Res Lett 23:3099–3102 Zhu W, Wong TF (1997) The transition from brittle faulting to cataclastic flow: permeability evolution. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth 102:3027–3041 Zhu W, Wong TF (1999) Network modeling of the evolution of permeability and dilatancy in compact rock. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth 104:2963–2971 Zhu W, David C, Teng-Fong W (1995) Network modeling of permeability evolution during cementation and hot isostatic pressing. J Geophys Res 100:15451–415464 Zhu W, Monte´si LGJ, T-f Wong (2007) A probabilistic damage model of stress-induced permeability anisotropy during cataclastic flow. J Geophys Res 112:B10207 Zoback MD, Byerlee JD (1975) The effect of microcrack dilatancy on the permeability of Westerly granite. J Geophys Res 80:752–755
123
