ARMA 13-392

Mesoscopic Evaluation of Non-linear Fluid Flow Through Rough-walled

Fractures Using 'T Model'
Javadi, M.
Department of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 15875-4413 Tehran, Iran

Sharifzadeh, M.
Department of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 15875-4413 Tehran, Iran
Copyright 2013 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
th

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 47 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26
June 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: The main subject of this paper is to examine the mesoscopic non-linear fluid flow through three-dimensional roughwalled fractures. Computational domain of an artificial three-dimensional fracture was generated and both laminar and turbulent
flow through the void specimen were simulated using finite volume method for a wide range of flow rates. Geometrical domain of
the fracture was discretized to 125 sub-fractures and calculated average pressure drop of sub-fractures from each flow rate of
turbulent flow simulation were compared with those predicted by T model. The results show that: 1) by increasing Reynolds
number, the difference between laminar and turbulent flow simulations increases as the relative error increases from 3.2% to
17.3% for Reynolds number of 4.5 to 89.5, respectively, 2) the effect of non-linear flow increases with Reynolds number and the
Forchheimer law was fitted very well to both laminar and turbulent flow simulations, and T model predictions, 2) there is an
appropriate correspondence between predicted sub-fractures pressure drops obtained by T model and turbulent flow simulation.

1. INTRODUCTION
Fluid flow and solute transport in fractured rock masses
are of keys interest for many practical applications. In
many geological structures, the matrix permeability is
negligible compared to permeability of fractures and
rock mass hydraulic behavior is controlled by fractures.
In such situations, the development of realistic and
robust predictive models of flow and transport requires a
thorough understanding of the physical processes that
govern flow in individual fractures.
Traditionally, single fracture has been idealized as a set
of parallel plates in order to obtain a tractable
mathematical description of fluid flow, namely, the
cubic law [1]. However, it is well understood that single
fractures are rough-walled conduits with variable
aperture and the classical view of a rock fracture as a
pair of smooth, and parallel plates is not adequate for the
description of flow. In order to deal with the variations
of the aperture, the Reynolds lubrication equation [2]
was introduced as an alternative approximation to the
considerably more computationally intensive solution of
the Navier-Stokes (NS) equations. This approximation is
just valid for laminar flow through fractures and needs
some especial geometrical and kinematical conditions of
fracture and fluid flow, respectively [3,4] that are rarely
occurred for natural rough-walled fractures. Therefore,

in recent studies, direct numerical simulation of NS

equations was used for investigation of fluid flow
through fractures [5-10]. Theoretically speaking, solving
the NS equations under a set of complicated fracture
surfaces will provide details on pressure and flow
velocity distributions in fractures. However, the NS
equations are rarely applied in fluid flow analysis in
large-scale fractures due to the time-consuming and
numerical difficulties for their solution with complicated
geometry, especially for three-dimensional fractures.
Moreover, it is known that, at sufficiently high values of
the Reynolds number, fluid flow through rough-walled
fractures becomes non-linear [10,11]. Flow regimes and
non-linear behavior of fluid flow through fractures have
been investigated, experimentally [12-14], and
numerically [10,11]. However, there is no general
consensus about the effect the fracture roughness on
non-linear flow. The fundamental physical question is:
How can quantify the non-linear relationship between
volumetric fluid flow and hydraulic gradient as a
function of change in overall aperture and anisotropy in
fracture wall roughness? To answer this question, Javadi
et al. [11] proposed T model for non-linear fluid flow
through rough-walled fractures based on two different
kinematical flow assumptions. This geometrical model
suggests a polynomial expression, like Forchheimer law,
to describe the dependence of pressure drop on flow rate.

The main purpose of this paper is to examine

microscopic behaviour of non-linear fluid flow through
rough-walled fractures and checking the microscopic
validity of T model.
This paper investigates the impacts of fracture roughness
and flow rate on non-linear pressure drop of fluid flow
through rough-walled fractures. First a threedimensional geometrical domain of a hypothetical
rough-walled fracture was generated. Computational
domain of this fracture was generated and both laminar
and turbulent flows through the void specimen were
simulated using finite volume method for a wide range
of flow rates. Geometrical domain of the fracture was
discretized to some sub-fractures and calculated average
pressure drop of sub-fractures from each flow rate of
turbulent flow simulation were compared with those
predicted by T model. These predictions were used to
illustrate roughness and flow rate effects on non-linear
fluid flow.

2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The general description of fluid flow in a single fracture
is given by the NS equations, which express momentum
and mass conservation at the microscopic level at points
within the fluid continuum over the fracture void space.
Considering the steady laminar flow of a Newtonian
fluid with constant density and viscosity through a
fracture with impermeable walls, the NS equations can
be written in vector form as [7],

(u. )u = 2 u p

where PMstatic
is the static pressure drop of main
.F
fracture, Q is the volumetric flow rate, and is the
tortuosity factor.

(1)

where is the fluid density, is the fluid viscosity, u

is the flow velocity vector, and p is the hydrodynamic
pressure. Eq. (1) is composed of a set of coupled
nonlinear partial derivatives of varying orders. In order
to have a closed system of equations, they must be
supplemented by the continuity equation, which
represents conservation of mass. For an incompressible
fluid, conservation of mass is equivalent to conservation
of volume, and the equation takes the form

.u = 0

a variable aperture in perpendicular main flow direction

(x-direction). Each sub-fracture is identified by the index
j (j from 1 to n) and can be discretized to m fracture
segments. In this case, a fracture is represented by n m
numbers of square fracture segments with constant size
of x and y in a regular grid. Each segment is
identified by index i, j (i from 1 to m) and has a uniform
aperture zij such that locally a parallel plate configuration
can be assumed. Using this discretized form of the
fracture geometry and kinematical flow assumptions,
Javadi et al. [11] proposed T model for non-linear
fluid flow through rough fractures, which suggests a
polynomial expression, like Forchheimer law, to
describe the dependence of pressure drop on flow rate
as,
m 1

12
Q

y
z

i
=
1
ij
PMstatic
m
.F =

2
x
j =1

z ij
i =1
(3)
2

2

2 n 1 m
3
2
Q
z ij z ij
z i , j +1

+
m
2
m
m 3

2(x ) j =1 i =1
3
3
z
z
ij ij z i , j +1
i =1

i =1 i=1

(2)

The NS equations are rarely applied in fluid flow

analysis in large-scale fractures due to the timeconsuming and numerical difficulties for their solution
with complicated geometry of rock fractures, especially
in 3D. Therefore, further geometrical and kinematical
simplifications for fracture and flow, respectively, are
necessary to circumvent these difficulties.
By considering the stepped profile for fractures, the
rough-walled fracture in the longitudinal main flow
direction (y-direction) can be discretized to n smaller
sub-fractures. The sub-fracture has no variation on
aperture in the longitudinal main flow direction and has

3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Finite volume method has been employed to solve the
NS equations and continuity equation for a threedimensional problem. Direct numerical simulation
(DNS) and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations were used for laminar and turbulent flow
simulation, respectively. The numerical solution of the
NS equations for turbulent flow is extremely difficult,
and due to the significantly different mixing-length
scales that are involved in turbulent flow, the stable
solution of this requires such a fine mesh resolution that
the computation time becomes significantly long.
Attempts to solve turbulent flow using a laminar solver
typically result in a time-unsteady solution, which fails
to converge appropriately. To encounter this, a timeaveraged equation, RANS, supplemented with k
turbulence model was used in practical computational
fluid dynamics applications when modeling turbulent
flow. In this study, the FLUENTTM code was used for
both laminar and turbulent flow simulation.
A three-dimensional geometrical domain of an arbitrary
fracture with 3 mm in width and 12.5 mm in length, in xand y-directions respectively, was used for fluid flow

simulations (Fig. 1a). Fracture geometrical domain

consisted of 150 volumetric elements (6 rows and 25
columns) over an x-y grid with uniform spacing of
0.5mm), and variable aperture in z-direction. The
aperture of fracture varies from 0.35 mm to 0.65 mm and
its average and standard deviation are 0.485 mm and
0.106 mm, respectively (Fig. 1b).
Fracture geometry was generated using raw data of
surface measurement of an initially closely mated
arbitrarily fracture (180 mm length and 100 mm width)
in intact granite undergoing shear displacement. Before
any shear processes, asperities height on the fresh upper
and lower fracture surfaces were measured on a virtual
grid mesh in x- and y-directions by laser surface scanner.
The surface data corrections were made and then the
upper and lower surfaces data were mixed together to
form the initial aperture distribution. Change of aperture
distribution during direct shear test was calculated based
on the fracture dilation and shear displacement obtained
from experimental results. The modified aperture
distribution of an open part (without contact) of sheared
fracture with 3 mm in width and 12.5 mm in length was
selected for geometrical domain generation.

Computational grids of about 890,000 tetrahedral

meshes were used for fluid flow simulations. Numerical
simulations were performed for water with a density of
998.2 kg/m3 and a viscosity of 0.001 kg/ms. The
velocity inlet boundary condition was used for the inlet
region of the domain. The inlet velocity was considered
to distribute uniformly in y-direction and low turbulence
intensity (1%) was assumed in all numerical turbulent
flow simulations. Outflow boundary condition was
assumed for outflow area. All other solid surfaces of the
domain (boundaries of the fracture) were defined as
impermeable walls with the no-slip velocity boundary
condition. The gravitational effect was neglected. Flow
simulations through three-dimensional fracture were
performed within a range of inlet velocity from 0.01 to
0.2 m/s for turbulent flow simulation.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Both laminar and turbulent flow simulations were
performed for inlet velocities in the range of 0.01 m/s to
0.2 m/s. For each simulation, static pressure drop was
calculated as the difference between static pressure on
inlet and outlet boundaries. Moreover, by considering
factor of two for tortousity factor in Eq. 3, static pressure
drop was calculated for each inlet velocity. These static
pressure drops were plotted as inlet velocity in Fig. 2a.
The quadratic polynomial was used for curve fitting of
both laminar and turbulent simulation results that leads
to a good correlation factor and appropriately low
constant term of expected regression equations. This
type of relation between static pressure drop and inlet
velocity (or flow rate) is recognized as Forchheimer law
[15], which uses a polynomial expression to describe the
dependence of flow rate on pressure gradient, or pressure
drop, as

p = AQ + BQ 2

Fig. 1. Geometrical domain of the hypothetical fracture that

used for fluid flow simulation: (a) three-dimensional geometrical domain with boundary conditions and (b) frequency
of aperture.

(4)

where p is the pressure drop, A and B are constants

and Q represents the flow rate in the direction of
maximum pressure gradient.
By comparing Forchheimer law and T model, a
similarity can be found. T model suggests a polynomial
expression to describe the flow rate dependent pressure
drop as the same as Forchheimer law. On the other hand,
the predicted static pressure drops from both turbulent
and laminar simulations show a very good correlation
with Forchheimer law.
In order to compare more closely and clearly the
difference between simulation results and T model, for
each inlet velocity the relative error between different
predictions were calculated as difference between the
predicted static pressure drops. For this comparison, the
relative error between predicted static pressure drop of
three binary arrangements of prediction methods as,
turbulent and laminar simulations, turbulent simulation

and T model, and laminar simulation and T model were

calculated (for all the cases, the first term was
considered as exact value to calculate relative error).
These relative errors were plotted as Reynolds number in
Fig. 2b. For fluid flow through fractures, the Reynolds
number, which quantifies the relative strength of inertia
forces as compared to viscous forces can be defined as
[10]

Re =

Q
w

(4)

where w is the width of fracture. As shown in Fig. 2, in

the same inlet velocities, the static pressure drops
predicted by turbulent flow simulation are higher than
those predicted by laminar flow simulation. For all inlet
velocities, the static pressure drop predicted by T model
are more than those predicted by laminar simulation.
The graph for relative error of the case of turbulent-T
model is located between the two other graphs. In low
Reynolds numbers the difference between predicted
static pressure drops predicted with turbulent and
laminar simulations are relatively low and by increasing
Reynolds number, the difference increases as the relative
error from 3.2% to 17.3% for the Reynolds number of
4.5 to 89.5, respectively. Comparison between relative
errors and non-linear flow rate dependent pressure drop
shows that in low Reynolds number there is not much
difference between laminar and turbulent flow
simulations. But, by increasing the Reynolds number,
non-linearity of pressure drop dependence of flow rate
increases.
The laminar flow through a rock fracture is usually
assumed a linear relationship between the flux and the
pressure gradient and, it is known that, at sufficiently
high values of the Reynolds number, this relationship
becomes non-linear. Nevertheless, deviations from linear
relationship between flow rate and pressure drop are
often attributed, perhaps erroneously, to turbulence. It
should be noted that the word Turbulent was only
used for describing the type of fluid flow simulation
which was used as Turbulent flow simulation and it
does not mean that the flow regime is really turbulent.
Due to the flow non-linearity intensity, the results of
turbulent flow simulation were selected for T model
validation and also evaluating the impact of roughness
and inlet velocity on pressure drop.
In order to evaluate the effects of roughness and aperture
variations on the total pressure drop, the fracture
geometrical domain was discretized to 125 smaller subfractures. To perform this step, 126 vertical sections
normal to y-direction and perpendicular to the main flow
direction, with 0.1mm consecutive distances in ydirection were selected through geometrical domain.
Using these vertical sections, the geometrical domain
was divided to 125 sub-fractures and the space between
two consecutive sections represents a sub-fracture.

Fig. 2. Comparison between the predicted static pressure

drops: (a) the predicted static pressure drop for different inlet
velocities with quadratic polynomial curve fitting and (b)
relative error between predicted static pressure drop for
different methods.

Fig. 3. Discretizing the fracture geometrical domain into

smaller SA and NA sub- fractures.

Fig. 4. Comparison between predicted SPj with T model and Turbulent flow simulation for inlet velocities of: (a) 0.01 m/s (b)
0.05 m/s (c) 0.1 m/s and (d) 0.2 m/s.

Three-dimensional fracture void space was generated

over an xy grid with uniform spacing x and y (equal
to 0.5 mm). Each cell of this grid has a constant height,
in z-direction, represents the aperture and its dimensions
x, y, and z presents a volumetric element. The fracture
geometrical domain consisted of 150 volumetric
elements (6 rows and 25 columns). In this geometrical
domain, the aperture of each volumetric element remains
constant for each column. Since each column discretized
to 5 sub-fractures, the aperture of this sub-fractures will
be constant except the latest ones (where their location
are in the magnitudes of y = 0.5, 1, 1.5,12.5 mm).
Therefore, the flow section changes abruptly after the
sub-fractures that their j index is multiples of 5
(hereafter named SA sub-fractures). For another subfractures (hereafter named NA sub-fractures) the flow
section between two consecutive sub-fractures remains
constant (Fig. 3).
The average total pressure on each vertical section p j (j
from 1 to 126) was calculated and then the average total
pressure drop between two consecutive sections, SPj (j

velocity distribution and low flow turbulency were

considered in all numerical turbulent fluid flow
simulations. Low flow turbulency in the inlet leads
changes on SPj for four initial sub-fractures, j = 1 to 4.
The SPj of NA sub-fractures induces due to the viscous
effects and increases by decreasing the area of subfracture. For SA sub-fractures, an additional pressure
drop (local pressure drop) occurs during fluid flow
through fractures due to flow section changing. By
change in the sub-fracture section area, flow section
changes and the fluid static pressure decreases suddenly.
Therefore, the SPj of SA sub-fractures increase
dramatically and whatever the flow section changes
more intensively, then, the pressure drop is more
intensive. This phenomenon can be proposed as the
effect of fracture roughness on fluid flow behavior
through fractures.
As shown in Fig. 4, the SPj of both SA and NA sub-

represents the total pressure drop of the jth sub-fracture.

Fig. 4 shows the SPj for different inlet velocities where

fractures increases with inlet velocity. To compare more

closely and clearly about the effect of inlet velocity (or
flow rate) on sub-fractures pressure drop, four SA subfractures with j= 25, 65, 80 and 110 and four NA subfractures with j= 27, 67, 82 and 112 were selected from
geometrical domain and the SPj of each sub-fracture

SPj appears as a semi-undulation graph with a rise and

was calculated for different inlet velocities (Figs 5, 6).

from 1 to 125) was calculated as SPj = p j p j +1 that

fall behavior and abrupt peaks. The uniformly inlet

Fig. 5. The effect of inlet velocity on variation of SP j for SA

Fig. 6. The effect of inlet velocity on variation of SP j for NA

sub-fractures for: (a) j =25 (b) j =65 (c) j =80 and (d) j =110.

sub-fractures for: (a) j =27 (b) j =67 (c) j =82 and (d) j =112.

Fig. 5 shows the variation of the SPj of the selected SA

As shown in Fig. 5, for turbulent flow simulation, the

quadratic polynomial was chosen for curve fitting that
leads a very good correlation factor, R2=1, and the
constant term of expected regression equations are very
low. This polynomial regression has very good
agreement with predicted pressure drop dependent inlet
velocity, flow rate, by T model.

sub-fractures for different inlet velocities. Comparing

the SPj of the selected SA sub-fractures for different
inlet velocities shows a non-linear variation for both
turbulent flow simulation and T model.

The pressure drop of the selected NA sub-fractures

shows a roughly linear variation for turbulent flow
simulation (Fig. 6). Where the flow section between two
consecutive sub-fractures remains constant, such as NA
sub-fractures, the quadratic term in the T model becomes
zero. In this case, a linear relation between pressure drop
and flow rate is expected by T model. Moreover, there is
an appropriate correspondence between predicted
pressure drops obtained by T model and turbulent flow
simulation for NA sub-fractures.

The occurrence of the non-linear flow is anticipated

with critical Reynolds number, generally. Both
turbulent flow simulation and T model indicate that
whatever the flow section changes more intensively,
then, the pressure drop is more intensive. If the
difference in aperture between adjoining fracture
segments is not large, then the fluid to fluid shear
between adjoining segments and the drag against the
risers connecting the walls of adjoining segments can be
neglected. Increasing relative roughness leads to
increase in the difference in aperture between adjoining
fracture segments that results to increase the fluid to
fluid shear and formation of eddies at aperture
constrictions. Therefore, by increasing fracture
roughness, the non-linear flow regime is initiated at
lower values of Reynolds numbers.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Macroscopic non-linear flow through rough-walled
fractures was discussed in this paper using T model and
numerical simulations. Both laminar and turbulent fluid
flow simulations were performed for computational
domain of an artificial three-dimensional fracture for a
wide range of inlet velocities. Macroscopic results of
pressure drop variations along main flow direction for
turbulent flow simulation were compared with those
predicted by T model. To reach this goal, geometrical
domain of fracture was discretized to the smaller SA and
NA sub-fractures. The variation of the average total
pressure drop of SA or NA sub-fractures, SPj , were
evaluated and used for describing the dependency of
pressure drop to flow rate. Based on the presented
results, the following conclusions were obtained:
Both laminar and turbulent flow simulation results show
a good agreement with Forchheimer law for the
Reynolds number in the range of 4.5 to 89.5. In the same
Reynolds number, the static pressure drops predicted by
turbulent flow simulation are higher than those predicted
by laminar flow simulation. For all Reynolds numbers,
the static pressure predicted by T model are more than
those predicted by laminar simulation. In low Reynolds
number there is not much difference between laminar
and turbulent flow simulations. But, by increasing the
Reynolds number, non-linearity of pressure drop
dependence of flow rate increases. In such situation, it

seems that the turbulent flow simulation leads to more

rational and reasonable estimations for non-linear fluid
flow. Therefore, the results of turbulent flow simulation
were selected for T model validation and also evaluating
the impact of roughness and inlet velocity on pressure
drop.
Non-linearity of fluid flow through rough-walled
fractures may occur as a result of inertial losses arising
from entrance and exit losses along exhaust boundaries,
changes in flow velocity or direction along the flow path
due to constrictions or obstructions, and localized eddy
formation. Such inertial losses are generally proportional
to the square of the fluid velocity and form the
repercussion of the coefficient B in the Forchheimers
law (Eq. 4). Localized eddy formations are initiated at
constrictions or obstructions along the flow path that are
result of aperture variations. Increasing flow rate and
aperture variation between adjoining segments yields
significant increase in the fluid to fluid shear between
adjoining segments and the intensity of rotational flow
increase. Rapid changes in the aperture along the flow
path will necessitate prompt variations in the in-plane
velocity, in order to maintain conservation of mass that
causes acceleration and deceleration of the flow. These
repeated acceleration and deceleration sequences cause a
departure from a linear relationship between pressure
drop and flow rate, even if the flow remains laminar. By
refining
the
aperture
distribution
(increasing
measurement resolution) over x-y grid, the intensity of
changes in the aperture between adjoining segments will
be changed and as consequence, the pressure drop of the
fracture will be changed spatially for SA sub-fractures
and higher flow rates.
Using stepped aperture distribution over x-y grid with
uniform spacing provided an opportunity to classify subfractures in two classes as SA sub-fractures, with abrupt
change in the flow section, and NA sub-fractures,
without abrupt any change in the flow section. Based on
turbulent flow simulation and T model, two types of
pressure drops contain viscous, linear, and local pressure
drops, non-linear, can be considered during fluid flow
through rock fractures. Both turbulent flow simulation
and T model show that a linear and a quadratic nonlinear variations of the SPj can be considered for NA
and SA sub-fractures, respectively. Since the pressure
drop of the main fracture is the summation of the SP j of
all sub-fractures, the relation between pressure drop and
flow rate can be described with a quadratic polynomial
expression as the same as Forchheimers law.
The critical Reynolds number alone is not adequate
criteria for occurrence of the non-linear flow and the
coincidence effects of Reynolds number and fracture
roughness should be considered on occurrence of nonlinear flow regime. The quadratic coefficient in T model
is proportional to ( z ij2 z i2, j +1 ) . Widely distributed

aperture and increasing roughness cause larger values

of ( z ij2 z i2, j +1 ) and, in turn, will increase the quadratic
coefficient, which will lead the non-linear flow regime
to initiate at lower values of Reynolds numbers. By
considering the definition of critical Reynolds as a
number that nonlinear effects will contribute about 10%
to the total pressure drop and using T model, the
coincidence effects of Reynolds number and fracture
roughness can be considered in occurrence of non-linear
flow regime. Therefore, the larger the spread of the
aperture distribution or more fracture roughness caused
the earlier non-linear regime.

REFERENCES
1.

Witherspoon, P.A., Wang, J.S.Y., K. Iwai, and J.E.

Gale. 1980. Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a
deformable rock fracture. Water Resour. Res. 16: 6,
10161024.

2.

Brown, S.R. 1987. Fluid flow through rock joints: the

effect of surface roughness. J. Geophys. Res. 92: B2,
1337-1347.

3.

Zimmerman, R.W. and G.S. Bodvarsson. 1996.

Hydraulic conductivity of rock fractures. Transport in
Porous Media 23: 130.

4.

Ge, S. 1997. A governing equation for fluid flow in

rough fractures. Water Resour. Res. 33: 1, 5361.

5.

Crandall, D., G. Ahmadi and D.H. Smith. 2010.

Computational Modeling of Fluid Flow through a
Fracture in Permeable Rock. Transp. Porous Med.
84:493510.

6.

Rasouli, V., and A. Hosseinian. 2011. Correlations

Developed for Estimation of Hydraulic Parameters of
Rough Fractures Through the Simulation of JRC Flow
Channels. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 44: 447461.

7.

Brush, D., and N.R. Thomson. 2003. Fluid flow in

synthetic rough-walled fractures: Navier-Stokes,
Stokes, and local cubic law simulations. Water Resour.
Res. 39: 4, 1085-1099.

8.

Koyama, T., L. Neretnieks and Jing, L. 2008. A

numerical study on differences in using NavierStokes
and Reynolds equations for modeling the fluid flow and
particle transport in single rock fractures with shear.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 45: 10821101.

9.

Nazridoust, K., G. Ahmadi and D.H. Smith. 2006. A

new friction factor correlation for laminar, single-phase
flows through rock fractures. J. Hydrol. 329: 315 328.

10. Zimmerman, R.W., Al-Yaarubi, A.H., C.C. Pain and

C.A. Grattoni. 2004. Non-linear regimes of fluid flow
in rock fractures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41: 3,
163-169.
11. Javadi, M., M. Sharifzadeh and K. Shahriar. 2010. A
new geometrical model for non-linear fluid flow
through rough fractures. J. Hydrol. 389 : 1830.

12. Qian, J., Zhan, H., W. Zhao and F. Sun. 2005.

Experimental study of turbulent unconfined
groundwater flow in a single fracture. J. Hydrol. 311
,134142.
13. Qian, J.Z., Chen, Z., H.B. Zhan and S.H. Luo. 2011.
Solute transport in a filled single fracture under nonDarcian flow. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48: 132140
14. Ranjith, P.G. and D.R. Viete. 2011. Applicability of the
cubic law for non-Darcian fracture flow. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 78: 321327
15. Elsworth,
D.
and
R.E.
Goodman.
1986.
Characterization of rock fissure hydraulic conductivity
using idealized wall roughness profiles. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 23: 233-243.