impact of single fracture roughness on the flow, …...ii ii impact of single fracture roughness on...
TRANSCRIPT
Impact of Single Fracture Roughness on the Flow, Transport and Development of Biofilms
by
Scott A Briggs
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto
© Copyright by Scott A Briggs 2014
ii
ii
Impact of Single Fracture Roughness on the Flow, Transport and
Development of Biofilms
Scott A Briggs
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2014
Abstract
This study examined the impact of systematically increasing roughness in a single fracture and
the effects on the hydraulic properties, solute transport and biofilm development in those
fractures. Biofilms were modeled using a newly developed two-dimensional Lattice-Boltzmann
Method (LBM) fluid flow model with the additional capability to simulate substrate transport
using a discrete Random Walk (RW) algorithm. The discrete modeling methods, including
LBM, RW and Cellular Automata (CA) for biofilm modeling, were able to capture small scale
effects that emerged into large scale behaviour of biofilm growth and structure development.
The two-dimensional fluid flow model using LBM was developed and validated against
analytical solutions for simple cases of parallel plate flow and a backward facing step. Fracture
flow results showed a pronounced deviation from predicted cubic law flow rates as expected and
previously reported in the literature. Two-dimensional fracture cross-sections were synthetically
produced to control the fracture roughness and results from the LBM model extended the three-
zone non-linear model of hydraulic behaviour from porous media to include fractured media.
Simulations with the LBM model showed that secondary flows, or flows not contributing to bulk
flow, could occur at Reynolds numbers lower than previously reported in the literature.
iii
iii
A numerical solute transport method was added to the LBM flow simulations to model solute
transport in fractures of increasing roughness. Here the delay of breakthrough curves, including
initial, peak and tail were associated with the development and growth of eddies.
A biofilm growth model, implemented with a discrete CA method, was used to capture the local
small scale effects of fracture roughness, hydraulics and substrate transport on biofilm
development in terms of biomass and bio-structure. In two dimensions, biofilm growth was
controlled by clogging, which occurs earlier at lower biomass levels in rougher fractures.
Sensitivity analysis of biofilm development assuming a variation in bacteria shear strength was
completed. Lower biofilm shear strength does not allow for any biofilm development within the
fracture, however, when the shear strength is increased above a threshold, dependent on
Reynolds numbers and fracture roughness, biofilms begin to develop. Above the shear strength
threshold the same general trends of biofilm development hold compared to the results when no
sloughing due to shear is considered.
iv
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Brent Sleep and Dr. Bryan Karney who have gone
above and beyond to ensure I have always had the support and encouragement needed during my
graduate work. Their ongoing feedback and guidance has been invaluable and is sincerely
appreciated.
I would also like to thank Dr. Giovanni Grasselli for his feedback and encouragement over the
years. Particularly, his insight and guidance with this document has made it stronger and more
complete. In addition I would like to thank him for letting me share offices with his students
who have also been a tremendous source of help and support.
My appreciation and thanks go out to Dr. Jennifer Drake and Dr. Sarah Dickson who provided
advice and feedback for my thesis and as a result have helped to make this document a well-
rounded and comprehensive body of work.
I would never have been able to begin or complete this journey without the support of my family,
including parents, parents-in-law and of course my wife, whom over the course of my studies
have always supported and encouraged me during successful times and difficult times and
without question allowed me to find myself along the way. I am truly fortunate to have their
genuine support allowing me to persevere in my studies.
v
v
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.1 Lattice Boltzmann Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Particle Tracking Methods ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.3 Biofilm Modeling ............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Thesis Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 VALIDATION OF A NEWLY DEVELOPED MODEL FOR FLOW IN A
SINGLE ROCK FRACTURE ................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Model Implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.1 Lattice Boltzmann Method .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 Fracture Generation .................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 18
2.3.1 Flow Between Parallel Plates ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Backward Facing Step ................................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.3 Flow in a Single Fracture............................................................................................................................. 20
2.4 Model Performance ............................................................................................................................................. 25
2.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3 QUANTIFICATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EDDY FORMATION ON
THE EFFECTIVE HYDRAULIC APERTURES IN ROCK FRACTURE FLOW ............ 26
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
3.2.1 Flow modeling .............................................................................................................................................. 28
vi
vi
3.2.2 Flow between Parallel Plates ....................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.3 Fracture Generation .................................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 34
3.3.1 Fracture Flow ............................................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Tortuosity ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
3.3.3 Directionality ................................................................................................................................................ 44
3.4 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 4 SOLUTE TRANSPORT IN SINGLE FRACTURES WITH INCREASING
ROUGHNESS ............................................................................................................................. 46
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2 Methods and Validation ...................................................................................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Fluid Flow Modeling in Fractures .............................................................................................................. 48
4.2.2 Solute Transport ........................................................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3 Model Validation .......................................................................................................................................... 51
4.3 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 53
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 57
4.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF ROUGHNESS AND SHEAR ON BIOFILM POPULATIONS
AND STRUCTURE IN A SINGLE ROCK FRACTURE....................................................... 61
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Model Implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 64
5.2.1 Biofilm ........................................................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.2 Substrate ....................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.2.3 Bulk Fluid Flow ............................................................................................................................................ 67
5.2.4 Fracture Generation .................................................................................................................................... 68
5.3 Biofilm Growth Model ........................................................................................................................................ 70
5.4 Timescales ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
5.5 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 74
vii
vii
5.5.1 Biofilm with No Sloughing ........................................................................................................................... 74
5.5.2 Biofilm with Sloughing ................................................................................................................................ 80
5.5.3 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 84
5.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 94
6.1 Overall Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 94
6.2 Contributions ....................................................................................................................................................... 97
6.3 Critical Appraisal ................................................................................................................................................ 98
6.4 Future Work ...................................................................................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 103
viii
viii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Horizontal velocity profile comparing the analytical results of a Poisseuille
profile and the model results. ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.2: Flow, from left to right, over a backward facing step. Shown as red vertical
lines, the reattachment lengths are approximately 3, 4, 5 step heights for Re =
100, 150 and 200 respectively. The step height is half the downstream width.
Velocity is plotted with red representing the fastest velocities and blue the
slowest. The velocity profile is parabolic immediately upstream and far
downstream of the step while the zones outside of this region are omitted for
clarity. ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 2.3: The ratio of hydraulic aperture to mechanical aperture is plotted against
statistical roughness of the fracture as described by Renshaw (1995). The
model fits well with theoretical data. The model predictions are plotted from
a single fracture by increasing the mechanical aperture or dm. .................................. 22
Figure 2.4: The streamlines are plotted as the Re increases from 0.6 to 60. Secondary
flows develop in the form of eddies and grown to fill a larger cross-section of
the aperture. Each node is represents approximately 2 µm. ..................................... 24
Figure 2.5: Left hand side: Flow through a fracture. Right hand side: Flow through
parallel plates with the mechanical aperture equivalent to the fracture aperture
on the left. Relative velocity is plotted with yellow representing the fastest
velocities and dark blue the slowest. .......................................................................... 24
Figure 3.1: Fracture profiles b through i generated using a synthetic fracture generator
called SynFrac. Total fracture length is 100 mm and each fracture has a mean
aperture of 1.7 mm, only the fractal dimension (FD) variable is changed in
SynFrac. Fracture profile a represents a parallel plate system with an
equivalent 1.7 mm aperture. Fracture profile j represents a 16 mm long strip
from a dolomite fracture with mean aperture 0.1 mm. .............................................. 34
Figure 3.2: Flow streamlines in a fracture over a range of Reynolds number from 0.01 to
500. The fracture is a 2D slice of a 3D fracture generated in SynFrac with a
fractal dimension of 2.35. The segment shown has an overall dimension of
approximatly 1 mm2. .................................................................................................. 35
ix
ix
Figure 3.3: Simulated flow streamlines in a fracture at a Reynolds number of 500. The
fracture is a 2D slice of a 3D fracture generated in SynFrac with a fractal
dimension of 2.35. The segment shown has an overall length of approximately
5 mm taken from the 100 mm long fracture simulated. ............................................ 36
Figure 3.4: Relative effective hydraulic apertures (ratio of effective to mean apertures for
each fracture respectively) for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with
varying roughness. ..................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.5: Slope of effective aperture plots (Figure 3.4) for the dolomite and synthetic
fractures with varying roughness. .............................................................................. 39
Figure 3.6: Eddy volume for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness. ...... 40
Figure 3.7: Flow streamlines (black lines with arrows) and the eddy volume that does not
contribute to bulk flow (thick red line). Cross-section shown represents
approximately 1.8mm2 from a segment of a SynFrac cross section with an
original fractal dimension of 2.35. ............................................................................. 41
Figure 3.8: Statistically similar synthetic fractures generated with SynFrac. Only the seed
of the pseudo random number generators is changed. ............................................... 42
Figure 3.9: Tortuosity for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness. ........... 43
Figure 3.10: Tortuosity of statistically similar synthetic fractures generated with SynFrac.
Only the seed of the pseudo random number generators is changed. ........................ 44
Figure 4.1: Point source diffusion in 2D and the relative concentrations at a given radius
from the source. Results for time t = 1000, t = 2000 and t = 10000 are shown
with their respective analytical solutions. .................................................................. 51
Figure 4.2: Effective dispersion for the values: 0.0038 / and
0.0013 2/ after (Sukop and Thorne, 2005). The input values are given in
terms of lattice units (lu) and time steps (ts), typical for LBM applications. ............ 52
Figure 4.3: Breakthrough curves for 7 10 10 2 at Reynolds numbers 1
through 100 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface
with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. The ‘Slit’ represents a
parallel plate system modeled in the same way as all FD results; finally the
analytical solution for each case is shown for comparison. Concentration
profiles (C) are plotted relative to the total number of particles (M) and
normalized.................................................................................................................. 54
x
x
Figure 4.4: Effective dispersion coefficients using data from the LBM and RW model
using the method of moments except for the analytical solutions with is
calculated from Equation 4.8. Data shown for 7 10 10 2 at
Reynolds numbers 1 through 100 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D
slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. ..................... 56
Figure 4.5: Breakthrough curves for 3.5 10 10 2 , 7 10 10 2
and 14 10 10 2 respectively at a Reynolds number of 50 for
synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal
dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. The ‘Slit’ represents a parallel plate
system modeled in the same way as all FD results, finally the analytical
solution for each case is shown for comparison. ....................................................... 57
Figure 4.6: Data shown is for Re = 50 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of
a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. Case 1 and 2 do
not meet the constraint for minimizing numerical dispersion. .................................. 58
Figure 4.7: For a set bin size when calculating the histogram, a larger number of particles
gives a more accurate description of the dispersion of particles through the
fracture without changing the overall behaviour. Data shown is for Re = 50
for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal
dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. .......................................................................... 59
Figure 5.1: Fracture profiles b through i generated using a synthetic fracture generator
called SynFrac. Total fracture length is 100 mm and each fracture has a mean
aperture of 1.7 mm, only the fractal dimension (FD) input parameter is
adjusted in SynFrac. Fracture profile a represents a parallel plate system with
an equivalent mean 1.7 mm aperture. ........................................................................ 70
Figure 5.2: Main program loop which includes the processes of fluid dynamics, substrate
transport and biofilm growth. .................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.3: A representative sample of biofilm structure in a fracture. For the fracture
shown, Re = 50, FD = 2.35, Biofilm shear strength is 0.045 Pa. The plotted
segment is approximately 1mm of the total 100mm fracture. Blue represents
flow with streamlines plotted on top, green represent a biofilm cell and pink
represent locations where biofilms are permitted to develop. ................................... 74
Figure 5.4: Biofilm characteristics expressed by two different quantitative measurements:
relative FD on the left and relative biomass on the right. Values are relative to
xi
xi
the initial FD and biomass of each respective fracture. Results are shown for
Re 1 through 100 and normalized time. ..................................................................... 76
Figure 5.5: Total biomass is plotted at time of a clogging event for fractures with FD
2.00, 2.15 and 2.35. Results for parallel plates are shown for reference. ................. 78
Figure 5.6: Biomass growth plotted against the relative hydraulic aperture as a measure of
hydraulic behavior in fractures with increasing roughness. Results shown for
Re = 1, 50 and 100. Each model is run until a clogging event negates the
usefulness of further hydraulic measurements. .......................................................... 79
Figure 5.7: Streamlines are plotted along a segment of the total fracture representing
approximately 1 mm of the model at Re = 50. Shear strength from left to
right, from top to bottom: 0.030, 0.035, 0.040, 0.045, 0.050, 40 Pa (similar to
no shear enabled in the model). Biofilm is shown in green while pink
represent locations where biofilms are permitted to develop. The plotted
results are shown at the time of a clogging event, or late-time for those shear
strengths that do not clog. .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 5.8: Results for relative change in FD for fractures with FD 2.15 and 2.35 shown
with the parallel plate case for comparison. For the case of Re = 1 all shear
strength values exhibit similar behaviour and follow the same trend. Biofilm
shear strength varies from 0.01 to 40 Pa with the case of no sloughing also
shown for comparison. Various biofilm shear strength values are highlighted
to emphasise the shift in the threshold growth values over increasingly rough
fractures. ..................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 5.9: Results for relative change in biomass for fractures with FD 2.15 and 2.35
shown with the parallel plate case for comparison. Biofilm shear strength
varies from 0.01 to 40 Pa with the case of no sloughing also shown for
comparison. Various biofilm shear strength values are highlighted to
emphasise the shift in the threshold growth values over increasingly rough
fractures. ..................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.10: Sensitivity of the biofilm growth behaviour to whether particles are re-
injected after being consumed by a bacteria cell. Re = 50 and FD = 2.35. ............. 85
Figure 5.11: Timescale sensitivity analysis for the case of Re = 50 and FD = 2.35. Results
are shown using for various Time Step (TS) ratios between successive steps. ......... 86
xii
xii
Figure 5.12: Visualization of sensitivity of the timescale used between successive biofilm
iterations. Shown from top to bottom represent Time Step (TS) ratio of 100;
1,000; 10,000; 100,000 and 1,000,000. The segment of fractures shown
represents approximately 2 mm of the total 100 mm fracture. All five cases
are for Re = 50 and FD 2.35. ..................................................................................... 87
Figure 5.13: Biofilm FD and biomass results for the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000 for
fractures with increasing roughness. .......................................................................... 89
Figure 5.14: Biomass growth as a percent increase plotted against the relative effective,
or hydraulic, aperture for the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000. Presented
hydraulic apertures are normalized to unity for a relative comparison between
fractures of varying roughness. The bottom figure enables particle re-
injection relative to the top figure. ............................................................................. 90
Figure 5.15: Sensitivity analysis for diffusion coefficients in fracture with Re = 50 and
FD = 2.35. ................................................................................................................. 91
Figure 5.16: Sensitivity analysis of initial substrate concentrations in fracture with Re =
50 and FD = 2.35. ...................................................................................................... 91
Figure 5.17: Sensitivity analysis of reproducibility of the model in fracture with Re = 50
and FD = 2.35. ........................................................................................................... 92
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
Groundwater refers to water that is found throughout soils and in rock cracks, or fractures, is
usually found within 100 meters of the ground surface and plays a critical role in the
hydrological cycle. Groundwater is a crucial natural resource across the world, used as a source
of drinking water and for many residential, commercial and industrial processes. Specifically, in
Canada, 25% of the population rely on groundwater as a source of drinking water (Statistics
Canada, 2010) and overall groundwater accounts for 30% of the global fresh water supply
(Gleick, 1996). Undesirable substances, natural or anthropogenic in origin, are considered to be
contaminants and typically do not stay stationary but can travel significant distances and pollute
fresh drinking water sources. It then becomes necessary to address the sources of contamination
by removing polluting sources and rehabilitating or remediating contaminated sites.
In the field of contaminant hydrogeology various treatment techniques and technologies are used
to rehabilitate targeted sites around the world. Depending on the soil types, contaminant
properties and project objectives, solutions may include excavation, pump-and-treat, soil-vapour
extraction, thermal technologies or bioremediation. Without describing each method, it can be
generally said that each have their respective advantages and disadvantages and the end goal is to
remove as much pollution as possible. Commonly, contaminants have very low solubility in
water meaning that after some initial remediation, if trace amounts of the substance remain they
will slowly dissolve into the groundwater. Over time the substances continue to contaminate a
site and more significantly are likely to be transported downstream to a source of drinking water.
To address this long term contamination source, a similarly long term solution is needed and can
take the form of bioremediation.
Bioremediation takes advantage of the local bacterial populations in the soil to transform
contaminants to more inert forms. Bioremediation methods can include bioaugmentation, the
injection of new bacterial populations and biostimulation, stimulation of the growth of natural
populations by injecting food, or substrate. Bioremediation can be cost-effective over long
periods of time as the bacterial populations are self-sustaining or may require only minimal
2
intervention to maintain. Conventionally, zones of high levels of bacteria are established and
take the form of a bio-barrier that acts to effect treatment of contaminants as the groundwater
moves through the bio-barrier.
Bacteria are often associated with and are divided into two forms, or phenotypes: planktonic and
biofilms. Planktonic bacterial refer to a free floating cell or group of cells in a fluid and biofilms
refer to bacteria that are attached to a surface. When bacteria form biofilms they are more
resilient to anti-microbial attack, they are more productive and can grow much faster. The
success of bacterial populations in the biofilm phenotype is such that the biofilm is considered to
be the predominant and preferred form of most bacterial species (Costerton, 2007). Therefore,
when trying to understand bioremediation at the scale of individual or groups of bacteria it
becomes a study of biofilms.
Bioremediation can be used in various soil types including fractured rock where water,
contaminants and biofilms are predominantly found within the rock fractures amongst the host
rock. To study the performance of bioremediation therefore requires the understanding of flow
and transport in fractures along with the behaviour of biofilms attached to the fracture walls.
Overall understanding of biofilm behaviour and groundwater environments is improved through
a three tiered approach: numerical modeling, lab scale testing and in-situ pilot studies. This work
concentrates on numerical simulations or modeling of biofilm in rock fractures to advance the
knowledge in the field.
Flow rates in rock fractures can become significant relative to typical porous media flow rates as
fractured media may develop zones of large apertures or high gradients or both. Gradients can
also be augmented artificially, for example during pumping at a well, and would significantly
alter the hydraulic behaviour in the surrounding media. It is not always known when flow may
become significant and when conventional fracture flow models like the cubic law breakdown
and a different approach is required. Similarly, when preferential flow paths open in fractures,
transport of solutes can be moved over significant distances but are still affected by fracture
geometry. Both the changing hydraulic and solute transport behaviours at increasing hydraulic
gradients can significantly affect the expected outcome of biofilm growth in terms of biomass,
structure and location.
The behaviour and development of the biofilm, which takes place at the micron to mm scale
(bacteria sizes are measured in microns) is expected to be strongly affected by the fracture
3
aperture geometry. Significant changes in apertures or variations in roughness may considerably
alter the distribution of substrate within a fracture and therefore control the biofilm morphology.
To capture variation in aperture and roughness, numerical methods suitably able to resolve small
scale features in a single rock fracture are needed. Simulating biofilms within these fractures at
micron resolutions requires significant computational capability and practically limits the
modeling domain to a scale of millimeters or centimeters.
1.2 Approach
The intentions of this thesis are to examine the effects of fracture aperture geometry and its
associated roughness on three key aspects of biofilm development including bulk fluid
movement, substrate transport and biofilm development. Fluid flow within rock fractures is
modeled using a Lattice-Boltzmann Method (LBM) developed to resolve flows around the
unique geometry of fractures and biofilm colonies. Substrate transport is also expected to be
directly affected by aperture variations and a discrete Random Walk (RW) particle tracking
method is used capture these effects. Finally, a Cellular Automata (CA) approaches is used for
modeling biofilm development.
1.2.1 Lattice Boltzmann Methods Overall understanding of biofilm behaviour groundwater environments is improved through a
three tiered approach: numerical modeling, lab scale testing and in-situ pilot studies. Within the
scope of numerical modeling, understanding fluid flow in rock fractures remains an open
research question in the areas of contaminant hydrogeology, petroleum engineering and the long-
term disposal of nuclear waste. Conventionally, bulk flow rates in fractures have been modeled
as flow through an equivalent system of smooth parallel plates using the cubic law (see
Witherspoon et al. (1980) for a review of the early development of this law in fractures) where
flow is proportional to pressure gradient, with a proportionality constant, or transmissivity,
related to the cube of the aperture. However the cubic law approximation to flow in fractures is
not sufficient for all applications. For example, small scale numerical modeling of fluid
interactions within fractures may require the use of more comprehensive approaches. The small
scale fluid-fracture interactions are expected to play a significant role in diffusion and advection
of solutes and therefore affect biofilm substrate availability, populations and structure. Discrete
numerical methods such as the LBM can be effectively used to model rough fracture geometries
and capture small scale effects of fracture surfaces.
4
LBM originates from the Lattice Gas Automata (LGA) methods. LGA methods are discrete in
space, time and particle velocity. Frisch et al. (1986) developed the first hexagonal grid, with
seven particle velocities that consisted of a lattice for which each node has six vertices connected
to other nodes. The seventh particle velocity came from the stationary case with zero velocity.
In Frisch’s model, there could be either 0 or 1 particle at any given node moving, or streaming,
in any direction. The collision step occurred when more than one particle occupied the same
node and the rules governing the collisions conserved mass and momentum before and after each
collision.
LBM evolved from Lattice-Gas Automata (LGA) to address some of its short-comings, the
primary being the Boolean treatment of particles at a node. Instead, LBM use a probability
distribution function to describe the nodal velocities and fluid momentum (Martys and
Hagedorn, 2002). In LBM the microscopic interaction of particles on a grid and the averaging of
those interactions emerge into the macroscopic continuum of a fluid.
LBM are essentially explicit finite difference approximations of the Boltzmann equation used to
describe flow (Eker and Akin, 2006) where the Boltzmann equation is a relationship that
describes the kinetics, or changes, of a thermodynamic system. The LBM are typically first
order accurate in time and 2nd order accurate in space depending on the implementation (Tolke,
2010). A popular approach to CFD modeling includes the use of the Navier-Stokes equations
which govern the motion of fluid by conserving mass and energy. Similarly to the LBM, the
Navier-Stokes equations are derived from the Boltzmann equations.
Other types of CFD start with the Navier-Stokes equations, which govern the macroscopic
movement of fluids, then discretize to get a solution to a system of partial differential equations
(Eker and Akin, 2006). The LBM, however, models the interaction of particles on a grid and
their emergent interactions which include two main steps: streaming and collision. The
streaming step is a translation of particles from one node on the grid to the next. The collision
step conserves momentum by redirection of particles which ‘collide’ or occupy the same node.
1.2.2 Particle Tracking Methods Particles within the systems are displaced via the processes of advection and diffusion.
Advection is calculated using the local velocity at the known particle coordinates while diffusion
is calculated using a discrete RW method. A random walk in space refers to the random step, or
5
path, of a particle over time. With proper treatment of the particle paths and a sufficient number
of particles the resultant behaviour is similar to Brownian motion. Brownian motion refers to the
transport phenomenon describing the random movement of molecules in a fluid. The sum of
molecular collisions emerges as the physical process of diffusion at the large scale. The RW
group of methods have been developed and used extensively for the purpose of solute transport
in porous and fractured media (Ahlstrom et al., 1977; Tompson and Gelhar, 1990; Wels et al.,
1997; James and Chrysikopoulos, 1999; Delay et al., 2005; Nowamooz et al., 2013).
The discrete particles modelled in the RW process are used for simulating the transport of
dissolved substrate. Several simplifying assumptions are used for the modeling of dissolved
substrate in this work which also simplifies the numerical implementation and computational
cost. They are assumed to be neutrally buoyant and exhibit no decay or matrix diffusion.
Particle-particle interactions are not modeled nor do particles affect the flow solution. The only
forces acting on the particles are advective from the local fluid velocity and a diffusive process,
both of which are described by the following Fokker-Planck equation (James and
Chrysikopoulos, 2011):
∆ ∙ ∆ 0,1 ∙ 2 ∙ ∙ ∆ (1.1)
where Dm is the molecular diffusion coefficient, is the local velocity at the location x of the
particle at time t, 0,1 is normally distributed random number for each dimension i with mean
zero and a standard deviation of unity. For a more detailed development of the Fokker-Planck
approach the reader is referred to Delay et al. (2005) among other literature.
Numerical dispersion is minimized by ensuring ∙ ∆ ≪ ∆ (Tompson and Gelhar, 1990;
Hassan and Mohamed, 2003). A more strict limit is described by Maier et al. (2000) and further
constrains to ensure a particle moves a maximum of one half ∆ per time step.
∆ 6 ∆∆
(1.2)
With a sufficient number of particles a RW method can accurately model the process of
Brownian motion used to model diffusion. In general more than 100,000 particles are required
to sufficiently model diffusion using RW (Hassan and Mohamed, 2003).
6
1.2.3 Biofilm Modeling Experimental and numerical studies of biofilms have been beneficial in developing and testing
theories of fundamental biofilm behaviours. Using micro-scale discrete numerical algorithms, the
current study examines the behaviour expressed by a biofilm developing in a fracture and
improves the understanding of the role of fracture geometry and flow rates in a single rock
fracture on biofilm growth patterns.
A CA approach to biofilm modeling is taken as CA algorithms can exhibit complex and chaotic
behaviour from simple evolutionary rules. They are based on local relationships and interactions
and have been shown to proficiently model local phenomena such as spikes or discontinuities in
population distributions. The state of a CA cell which is discrete in time and space describes
weather a bacterium is present or not at that location.
CA have been used to successfully model the emergent behaviours of biofilms including 2D
models (Wimpenny and Colasanti, 1997; Hermanowicz, 1998; Krawczyk et al., 2003; Indekeu
and Giuraniuc, 2004; Luna et al., 2004) along with 3D models (Picioreanu et al., 1998; Hunt,
2004; Eberhard et al., 2005). Continuous approaches can also be used for 3D biofilm modeling
(Alpkvist et al., 2006) and can simulate complex biofilm structures but fall short of the
heterogeneity shown by Hunt (2004) or biofilms observed experimentally (Lewandowski et al.,
1999). When modeling at the scale of a bacterium (~1 µm) a 3D cell of one cubic millimeter
will consist of a billion cells. At this scale computation costs quickly become prohibitive and
simplifications have to be made depending on the constraints and objectives of the project. For
example, 2D modeling reduces computation requirements while still being able to capture
biofilm behaviour however, it would not capture 3D channeling around a biofilm cluster for
example. As with any model, one must be cognisant of its capabilities and its limitations to
judge of the validity and applicability of the results.
The bacteria in the model are governed by simple life-cycle rules, these rules emerge into
complex behaviour suitable for modeling real systems. The bacteria or CA cells start their life-
cycle as dormant, inactive bacteria along the fracture wall; they are activated if substrate
becomes available locally and finally they consume the substrate and divide after a threshold
mass has been reached. Through modeling of biofilms we can strive to predict their behaviour
with the ultimate goal of understanding the factors that dominate their actions. Using
experimental work as a starting point, numerical biofilm models can be developed to mimic
7
these systems. Biofilms are an example of a system whose behaviour is described as emergent
where each bacterium has limited knowledge of the global state but as the system grows at a
local level it does so in a way that benefits the whole. CA can be programed under similar
conditions and is why CA models have effectively duplicated the mushroom shaped biofilm
clusters observed experimentally (Picioreanu et al., 1998; Hunt et al., 2003).
Biofilm modeling in this thesis is limited to a few key elements of a bacterium life-cycle
including substrate consumption for growth, randomization of the direction of growth and effects
of biofilm removal, or sloughing.
Sloughing of biofilm due to shear from the bulk fluid can be optionally applied to the biofilm
model and the effects of enabling this feature are studied. Biofilms are considered to behave as a
visco-elastic material however for the purposes of this study, they are assumed to be rigid with a
maximum shear strength above which sloughing occurs. When the maximum shear strength is
reached for a given cell in the model, the cell is removed which assumes the bacteria is flushed
from the system with no re-attachment downstream.
1.3 Research Objectives
In this thesis the impact of single fracture roughness on flow, transport and biofilm growth is
studied. The following research objectives were examined to develop an understanding of these
factors:
1. To investigate the effect of fracture geometry and roughness on flow in a single rock
fracture. To address this objective, a CFD code was needed capable of resolving small
scale variations in velocity throughout the fracture improving on traditional cubic law
approaches (Chapter 2).
2. To determine, quantitatively, the effects of fracture roughness and eddy formation on the
effective hydraulic aperture in rock fracture flow. To quantify these effects, synthetically
generated fractures allowing independent parameter adjustments, including roughness are
needed (Chapter 3).
3. To determine the effects of fracture geometry and roughness on solute transport in a
single rock fracture. Similar to the treatment of flow in fractures a particle transport
model which enables small scale local interactions is required to capture these effects.
8
Using the same synthetic fractures from Chapter 2 the effect of changing fracture
roughness can be analyzed (Chapter 4).
4. To investigate the effects of fracture roughness and biofilm shear strength on biofilm
population dynamics. A discrete modeling approach is required to capture local
interactions between bacteria, substrate and fluids. Analysis of biomass and fractal
dimensions of biofilm colonies were used to quantify the effects of roughness, hydraulic
behaviour and biofilm shear strength (Chapter 5).
1.4 Thesis Overview
This thesis consists of four central chapters that are intended to stand alone for the purpose of
submission to academic journals. Each chapter builds on the computational model of the
previous chapters and therefore contains some repeated background material on the numerical
methods used in earlier chapters.
Chapter 2 describes the model developed for 2D flow through rock fractures using the LBM
including background and theory leading to the development of the method. Validation of the
model is completed using simple case studies including flow between parallel plates and flow
over a backward facing step. Performance of the model is discussed and the importance of the
parallel implementation on General Purpose Graphics Processing Units (GPGPU) is established.
Cross sections from two real fractures are modeled and compared using a statistical measure of
roughness defined by the ratio of hydraulic and mechanical aperture.
Chapter 3 classifies the effects of eddy formation and growth in a single rock fracture under
increasing flow rates. Using synthetically generated fracture surfaces the appearance and growth
of eddies is described and a three-zone model of fracture flow is extended from porous media to
include fractured media. Tortuosity is also calculated and shown to follow a similar three-zone
model.
Chapter 4 adds a solute transport module to the LBM flow code. A discrete RW approach is
used to describe the process of diffusion while fluid velocities from the fracture are used to
advect the discrete particles. The RW method is validated against 2D analytical solutions for
diffusion while the combined LBM and RW model is validated using Taylor-Aris dispersion
between parallel plates. Breakthrough curves are presented and validated for parallel plate flow
9
using analytical solutions as comparison. Furthermore, breakthrough curves are reported for
varying flow rates and fracture roughnesses to characterize their respective effects.
Chapter 5 adds a biofilm growth module to the numerical code. A discrete CA approach is used
to describe the population dynamics of a biofilm. The effects of variations in flow rates, fracture
roughness, diffusion coefficients and biofilm shear strength are addressed. Sensitivity analysis
of the biofilm growth model is reported and discussed.
Chapter 6 details overall conclusions, contributions and possible future work.
10
Chapter 2
Validation of a Newly Developed Model for Flow in a Single
Rock Fracture
Abstract
Simulation of flow through rough walled rock fractures is investigated using the Lattice
Boltzmann Method (LBM) implemented on General Purpose Graphic Processing Units
(GPGPUs). The LBM model developed is an order of magnitude faster than published results for
LBM simulations run on modern CPUs. Hydraulic parameters and velocity profiles of an actual
rock fracture were calculated and compared to a smooth fracture of equivalent aperture as
predicted by the cubic law. Results showed that the applicability of the cubic law depends
highly on the fracture geometry with LBM model predictions deviating from cubic law
predictions from 10% to 50%. In particular, LBM models confirm that as the ratio of the mean
fracture aperture to the standard deviation of the aperture decreases, cubic law predictions
become increasingly inaccurate.
2.1 Introduction
Capturing the small scale behaviour in physical systems with grid spacing down to the micron
scale quickly leads to impractical computational requirements. Some modern computer
architectures have been developed, however, which are suitable for high performance parallel
computing. The challenge then becomes the implementation of conventional numerical
algorithms and methods on the new architecture. Once such architecture involves Graphics
Processing Units (GPUs) which have been used for decades for graphics within the PC
ecosystem. GPUs have evolved over time with more complex computing capabilities and are
now able to compile and run C based code and are more commonly referred to as General
Purpose GPUs or GPGPUs. Similarly, some algorithms are better suited for implementation on
parallel computing then others, factors include the method and scale of intercommunication
between nodes. As more intercommunication is required, particularly if global knowledge of the
system is required, a larger penalty is incurred because of the limited bandwidth between
computational units. Rather it is beneficial if the calculations at each node is as self-contained as
11
possible, minimizing inter-node communication. GPGPUs behave similar to Single Instruction
Multiple Data (SIMD) systems which represents a computing system that distributes the same
instruction set to many different processors. Considering this physical layout of GPGPU systems
requires the formulation of numerical methods where similar rules and equations are applied at
all nodes to effectively utilize the parallel nature of the hardware. Intuitively this encompasses
many physical processes where for example, the same equations of fluid movement is applied at
each node requiring only local knowledge of the system.
The Lattice Boltzmann Methods (LBM) are increasingly used for simulation of fluid flows in
complex geometries however their application to real engineering cases has been limited by the
required computing power. The local nature of LBM, where only next-neighbour cell
communication is required, lends to the methods suitability to parallelization. Previous work has
shown that an increase of an order of magnitude in performance can be expected when
implementing LBM on a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) (Bailey et al., 2009; Tolke, 2010).
However such work did not show applicability and validation for flows in rock fracture of
interest to hydrogeologists.
LBM are types of numerical methods for solving Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
problems. Other types of CFD start with the Navier-Stokes equations, which govern the
macroscopic movement of fluids, then discretize to get a solution to a system of partial
differential equations (Eker and Akin, 2006). In the LBM model the microscopic interaction of
particles on a grid and the averaging of those interactions emerge into the macroscopic
continuum of a fluid. These interactions include two main steps: streaming and collision. The
streaming step is a translation of particles from one node on the grid to the next. The collision
step conserves momentum by redirection of particles which ‘collide’ or occupy the same node.
LBM originates from the Lattice Gas Automata (LGA) methods. LGA methods are discrete in
space, time and particle velocity. Frisch et al. (1986) developed the first hexagonal grid, with
seven particle velocities that consisted of a lattice for which each node has six vertices connected
to other nodes. The seventh particle velocity came from the stationary case with zero velocity.
In Frisch’s model, there could be either 0 or 1 particle at any given node moving, or streaming,
in any direction. The collision step occurred when more than one particle occupied the same
node and the rules governing the collisions conserved mass and momentum before and after each
collision.
12
LBM evolved from Lattice-Gas Automata (LGA) to address some of its short-comings, the
primary being the Boolean treatment of particles at a node. Instead, LBM use a probability
distribution function to describe the nodal velocities (Martys and Hagedorn, 2002). In two
dimensions, nine velocity directions ei where i = 0,1,2...8 are sufficient to describe a continuum
fluid. Each node has 8 vertices and eo represents a particle at rest. The naming convention used
for LBM is DdQq, where d represents the dimension and q represents the number of vertices
(Sukop and Thorne, 2005). In this case the model would be D2Q9 for a two-dimensional grid, or
lattice, using nine vertices.
The velocity distribution function, f, represents the frequency of a particle occurring in any of the
nine discrete velocities. The frequencies correspond to the density of fluid in any given
direction. Therefore one can derive the macroscopic fluid density (ρ) to be the sum of all the
velocity distribution functions (Sukop and Thorne, 2005) as shown in Equation 2.1.
8
0ii
f (2.1)
Similarly, Equation 2.2 shows the macroscopic velocity u is an average of all the discrete
velocities weighted by the velocity distribution function, f.
8
0
1
ii
ei
fu
(2.2)
Using Equation 2.1 and 2.2 the microscopic quantities can be related to the desired macroscopic
velocity. The streaming is achieved in a similar method to the LGA, namely a translation of
particles however the collision rules are replaced with a continuous function. A popular collision
function is the Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) model with a relaxation term (τ) used in Equation
2.3 (Succi, 2001). The velocity distribution function tends towards the equilibrium distribution
according by the BGK collision term Ω (Wagner, 2008).
)(1 eq
iff
i
(2.3)
where fieq is the local equilibrium value for the velocity distribution function in the direction of
link ei and varies depending on the lattice used. In the BGK model, the fluid tends towards
equilibrium at a rate governed by the relaxation term, τ (Latt, 2007). The BGK collision operator
13
expressed above along with the streaming step, which is a discretization of the Boltzmann
equation, is one of the simplest forms of the LBM and is summarized by Equation 2.4:
i
txi
fttti
exi
f ),(),( (2.4)
where x represents the position and t represents time. The function fi(x,t) is the original
distribution function at time t and fi(x+eiΔt,t+Δt) is the distribution function at time t+Δt. Over
that time, a LBM particle has moved a distance of eiΔt or to the next node in the direction of ei
(Brewster, 2007). The lattice velocity along each vertex varies such that each pseudo-particle
shall travel one node, or lattice unit, each time step. The local equilibrium distribution function
used in the BGK collision term is described by Equation 2.5.
22
23
4
2)(9
231)()(
c
u
c
ui
e
c
ui
ex
iwx
eqi
f (2.5)
where wi are weights (4/9 for i=0, 1/9 for i =1,2,3,4 and 1/36 for i =5,6,7,8) and c is the lattice
speed (Sukop and Thorne, 2005).
This study demonstrates a validated GPGPU code for simulating 2D laminar flow through rock
fractures using a D2Q9 LBM with a BGK collision model. For further development of LBM the
reader is directed to Succi (2001) and Sukop and Thorne (2005). LBM are essentially explicit
finite difference approximations of the Boltzmann equation and using a Chapman-Enskog
expansion, the Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible flow can be recovered (Eker and
Akin, 2006). The LBM are typically 1st order accurate in time and 2nd order accurate in space
depending on the implementation of the collision term (Tolke, 2010).
LBM methods, which originate from a CA structure, are efficiently parallelized in computer
programming due to the locality of the discretization. Each node is only concerned with its
direct neighbours and therefore when the lattice is distributed to parallel processors the only
required communication is at the sub-lattice boundaries (Martys and Hagedorn, 2002).
14
2.2 Model Implementation
2.2.1 Lattice Boltzmann Method
The model created is a 2D LBM using a BGK collision operator as previously discussed and
summarized in Equation 2.6:
)),(),((1
),(),( txeq
iftxftx
ifttt
iex
if
(2.6)
where the left hand side of the equation represents the streaming step and the right hand side
represents the collision step and τ is the relaxation parameter which governs the rate at which the
fluid tends towards equilibrium. For the LBM model presented τ takes the form:
213 L (2.7)
where νL is the numerical viscosity defined by the discretization of the system in lattice units.
The model runs on a GPGPU using a proprietary programming model developed by NVIDIA
called CUDA. Traditionally GPUs have specialized in graphics programming but the CUDA
model allows general purpose programs to run in parallel and become GPGPUs.
One of the drawbacks of GPGPU implementations is the discrepancy between 32-bit and 64-bit
floating point precision as current hardware has limited support for 64-bit, or double precision
calculations which are often a third or a quarter of single precision performance. Without double
precision calculations the likelihood of numerical error or the complexity required to compensate
for error increases. Error in CFD models is conventionally referred to as numerical dissipation
and describes the artificial dissipation of momentum in the fluid due to numerical error. Since
the LBM is essentially a finite difference approximation to the Boltzmann equation, it is subject
to the same numerical truncations as other finite difference methods. The numerical error can
cause dissipation of the advection term which by definition should be free of dissipation (Zhu et
al., 2006). The advection term in the LBM is represented by the streaming step or uniform
translation of data. Since the convection term is also treated in the same streaming step by LBM
(Yu et al., 2003), the LBM model presented along with other LBM models can run into
numerical difficulties.
15
To minimize the potential for numerical instabilities and maintain the second order accuracy of
the LBM, the model parameters are defined using the method laid out by Latt and Krause as part
of the OpenLB User Guide (2008). The process involves selecting physical units then
converting to lattice units to finally obtain the relaxation parameter τ. The relaxation parameter
plays an important role in the collision term of the LBM. It controls the tendency of the system
to move towards local equilibrium. In the literature, the relaxation parameter has been found to
cause numerical instabilities at values approaching 0.5 from the right hand side (τ must be
greater than 0.5 for physical viscosities). Stable values of τ close to unity are preferred for
simple implementation of the LBM and can be found using the method outlined below (Sukop
and Thorne, 2005; Sukop et al., 2013).
In this research water is the physical fluid being simulated with a kinematic viscosity, ν in a
fracture of aperture 2a and with physical velocity u. This leads to an expression for the Reynolds
number:
ua
2Re (2.8)
The dimensionless expression for Reynolds number is then used to convert from the physical
units of the system to lattice units. The fracture width is discretized into lattice nodes of length
δx with discrete time δt. In order to minimize the slightly compressible nature of the LBM and
second order accuracy the following constraints are used when determining system discretization
respectively:
3x
t
(2.9)
2~ xt (2.10)
The lattice viscosity (νL), is calculated based on the discretization of the system and the
dimensionless Reynolds number. Finally, the relaxation parameter is calculated according to
Equation 2.7 and is kept as close to unity as possible by adjusting the mesh size and maximum
lattice velocity. Lattice velocity is limited to a maximum 0.1 lattice units per time step which
arises from the approximations used in the LBM and its partial compressibility (Sukop and
Thorne, 2005)
16
2.2.2 Boundary Conditions
One of the distinct advantages of the LBM comes from its discrete nature. It is efficient for
modeling complex geometries (Chen et al., 1994; Eker and Akin, 2006; Lammers et al., 2006;
Brewster, 2007) which arises in the analysis of rock fractures. An array is stored that sets the
value of any point in the LBM grid to represent either a fluid cell or a solid boundary. At the
solid boundaries, a no-slip condition is used to create a zero velocity boundary along the surface.
A different set of collision equations are used at the solid boundary and are referred to as mid-
plane bounce-back boundary conditions (Succi, 2001). The name arises from the applied
boundary rules where particles entering a boundary at time t are sent back out with equal velocity
magnitude and opposite direction at time t+Δt this effectively puts the boundary at a distance
midway between a fluid and solid node.
Gravity driven boundary conditions are used to drive the fluid through the fracture. Solid, no-
slip boundaries are used along the fracture surfaces while periodic boundary conditions are used
on the left and right hand side of the model allowing the fluid being simulated to continually
wrap around the domain. Periodic boundary conditions simplify the simulation by creating an
infinite domain which removes any entry or exit effects and, in the simplest case of parallel plate
flow, allows the analytical Poiseuille velocity profile to develop in a much smaller domain
further reducing the computational load of the model.
For the present work fractures are considered to be vertical, thus, the force of gravity is added to
the velocity component parallel to the fracture, resulting in gravity acting along the primary
fracture axis. Gravity driven conditions are used according to the method described by Sukop
and Thorne (2005). Gravity driven flow acts on each cell of the LBM independently therefore it
is unnecessary to use conventional pressure or velocity boundary conditions as this would only
add an artificial constraint into the system, possibly creating entry or exit effects. The
acceleration due to gravity is converted to a velocity term:
dt
dummaF
(2.11)
where F is the external force added into the LBM calculations in the form of a local velocity.
The mass (m) is proportional to the density (ρ) and the relaxation parameter (τ) can be substituted
for time arriving at:
17
F
u (2.12)
where Δu represents a discrete velocity increment and is added to the velocity component
parallel to the fracture plane used to calculate the equilibrium distribution function.
2.2.3 Fracture Generation
Flow through a single rock fracture is modeled for two cases. The first, a one sided fracture
aperture collected by Boutt et al. (2006) and the second consists of a 2D slice through a fracture
generated in the laboratory.
The second data set was obtained from a dolomite block approximately 350 mm long, 250 mm
wide and 70 mm thick. The rock sample contained stylolites, which are planes of weakness,
parallel to the length of the rock. A fracture was introduced in the rock block using the method
described in Reitsma and Kueper (1994) resulting in final dimensions of 280x210x70 mm. A 3D
stereo-topometric measurement system, the Advanced Topometric Sensor (ATOS) II
manufactured by GOM mbH, determined the surface profile of the fracture walls and its aperture
distribution. For more details on the preparation of the sample and the ATOS II system see
Mondal and Sleep (2012) and Tatone and Grasselli (2009) respectively. A 16 mm 2D slice
through the 3D surface created by the ATOS II was used in the LBM. Using a 2D
approximation of the fracture to represent the 3D surface saves significant computational
resources. A 2D system cannot capture or quantify the effects of contact points in a fracture and
the impact of reducing effective apertures and increasing tortuosity (Zimmerman and
Bodvarsson, 1996). Tortuosity in fractures refers to the circuitous path a fluid particle will travel
due to the small and large scale roughness of a rock fracture. Despite this, 2D modeling is an
effective means of providing insight into the hydraulic behaviour of rough fractures.
The cubic law, which is conventionally used to describe flow through rock fractures, assumes the
fractures can be modelled as parallel plates and is used for comparison with the LBM. An
equivalent aperture, 2a, is required by cubic law calculations for flow and for the purposes of
comparison, the mechanical aperture of the two fractures being modeled is used. The flow
through parallel plates as describe by the cubic law is as follows:
L
hWa
gQ
3)2(
12 (2.13)
18
where Q is the flow rate, ν is the kinematic viscosity and 2a is the aperture. W is the width of the
fracture and in all simulations is taken as unity for the 2D models. L is the length of the fracture
and Δh represents the change in head over the length of the fracture. In the case of gravity driven
flow where gravity acts along the length of the fracture Δh = L and Equation 2.13 becomes:
3)2(12
ag
Q
(2.14)
The flow rates calculated by the cubic law are compared to those calculated by the LBM model.
2.3 Results and Discussion
2.3.1 Flow Between Parallel Plates
LBM model results of flow between parallel plates using incompressible fluids have been
compared with available analytical solutions. For laminar flow conditions, the Hagen-Poiseuille
equation can be used to describe the horizontal velocity through a cross-section:
)(
2)( 22 xa
Gxu
(2.15)
This analytical solution yields a parabolic velocity profile where 2a is the width between parallel
plates, x is the distance from the centerline and G is the driving force. For the case of gravity
driven flow G=ρg. The maximum velocity occurs at the centreline where x=0 and the average
velocity is 2/3 of the maximum velocity. Substituting for these changes gives:
2
3
a
ug avg
(2.16)
Using the non-dimensional Reynolds expression physical parameters can be converted to
equivalent lattice parameters. Lattice spacing is determined by the geometry and discretization
of the physical system. Lattice velocity is limited to a maximum 0.1 lattice units per time step
which arises from the approximations used in the LBM (Sukop and Thorne, 2005). Viscosity is
determined by constraining the relaxation parameter in Equation 2.7 to unity (τ = 1) to ensure
numerical stability.
The force of gravity in Equation 2.16 is used to drive flow in the model. For the case of parallel
plates, when the numerical model reaches steady state it compares well to the analytical solution
19
as shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 shows a horizontal velocity profile plotting the ratio of
velocity (u) to maximum velocity (Umax) at all nodes across the model domain. The parallel plate
boundaries are configured for a 256 node spacing. The only location where the Poisseuille
profile and model profile differ are at the two closest nodes to the boundary and this can be
attributed to the implementation of the bounce-back rules and is typical of the LBM BGK
approach.
Figure 2.1: Horizontal velocity profile comparing the analytical results of a Poisseuille profile and the model results.
2.3.2 Backward Facing Step
Geometry of a backward facing step consists of parallel plates with an upstream step which is
half the plate separation and a length at least 20 times the height to minimize interference from
outflow boundary conditions. Flow is gravity driven and the boundary conditions are periodic.
Upstream of the step, the flow field is given sufficient distance to develop a parabolic velocity
profile and similarly, far downstream of the step the flow becomes parabolic. Finally the flow is
gradually ramped back to the step height for the periodic boundary. All other boundaries use
standard bounce-back rules.
Backward facing step geometry is well studied but conventionally at higher Reynolds numbers
than is necessary for the study of flow in fractures. Results presented by Armaly et al. (1983) for
Re ≤ 200 are used with Re = 100 being the slowest of the available data. The relationship of the
dimensionless Reynolds number ( 2 ∙ ⁄ ) defines the flow where 2a is the characteristic
0
64
128
192
256
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Node
u/Umax
Model
Poiseuille
20
length and the upstream height or step height is used. Next, u is the average inlet velocity and
finally, ν is the kinematic viscosity of water.
Generally, flow over a backward facing step at Reynolds numbers under 200 consists of three
segments: flow separation directly after the step consisting of an area recirculation followed by a
bulk flow reattachment point and finally development of a parabolic velocity profile downstream
of the step. The reattachment point refers to the end of the recirculation zone. Figure 2.2
illustrates three cases, Re = 100, Re = 150 and Re = 200 where flow is from left to right and
relative colouration from blue to red representing slow to fast fluid velocities. Reynolds
numbers are varied by adjusting lattice parameters, specifically the force of gravity for the
system. Using graphical means of measurement, the reattachment points of the model results are
in good agreement with those reported by Armaly et al. (1983) of 3, 4 and 5 times the step height
for the Reynolds numbers of 100, 150 and 200 respectively. In each case the velocity profile
becomes parabolic again far downstream.
Re = 100
Re = 150
Re = 200
Figure 2.2: Flow, from left to right, over a backward facing step. Shown as red vertical lines, the reattachment lengths are approximately 3, 4, 5 step heights for Re = 100, 150 and 200 respectively. The step height is half the downstream width. Velocity is plotted with red representing the fastest velocities and blue the slowest. The velocity profile is parabolic immediately upstream and far downstream of the step while the zones outside of this region are omitted for clarity.
2.3.3 Flow in a Single Fracture
Flow through a single rock fracture is modeled for two cases. The first, a one sided fracture
aperture collected by Boutt et al. (2006) and the second consists of a 2D slice through a fracture
generated in the laboratory.
For the first fracture data set, the cubic law deviates 8.4% from the actual flow rates determined
by the LBM model at Re = 6. Flow rates and therefore Re on the order of 6 and powers of ten
thereof are chosen based on the discretization of the fracture and the desire to maintain a
relaxation parameter close to unity. The fracture has an arithmetic mean of 359 µm which
21
translates into a fracture velocity of 1.6710-2 m/s for an equivalent parallel plate system. The
same 8.4% deviation from the cubic law is found at Reynolds numbers 0.06, 0.6, 6 and 60.
These results are in line with observations reported by other researchers where Brush and
Thompson (2003) found the cubic law to be within 10% of their Stokes Law simulations for
Reynolds numbers less than unity.
The second data set analyzed in our study has an equivalent aperture of 100 µm and at Re = 6,
the velocity through an equivalent parallel plate system is 5.9710-2 m/s. In this case the
deviation from the cubic law at Re = 6 is 50% and the same approximate deviation holds for Re
from 0.06 through 6. Again, variations in the literature can be found for example Brown (1987)
who used the Reynolds equation, which describes flow between slightly rough non-planar
surfaces, found the cubic law to hold within a factor of 2, while Tsang (1984) showed an order of
magnitude variation from the cubic law if tortuosity was ignored.
The two fracture data sets show different deviations from the cubic law which could be due to
their different physical attributes. The first data set consists of the lower profile of a fracture,
while the top profile is a smooth plate leading to a closer approximation of parallel plates then
that of the second data set where both sides are represented by a fracture profile. The equivalent
aperture is also much larger in the first data set, 359 µm versus 100 µm in the second data set
potentially affecting hydraulic properties and deviations from the cubic law.
The two data sets highlight the difficulty of using the cubic law for fracture flow as not all
fractures are within its approximations and shows the advantages of using the LBM model which
for example accounts for roughness or tortuosity intrinsically.
A measure of fracture roughness can be described in statistical terms by differentiating between
hydraulic and mechanical apertures. Conventionally they are considered equivalent when used
in the cubic law however, as discussed by Renshaw (1995), if a fracture aperture is described by
a lognormal distributed with mean B and variance σB2, then the respective calculations for
hydraulic and mechanical apertures vary. The expression relating these two quantities is as
follows:
2exp
2B
m
h
d
d (2.17)
22
where dh is the hydraulic aperture defined as the geometric mean and dm is the mechanical
aperture defined as the arithmetic mean. Zimmerman et al. (1991) and Renshaw (1995) defined
a roughness parameter as the non-dimensional ratio of mechanical aperture to standard deviation
σB2 of the fracture data:
21
1expexp
2exp
22
2
BB
B
B
md
(2.18)
Since both Equation 2.17 and 2.18 depend only on the variance of the lognormal aperture
distribution, they can be combined and are shown in Figure 2.3. The ratio of hydraulic aperture
to mechanical aperture tends towards unity as either the fracture aperture increases or the
standard deviation decreases as the walls become smoother. Experimental data by Zimmerman
and Main (2003) not shown on the graph fit well with the theoretical data. Other numerical work
by Patir and Cheng (1979) and Brown (1987) also compare similarly with the theoretical data.
The model predictions plotted in Figure 2.3 were calculated using a single fracture by increasing
the mechanical aperture (dm) and shows that, as the separation between the rock fracture walls
increases, the lognormal variance also changes.
Figure 2.3: The ratio of hydraulic aperture to mechanical aperture is plotted against statistical roughness of the fracture as described by Renshaw (1995). The model fits well with theoretical data. The model predictions are plotted from a single fracture by increasing the mechanical aperture or dm.
The main advantage of LBM models compared to other approaches is its ability to resolve small
scale effects such as an abrupt change in aperture where there is a significant change in velocity
streamlines and potential secondary flows. Figure 2.4 shows the flow streamlines calculated at
two different locations along the same fracture at three different Reynolds numbers. The first
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(dh/
d m)3
dm/σh
Theoretical
Model
23
location on the left is an area of a large change in aperture while the second location is of a small
depression in the fracture. Even at low Reynolds numbers, Re=0.6, the flow has zones of
recirculation, creating areas of the fluid that do not actively contribute to bulk flow. As the
Reynolds numbers are increased (6 then 60), the recirculation zones become larger and appear in
more places. These results demonstrate how the roughness of a fracture can affect fluid flow
within a fracture even at low Reynolds numbers and provide some hints to explain the
discrepancy between flow rates expected from the cubic law and results from the LBM.
Figure 2.5 compares the results from flow in the first data set compared to flow between parallel
plates with an equivalent mechanical aperture. The left hand side of Figure 2.5 consists of a rock
fracture along the base of the model with a no-slip smooth top boundary, constant gradient outlet
and parabolic inlet boundaries. The right hand side of Figure 2.5 models flow through parallel
plates spaced at an equivalent aperture calculated using arithmetic mean. It can be seen that the
actual rock fracture compresses the velocity profile much more than that of the equivalent
fracture. It is the peaks of the rock fracture that significantly change the velocity distribution,
leading to an apparently smaller equivalent aperture. The flow distribution is clearly different
from that predicted by simple parallel plates and although it cannot be seen in Figure 2.5, there
are areas of recirculation downstream of each fracture constriction (see Figure 2.4). Since this is
a complex phenomenon, it would be difficult to create a single variable that could be adjusted for
such effects. Rather, it is important that a given system be simulated with a model such as the
presented LBM model.
24
Figure 2.4: The streamlines are plotted as the Re increases from 0.6 to 60. Secondary flows develop in the form of eddies and grown to fill a larger cross-section of the aperture. Each node is represents approximately 2 µm.
Figure 2.5: Left hand side: Flow through a fracture. Right hand side: Flow through parallel plates with the mechanical aperture equivalent to the fracture aperture on the left. Relative velocity is plotted with yellow representing the fastest velocities and dark blue the slowest.
Re = 0.6
Re = 6
Re = 60
25
2.4 Model Performance
Performance of the presented LBM on the GPU is approximately an order of magnitude faster
than a comparable LBM model running on a CPU and is consistent with the findings of Tolke
(2010). Typically, performance in LBM codes in measured in Million Lattice Updates Per
Second or MLUPS, single CPU codes typically perform around 6.2 MLUPS (Bailey et al., 2009)
and more recently 88 MLUPS (Habich et al., 2013) while the GPU model in this study achieves
over 1000 MLUPS for a grid size of 2048 by 128 nodes using double precision calculations. The
comparison should be taken as a rough estimate as this is not intended to compare directly
between models which would require the equivalence of grid size, LBM implementation,
optimizations or other factors affecting the performance computer code.
2.5 Conclusions
The LBM model is well suited for simulating laminar flows through systems where complex
flow patterns are produced by the irregular boundaries found in rock fractures. Even under
laminar flow condition, tortuous flow paths and surface roughness create unique flow conditions
that the model in this study can effectively capture. The discussed model allows for the efficient
simulation and real-time rendering of fracture flow and is capable of simulating 2D systems at
the micron to millimetre scale. The GPU implementation of LBM can simulate systems in a
fraction of the time compared to CPU based codes, allowing for faster analysis and efficient
parametric studies. The LBM model presented in this study agree with other modeling of flow in
rock fractures (Tsang, 1984; Brown, 1987) and also fit well with the statistical roughness model
described by Zimmerman et al. (1991) and Renshaw (1995).
26
Chapter 3
Quantification of the Effects of Eddy Formation on the
Effective Hydraulic Apertures in Rock Fracture Flow
Abstract
The effect of eddy formation on flow in fractures of varying surface roughness was investigated
using Lattice Boltzmann simulations. Simulations were conducted for both statistically
generated hypothetical fractures and a real dolomite fracture. Simulation of flow in synthetic
fractures systematically investigated the effect of eddy formation on hydraulic conductivity with
increasingly rough fractures and Reynolds (Re) numbers ranging from 0.01 to 500. Complex
flow features, such as eddies, arising near the fracture surface were directly associated with
changes in effective hydraulic aperture. Eddies were identified in some fracture geometries at a
Re of 0.01, a value below the lowest previously reported as the minimum for eddy formation in
fractures. Rapid eddy growth above Re values of 1, followed by less rapid growth at higher Re
values, suggested a three-zone non-linear model for flow in rough fractures, similar to that found
for porous media by Chaudhary et al. (2011). This three-zone model, relating effective hydraulic
conductivity to Re, was also found to be appropriate for the simulation of water flow in the real
dolomite fracture. Not surprisingly, increasing fracture roughness led to greater eddy volumes
and lower effective hydraulic conductivities for the same Re values.
3.1 Introduction
Understanding fluid flow in rock fractures remains an open research question in the areas of
contaminant hydrogeology, petroleum engineering and the long-term disposal of nuclear waste.
Conventionally, bulk flow rates in fractures have been modeled as flow through an equivalent
system of smooth parallel plates using the cubic law (see Witherspoon et al. (1980) for a review
of the early development of this law in fractures) where flow is proportional to pressure gradient,
with a proportionality constant, or transmissivity, related to the cube of the aperture. Brown
(1987), using 2-dimensional simulations of the Reynolds equation, concluded that (i) the cubic
law, with various measures of aperture, could approximate flow through synthetically-generated
fractures to within a factor of 2, (ii) that the arithmetic average aperture gave better results than
27
the other averages they considered, and (iii) that corrections to the cubic law accounting for
tortuosity and contact area provided a better match to the Reynolds equation simulations. The
review article by Zimmerman and Bodvarsson (1996) discussed the use of various
simplifications to the Navier-Stokes equation including the lubrication equations and showed
that at low Reynolds (Re) numbers (< 1) the effective cubic law aperture was lower than the
actual aperture by a factor related to the ratio of the mean aperture and the aperture standard
deviation. They concluded that this ratio, or the geometric mean of the aperture, in combination
with a tortuosity correction factor could effectively predict hydraulic conductivities.
Brush and Thomson (2003) simulated the 3-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in rough-
walled fractures and showed that for Re less than 1, deviation from the local cubic law (LCL)
were less than 10%. In experimental studies using magnetic resonance imaging Dijk et al.
(1999a, 1999b) found that the accuracy of the local cubic law depended strongly on the wall
roughness, with sharp discontinuities in wall profile producing complex flow patterns. Recent
experimental studies (Qian et al., 2011a) demonstrate a substantial deviation from the local cubic
law in rough fractures at Re below 150. Both Boutt et al. (2006) and Cardenas et al. (2009)
showed with simulations based on the Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) that fracture roughness
had a significant effect on transport, including a directional anisotropy. Experimental work by
Plouraboué et al. (2000) in self-affine rough fractures with various translations of the opposing
fracture surfaces indicated that heterogeneity in the flow field caused deviations from the parallel
plate model for fracture flow. The importance of fracture roughness, mean aperture, and
translation of fracture surfaces was also demonstrated by a perturbation analysis of tracer
dispersion by Roux et al. (1998).
At higher Reynolds numbers the pressure drop in fractures is nonlinearly related to the flow rate.
In this higher Reynolds number regime the Forcheimer quadratic equation can be used to
describe the relationship between pressure drop and flow rate (Yaarubi et al. in Faybishenko et
al., 2005). For such flows, eddy formation in rough walled fractures may become significant. In
fractured media, eddies have been deduced in fractures by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging
(Dijk et al., 1999; Dijk and Berkowitz, 1999), numerically in simplified single fracture
geometries (Qian et al., 2012) and in pore-and-throat geometries (Cao and Kitanidis, 1998;
Bouquain et al., 2012). Other numerical work by Yan and Koplik (2008) showed eddies in
fractures for non-Newtonian fluids. Cardenas et al. (2009) compared the predictions of eddy
formation between full Navier-Stokes and Stokes flow simulations. The simplification of Stokes
28
flow leads to eddy formation as a function of geometry but excludes inertial flows. Based on the
observations that the complex aperture geometry creates tortuous flow paths and increases the
length required for fluid to travel through the system, Zimmerman et al. (2004), while not
specifically addressing eddy formation, proposed a two-zone model of fracture hydraulics with
increasing Re. Chaudhary et al. (2011, 2013) investigated, through two-dimensional modelling
of the Navier-Stokes equations, the role of eddies in porous media and the reduction of hydraulic
conductivity as eddies grow with increasing Reynolds numbers. They asserted that eddies may
exist in porous media at all scales of flow causing deviations from Darcy flow and the
importance of modeling the unique pore geometry of different porous media to ensure accurate
results. Chaudhary et al. (2011) showed that bulk flow in porous media over a wide range of
Reynolds numbers is best described by a relationship characterized by three zones of differing
response of hydraulic conductivity to changes in Reynolds numbers. The first of these zones is
where traditional low Reynolds simulations hold and can predict flow in a fracture; the second
zone is where linearity breaks down and coincides with a rapid increase in eddy formation and
growth; the third zone is associated with a decrease in eddy growth rate, most likely associated
with geometrical constraints.
In fractured media, a rock fracture may be seen as a system of abruptly changing channel widths,
creating many regions of secondary flows such as eddies. Thus the results of Chaudhary et al.
(2013) suggest that fracture geometry, particularly roughness, significantly influences flow in
fractures. The current study systematically investigates the effect of fracture roughness on the
hydraulic conductivity of fractures over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. The investigation is
conducted using a 2-dimensional general purpose graphical processing unit (GPGPU) based
LBM to simulate water flow in synthetic and real fracture samples.
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Flow modeling
When complex geometries and varying Reynolds numbers are present, a Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) approach is required to capture the velocity distributions within a fracture (Dijk
et al., 1999). Only recently the advances in computational efficiency have allowed the execution
of CFD models on standard desktop computers and a number of commercially available finite
volume software packages are available to address fluid flow problems in hydrogeology
(Cardenas et al., 2007; Cardenas et al., 2009). Another CFD approach is the LBM (Boutt et al.,
29
2006; Eker and Akin, 2006; Yan and Koplik, 2008) which is a group of methods for simulating
fluid flow. LBM are based on the discrete Boltzmann equation from which the Navier-Stokes
equations can be recovered using a Chapman-Enskog expansion (Succi, 2001). LBM
intrinsically considers the unique boundaries of any given fluid regime and is used in this
implementation at Reynolds numbers approaching 500. LBM simulations do not require
computationally expensive meshing due to the local interactions and simple rule-based evolution.
When LBM is implemented on GPGPUs, the computational speed is usually increased by several
orders of magnitude with respect to the same code running on CPU (Bailey et al., 2009; Tolke,
2010). GPGPUs are widely-available components which are essentially powerful parallel
computers. The improved speed allows efficient completion of broad parametric studies while
modeling various fluid phenomena.
Comprehensive documentation of the development of LBM can be found in the literature (Succi,
2001; Sukop and Thorne, 2005; Latt, 2007). For the purpose of describing laminar flow in a
rock fracture a 2D LBM was developed using nine velocity components and the BGK collision
approximation. The two main components of LBM are the streaming step and collision step:
)),(),((1
),(),( txeq
iftxftx
ifttt
iex
if
(3.1)
where the left-hand-side of the equation represents the streaming step and the right-hand-side
represents the collision step. The velocity distribution functions, f, represent the statistical
movement of a fluid bundle along the nine velocity components, i. Direction links ei ensures
each fluid bundle moves a unit distance x each time step t. The relaxation parameter, τ, governs
the rate at which the fluid tends towards equilibrium defined by feq. For the LBM model
presented τ also represents the kinematic viscosity of the simulated fluid and must be larger than
0.5 to represent physical fluids:
(3.2)
where νL is the kinematic viscosity in lattice units.
The model runs on a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) using a proprietary programming model
developed by NVIDIA called CUDA. Traditionally GPUs been used for graphics programming
but the CUDA model allows general-purpose programs to run in parallel on the GPU.
213 L
30
Periodic boundary conditions are used on the left and right hand side of the model, connecting
the left edge to the right, allowing the fluid being simulated to continually wrap around the
domain. This simplifies the simulation by creating an effectively infinite domain and removes
entry or exit effects associated with the development of a Poiseuille velocity profile. While
periodic boundary conditions may not be representative of fracture inflow conditions in the field,
they are intended to represent an elemental fracture segment that is part of a larger fracture
network. In the simplest case of parallel plate flow, this approach allows the analytical
Poiseuille velocity profile to develop in a much smaller domain further reducing the
computational requirements. Moreover, fluid in the fractures is acted on only by gravity which is
added (after Sukop and Thorne, 2005) to the velocity component parallel to the mean fracture
axis. Gravity driven flow acts on each cell of the LBM independently and pressure or velocity
boundary conditions are not used. The acceleration due to gravity (a) is converted to a velocity
term (u):
dt
dummaF (3.3)
where F is the external force added into the LBM calculations in the form of a local velocity. In
LBM, the mass (m) is proportional to the density (ρ) and the relaxation parameter (τ) can be
substituted for time (t) arriving at:
F
u (3.4)
where Δu represents a discrete velocity increment and is added to the velocity component
parallel to the fracture plane used to calculate the equilibrium distribution function in Equation 1.
3.2.2 Flow between Parallel Plates
The LBM model results of simulating flow between parallel plates using incompressible fluids
have been compared with analytical solutions. For laminar flow conditions, the Hagen-
Poiseuille equation can be used to describe the horizontal velocity (u) through a cross-section:
)(2
)( 22 xaG
xu
(3.5)
31
This analytical solution yields a parabolic velocity profile where 2a is the slot width, ν is the
kinematic viscosity, x is the distance from the centerline and G is the driving force. For the case
of gravity driven flow G=ρg. The maximum velocity occurs at the centreline where x=0 and the
average velocity is 2/3 of the maximum velocity. Substituting for these changes gives the driving
force for the LBM:
2
3
a
ug avg
(3.6)
Using the non-dimensional Reynolds expression physical parameters are converted to equivalent
lattice parameters:
avge
uaR
2 (3.7)
Lattice spacing is determined by the geometry and discretization of the physical system. Lattice
velocity is limited to a maximum 0.1 lattice units per time step which arises from the
approximations used in the LBM formulation to minimize compressibility effects (Sukop and
Thorne, 2005). To ensure numerical stability, the relaxation parameter, τ, typically has a value
of unity however, it can be reduced to maintain the limit on lattice velocities for higher Reynolds
numbers. Values of τ approaching 0.5 do introduce numerical error into to the simulation.
However, as shown by Sukop et al. (2013), the numerical error is relatively small compared to
the overall behaviour of hydrogeological systems. The force of gravity in Equation 3.6 is used in
Equation 3.4 to drive flow in the model. For the case of parallel plates, when the numerical
model reaches steady state it compares well to the analytical solution with a relative average
velocity error much less than 1% for Reynolds numbers up to 500 and lattice spacing down to 5
units wide (normal to the bulk flow direction).
3.2.3 Fracture Generation
A data set of fracture apertures was obtained for a dolomite rock sample approximately 350 mm
long, 250 mm wide and 70 mm thick. The rock sample contained stylolites, which are planes of
weakness, parallel to the length of the rock. A fracture was introduced in the rock block using
the method described in Reitsma and Kueper (1994) resulting in final dimensions of 280x210x70
mm. A 3D stereo-topometric measurement system, the Advanced Topometric Sensor (ATOS) II
manufactured by GOM mbH, determined the surface profile of the fracture walls and its aperture
32
distribution. For more details on the preparation of the sample and the ATOS II system see
Mondal and Sleep (2012, 2013) and Tatone and Grasselli (2009) respectively. A 16 mm 2D grid
slice through the 3D surface created by the ATOS II was used in the LBM model and is shown in
Figure 3.1. Using a 2D approximation of the fracture to represent the 3D surface saves
significant computational resources. A 2D system cannot capture or quantify the effects of
contact points in a fracture and the impact of reducing effective apertures and increasing
tortuosity (Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996). Despite this, 2D modeling is an effective means
of providing insight into the hydraulic behaviour of rough fractures.
In addition to modeling flow in a segment of the dolomite rock fracture, flow was modeled in
synthetic fractures. Synthetic fracture generation creates systems with controlled surface
properties. To quantify the effects of surface roughness, a series of similar fractures with
increasing roughness was generated with the software package SynFrac developed by Ogilvie et
al. (2006). Ogilvie expands on earlier work (Brown et al., 1995; Glover et al., 1998a; Glover et
al., 1998b) to capture the complex nature of natural fractures with synthetic approximations.
Glover and Hayashi (1997) demonstrated that modeling a synthetic fracture at the centimeter
scale applied directly to field flow measurements at the 100 meter scale. An important
consideration when generating synthetic fractures is capturing the fracture properties at all
wavelengths. The top and bottom of a single fracture will have correlated geometry and surface
properties at long wavelengths but are mostly independent at short wavelengths. The threshold
separating long and short wavelength is called the mismatch length. SynFrac has multiple
methods for determining the mismatch length, for the purpose of this study the SynFrac
implementation of the Brown et al. (1995) mismatch length is set to 15 mm.
Using SynFrac for 2D fracture generation, two studies were conducted. First a series of fractures
were generated with increasing roughness determined by the fractal dimension input parameter.
Second, to analyse random variations that may occur in the fracture surfaces generated by
SynFrac, multiple fractures with identical characteristic parameters were created by only varying
the seeds of the Park and Miller pseudo-random number generator (SRNG) in SynFrac. A 100
mm 2D profile is manually extracted from the data and selected such that it has no contact point.
Since each 3D fracture generated with SynFrac is adjusted so the relative separation of the top
and bottom surface creates a single contact point, an equivalent adjustment was needed in 2D for
consistency between fracture studies. Therefore the arithmetic mean aperture of each fracture
was kept constant for each study by manually adjusting the profile separation. Attention is also
33
paid to the entry and exit of the fracture profile to ensure no interference with the periodic
boundary conditions for fluid flow. Other SynFrac settings are kept constant including the
resolution (1024x1024), standard deviation (1 mm) and anisotropy factor (1.0). The fracture
length of 1024 elements is expanded to a grid length with 2048 elements using interpolation,
resulting in a 48.8 micron element resolution.
Fractures were generated by specifying a fractal dimension for the 3D surface in SynFrac
ranging from 2.00 to 2.35. However, the use of a fractal dimension for defining roughness is
incomplete as fractal dimensions are not unique to an object, two similar but unique objects may
have the same fractal dimension. It has also been shown that the direction of flow in a fracture
yields varying results (Boutt et al., 2006) whereas the fractal dimension of a surface is
independent of the direction of measure. Some recent work (Tatone and Grasselli, 2009; Tatone
and Grasselli, 2010) has developed a roughness parameter used for measuring shear resistance in
rock fractures based on angular thresholding of fracture surfaces. The concept of a shear based
roughness translates well in fluid mechanics as wall shear stress compounded by the roughness
of a fracture results in drag against the bulk flow. The roughness is calculated for each surface
according to Tatone and Grasselli (2010) then an average taken to represent both fractures with a
single parameter. Larger values represent a larger roughness and were calculated for each
direction and flow modeled. Fractures with roughness between fractal dimensions of 2.00 and
2.35 were used and compared with an equivalent parallel plate system and a real dolomite
fracture (Figure 3.1). Ogilvie et al. (2006), developers of SynFrac, used complementary
software, ParaFrac, to analyse real rock fractures and found that sandstone and granodiorite
samples had fractal dimensions approaching 2.35.
34
Figure 3.1: Fracture profiles b through i generated using a synthetic fracture generator called SynFrac. Total fracture length is 100 mm and each fracture has a mean aperture of 1.7 mm, only the fractal dimension (FD) variable is changed in SynFrac. Fracture profile a represents a parallel plate system with an equivalent 1.7 mm aperture. Fracture profile j represents a 16 mm long strip from a dolomite fracture with mean aperture 0.1 mm.
3.3 Results and Discussion
3.3.1 Fracture Flow
The LCL uses the mean aperture to represent the hydraulic aperture of a fracture; however, the
roughness of the fracture causes deflections and separation of streamlines and bulk fluid
movement resulting in regions of secondary flow which could be described as eddies or as
resulting from eddies. Depending on the geometry, eddies will appear at all scales of the fracture
and all scales of flow as they are inherent to the complex geometries of rock fractures as shown
in Figure 3.2. An effective hydraulic aperture can be defined as an aperture that would result for
given flow rates and a system of parallel plates. The effective hydraulic aperture represents a
fraction of the aperture contributing to bulk flow, the remaining aperture is associated with
secondary flows. The secondary flows can be seen in Figure 3.3 to take the form of eddies or the
resulting detached streamlines downstream resulting from eddies. Secondary flow systems are
found to exist up to the mismatch length set in SynFrac to 15 mm for the models shown.
a) parallel plate
b) FD 2.00
c) FD 2.05
d) FD 2.10
e) FD 2.15
f) FD 2.20
g) FD 2.25
h) FD 2.30
i) FD 2.35
j) dolomite
fracture
35
Figure 3.2 shows a small 1 mm segment of a 100 mm fracture with fractal dimension 2.35 using
the LBM model developed for this work. At low Reynolds numbers (Re = 0.01), some regions
of the fracture show eddies that will grow to occupy a significant portion of the system Figure
3.3 represents a 5 mm segment of the fracture where secondary flows are evident and take the
form of eddies or disconnected streamlines caused by eddies.
Figure 3.2: Flow streamlines in a fracture over a range of Reynolds number from 0.01 to 500. The fracture is a 2D slice of a 3D fracture generated in SynFrac with a fractal dimension of 2.35. The segment shown has an overall dimension of approximatly 1 mm2.
36
Figure 3.3: Simulated flow streamlines in a fracture at a Reynolds number of 500. The fracture is a 2D slice of a 3D fracture generated in SynFrac with a fractal dimension of 2.35. The segment shown has an overall length of approximately 5 mm taken from the 100 mm long fracture simulated.
Eddies affect the local area where streamlines detach from the bulk flow then re-attached at a
location downstream depending on geometry and the Reynolds number (Armaly et al., 1983).
The areas of detach flow reduce the effective hydraulic aperture as they do not contribute to bulk
flow. In this work, instead of describing eddy locations, the local velocities from the LBM
model are used define an effective hydraulic aperture. Using the local velocity information and
exact aperture distribution, flow conditions are calculated using the LBM. First a gravity driven
flow cubic law is derived. Starting with Equation 3.6 rearranged for aperture:
g
ua avg
6
2 2 (3.8)
where 2a is the effective hydraulic aperture, ν is the kinematic viscosity, g is gravity and uavg is
the average velocity. The velocity at any given cross section is given by:
aW
Quavg 2
(3.9)
37
where Q is the flow rate and W is the width of the fracture (kept at unity for the 2D case studied).
Substituting Equation 3.9 into Equation 3.8 gives and equation for effective hydraulic aperture,
2a.
3/1
122
gW
Qa
(3.10)
Using the cubic law in this way an effective hydraulic aperture is calculated using the known
flow rates from the LBM model.
For this study SynFrac was used to create fractures of various roughnesses but with statistically
similar properties including an equivalent mean. The fractal dimension was varied between 2.00
and 2.35, a slice was taken from the 3D fracture create by SynFrac and the mean was adjusted to
match all other samples facture. Finally an equivalent roughness is calculated based on work by
Tatone and Grasselli (2010) and summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Comparison of Roughness Parameters Fracture Type 3D Fractal Dimension Angular Threshold
Synthetic Fracture(using SynFrac)
2.00 9.62 2.05 10.72 2.10 12.41 2.15 14.43 2.20 16.73 2.25 19.79 2.30 23.15 2.35 27.29
Dolomite Fracture Not Applicable 8.09
Each fracture is modeled using the LBM at Reynolds numbers between 0.01 and 500. The
results show that all fractures exhibit approximately constant effective aperture at Re < 1. At Re
> 1 the effective aperture begins to decrease. The rougher synthetic fractures, while having the
same mean, have smaller effective hydraulic apertures than that of a smooth fracture, indicating a
larger fraction of the aperture contributing to secondary flows such as eddies. As the Reynolds
number increases, the rougher fractures show an increased rate of reduction of effective aperture
compared to smoother fractures. Figure 3.4 illustrates the first two zones of flow in fractures: in
Zone I at Re < 1 effective aperture is constant but dependent on initial fracture geometry; Zone II
begins at Re approaching 1 where conventional fracture modeling will break down.
38
Previous studies in porous media (Chaudhary et al., 2011) and in fractured media (Zimmerman et
al., 2004) have also shown a multi zone behaviour of hydraulic properties. Chaudhary et al.
(2011) reported the transition beginning at Reynolds numbers around 1 for porous media while
Zimmerman et al. (2004) reported a transition zone beginning at Re = 1 and becoming
significant around Re = 10.
Figure 3.4: Relative effective hydraulic apertures (ratio of effective to mean apertures for each fracture respectively) for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness.
As Reynolds numbers continue to increase eddy growth is constrained by the increasing flow
rates being driven through the fracture. Figure 3.5 shows the rate of change of effective aperture
with change in Re (slopes of lines in Figure 3.4). The reduction in eddy growth rate represents
the boundary between Zone II and Zone III at approximately Re = 30 for the fractures generated
by SynFrac and shown in Figure 3.5. The dolomite fracture shows eddy growth at large
Reynolds numbers however the dolomite fracture still shows a three zone non-linear effective
hydraulic aperture relationship with Reynolds number.
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Reynolds Number
Rel
ativ
e E
ffec
tive
Ape
rtur
e
FD 2.00
FD 2.05FD 2.10
FD 2.15
FD 2.20
FD 2.25
FD 2.30FD 2.35
Dolomite Fracture
39
Figure 3.5: Slope of effective aperture plots (Figure 3.4) for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness.
Absolute results between SynFrac and the dolomite fracture show some variation possibly due to
differences in geometry and surface characteristics. Each synthetic fracture represents 100 mm
of total length while the lab generated fracture is approximately 16 mm. Mean of the synthetic
fracture aperture is 1.7 mm while the real fracture is 0.1 mm. The surface characteristics were
used in SynFrac with no attempt to duplicate those of the dolomite fracture. The dolomite
fracture data shows a rebound in eddy growth (Figure 3.5) beginning at a Reynolds number of
100. The eddy growth rate would still be limited by fracture geometry and growth rates would
slow down until the fluid transitions to a more turbulent regime.
The effective hydraulic aperture, calculated from the LBM results, represents the region of the
fracture contributing to the bulk flow and is some fraction of the mean aperture. In 2D this
fraction also represents the effective volume of the fracture contributing to bulk flow. The
remainder of the fracture, defined as the eddy volume, contains complex flows, regions of
streamline separation and eddy formation (Figure 6). The eddy volume is similar to the ratio of
eddy to total volume in Chaudhary et al. (2011). Chaudhary et al. (2011) define eddy growth
from frictional drag calculations arising from CFD simulations whereas in this work the bulk
flow and eddy regions are explicitly defined by calculating an effective aperture (Equation 3.10).
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
-0.018
-0.016
-0.014
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
Reynolds Number
Slo
pe o
f E
ffec
tive
Ape
rtur
e P
lots
FD 2.00FD 2.05
FD 2.10
FD 2.15
FD 2.20FD 2.25
FD 2.30
FD 2.35Dolomite Fracture
40
Figure 3.6: Eddy volume for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness.
The flow in the region associated with eddies is considered negligible relative to bulk flow;
however, its proximity to the boundary is important to many engineering problems. This region
would be expected to contribute to the extended breakthrough curves in the field of solute
transport. It is the region where biofilms will develop and biodegrade contaminants, and it is
also a region from which matrix diffusion would occur.
Figure 3.7 illustrates a small fracture segment showing the local effective hydraulic aperture and
how it decreases with increasing Reynolds numbers. To estimate the location of the velocity
streamline that separates bulk flow and secondary flows, a threshold is determined from the
velocity streamline data in the fracture. First, the average velocity for the entire fracture is
calculated, then any node with local velocities less than the product of the average velocity and
the eddy volume ratio (Figure 3.6) is considered to be below the velocity threshold contributing
to bulk flow; the boundary between secondary flows and the bulk flow is highlighted by a thick
red line. The local eddy volume estimate is found to accurately place the threshold streamline
within one or two LB nodes.
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Reynolds Number
Edd
y V
olum
e
FD 2.00FD 2.05
FD 2.10
FD 2.15
FD 2.20FD 2.25
FD 2.30
FD 2.35Dolomite Fracture
41
Figure 3.7: Flow streamlines (black lines with arrows) and the eddy volume that does not contribute to bulk flow (thick red line). Cross-section shown represents approximately 1.8mm2 from a segment of a SynFrac cross section with an original fractal dimension of 2.35.
The effective hydraulic aperture in Figure 3.7 illustrates the separation between the bulk flow
and secondary flow regions and the changing behaviour with changing Reynolds numbers. The
fracture surfaces act as a series of backward facing steps with many overlapping detachment and
re-attachment locations. The centre regions of the streamline plots in Figure 3.7 graphically
represent the effective hydraulic aperture presented in this work. The effective hydraulic aperture
is directly constrained by the appearance and growth of eddies. Even at the lowest Reynolds
42
numbers, complex fracture surfaces introduce boundary layer effects which would cause
deviations relative to flow calculated for a parallel plate system.
To examine the variation of results for fractures with the same statistical characteristics, five
different SynFrac fractures were created with SRNG with the same statistical properties but with
different seeds. Results showed some variation as expected, however the overall behaviour is
consistent with the three-zone model presented earlier.
Figure 3.8: Statistically similar synthetic fractures generated with SynFrac. Only the seed of the pseudo random number generators is changed.
3.3.2 Tortuosity
Using the local velocity modeled by the LBM a tortuosity value was calculated using the actual
flow path in the fracture. Brown et al. (1998) defined tortuosity as the ratio of actual fluid path
to the total projected length of the fracture. Crandall et al. (2010) used advective particle
tracking to average the fluid path of over a hundred simulated particles. When the entire velocity
profile of the fracture is known a more detailed approach can be used that traces the actual path
of the fastest moving fluid streamline and determines its length which is divided by the actual
fracture length to calculate tortuosity (Skjetne et al., 1999). The fastest streamline is assumed to
represent the natural tortuosity of the bulk flow. The path of fluid streamlines changes as seen in
Figures 3.2 and 3.6 due to both roughness and Reynolds numbers. The results in Figure 3.9
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
Reynolds Number
Rel
ativ
e E
ffec
tive
Ape
rtur
e m
Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Replicate 3Replicate 4
Replicate 5
43
show a trend of increased tortuosity resulting from increased roughness similar to that reported in
previous work (Tsang, 1984; Brown, 1989; Crandall et al., 2010).
Tortuosity’s dependence on the Reynolds numbers is more complex and CFD approaches are
required to make this determination. Initially flow paths are determined by the geometry, or
roughness, of the system. Then, as Reynolds number increases, eddies form and grow in regions
of abrupt aperture change perturbing existing streamlines and in turn increasing tortuosity. The
complex interaction leads to a non-linear relationship between Reynolds number and tortuosity
(Figure 3.9). General behaviour follows a three-zone trend similar to the effective hydraulic
aperture. Zone I is constant at Re < 1 with a transition to a non-linear relationship in Zone II and
III. The replicate synthetic fractures (Figure 3.10) show a more pronounced shift from Zone II to
Zone III as tortuosity increases significantly. Although the eddy growth rate in Zone III is
reduced, eddies are at their largest and could explain the significant increase at the highest
Reynolds numbers.
Figure 3.9: Tortuosity for the dolomite and synthetic fractures with varying roughness.
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
1.03
1.035
1.04
1.045
1.05
1.055
1.06
1.065
1.07
1.075
Reynolds Number
Tor
tuos
ity
FD 2.00
FD 2.05FD 2.10
FD 2.15
FD 2.20
FD 2.25
FD 2.30FD 2.35
Dolomite Fracture
44
Figure 3.10: Tortuosity of statistically similar synthetic fractures generated with SynFrac. Only the seed of the pseudo random number generators is changed.
3.3.3 Directionality
A measure of roughness was chosen that could account for any directional anisotropy in the
fracture. For Reynolds numbers less than 100, the vast majority of groundwater flows, flow rates
in the fractures generated by SynFrac showed less than 1% variation when reversing flow
direction. The random creation of fracture surfaces in SynFrac does not seem to create
directionally dependent fractures with the default program settings as roughness also varied by
approximately 1% (for the same SynFrac fracture between the forward and reverse directions).
Directional dependence becomes a factor when large scale fracture features are present causing
differentiation in flow streamlines. Large backward facing steps would be an example of a
geometry creating directionally sensitive results.
3.4 Summary and Conclusions
The following assertions arise from this study:
1. Eddies may be present at all scales of flow in fractures, extending below previously
reported Reynolds numbers in the literature for eddy formation (Crandall et al., 2010).
Eddies at the lowest Reynolds numbers may be only present in fractures of a minimum
roughness or in areas of rapid aperture changes.
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
1.03
1.035
1.04
1.045
1.05
1.055
1.06
1.065
1.07
1.075
Reynolds Number
Tor
tuos
ity
Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Replicate 3Replicate 4
Replicate 5
45
2. Existing eddies experience significant growth and new eddies form beginning at a
Reynolds number around unity. This is a similar range to previous work (Zimmerman et
al., 2004), however it is the complex flow arising at the boundaries, such as eddies, that
are directly associated with the change in effective hydraulic aperture.
3. This eddy growth behaviour suggests a three-zone non-linear model of fracture flow
similar to that found for porous media by Chaudhary et al. (2011). This work expands
the application of the three-zone model to rough fractures. In Zone I at Re < 1 effective
aperture is constant but dependent on initial fracture geometry; Zone II begins at Re
approaching 1 where conventional fracture modeling breaks down as a result of the
significant increase in eddy growth rates. The reduction in eddy growth rate represents
the boundary of Zone II and Zone III and can vary for the fracture system being modeled.
4. The three-zone model of fracture flow also applies to tortuosity as the growth of eddies in
a fracture are directly linked to a non-linear change in measured tortuosity.
5. Directionality only plays a role when large scale features are present within a fracture that
would significantly change flow characteristics. For example a large scale aperture
variation or step and such variation were not present with the default SynFrac settings.
6. Using GPGPUs computing allows for rapid analysis of a variety of parameters and their
effects on the fracture hydraulics at high resolution with the potential to scale to large
systems at a relative low cost of entry.
46
Chapter 4
Solute Transport in Single Fractures with Increasing
Roughness
Abstract
A parametric study of roughness on transport in fractures was performed using random walk
simulations at varying Reynolds (Re) numbers. Simulations were conducted for statistically
generated, hypothetical fractures where only the fracture roughness, in terms of a Fractal
Dimension, was altered. Complex flow features, such as eddies, arising near the fracture surface
were directly associated with changes in the behaviour of solute resident time. Initially, at Re
less than 10, little if any difference is apparent comparing the analytical solutions of solute
breakthrough curves with fractures of different roughnesses. At larger Re, especially Re > 20 a
significant change in behaviour is observed with increasing roughness possibly explained by the
emergence and growth of eddies. The deviations of the breakthrough curves from Fickian
behaviour are occurring at the same range of Re and FD shown to be associated with the onset
and growth of secondary flows. At the highest roughness and Re modeled, it is clear that the
fluid flow interacting with unique fracture geometries create a non-linear response to solute
transport and eddy formation is a key factor in the behaviour.
4.1 Introduction
The mechanisms governing solute transport in a single fracture remains an important and open
research question in the field of contaminant hydrogeology, carbon capture and storage, nuclear
waste storage, and oil and gas recovery. Developing a comprehensive understanding of solute
transport in fractures is underpinned by the need for accuracy in the simulation of fluid flow. To
account for the effects of tortuosity (Tsang, 1984) and Re above unity, a computational fluid
dynamic (CFD) approach is needed. The Lattice-Boltzmann method (LBM) is a CFD approach
that approximates the full Navier-Stokes (NS) equation for fluid flow and has been used in
fractured media to capture inertial forces, eddies and directional effects (Boutt et al., 2006; Eker
and Akin, 2006) and shown in Chapter 3. The LBM, which solves for local velocities
throughout the model domain, lends itself well to solute transport methods such as discrete
47
Random Walk (RW) that can effectively use that knowledge to simulate transport of solutes in a
fracture. Work by Cardenas et al. (2007) showed tailings in the breakthrough behaviour based
on the existence of eddies in a fracture. Also work by Nowamooz et al. (2013) found that real
fractures with different aperture profiles would result in non-Fickian transport behaviour with
early arrival times and late tailings. To further quantify and understand and the effect of
roughness and eddies on solute transport a systematic study of a single fracture with increasing
roughness is completed using computer modeling.
The advection-diffusion equation (ADE) is commonly used to model solute transport in
fractures. However, due to the complex interactions of the fracture geometry the ADE does not
always capture the velocity deviations from the normal distribution that have been observed
experimentally (Neretnieks et al., 1982; Jiménez-Hornero et al., 2005; Qian et al., 2011b). For
example, Qian et al. (2011b) showed experimentally that tailing was evident in fractures to
varying degrees for Re between 12.2 and 86.9 with aperture between 4 and 9 mm. Their fractures
were artificially created in the laboratory from two glass plates where roughness, or aperture
variations, are simulated by inserting small glass segments with different thicknesses along the
plates. They used a mobile-immobile model, which was developed in several earlier works
(Coats and Smith, 1964; Piquemal, 1992; Piquemal, 1993), to quantify the non-Fickian
behaviour of the breakthrough curves. Other approaches to fit the observed behaviour more
accurately than the ADE include the boundary layer dispersion (Koch and Brady, 1985; Koch
and Brady, 1987), equivalent-stratified medium (Fourar and Radilla, 2009) and macro dispersion
(Detwiler et al., 2000) models and RW methods (Ahlstrom et al., 1977; Berkowitz et al., 2006).
While there are several solute transport methods, they are often paired with fluid flow models
that are unable to adequately model inertial flows in fractures.
The transport of solutes is heavily dependent on the fluid structures that form within a fracture.
The local velocity knowledge from the LBM is more accurate than using the cubic law or Stokes
flow based models as it enables the use of high resolution velocity profiles as input into solute
transport models. Stokes flow does not account for the inertial effects of the flow regime and
any eddies present are only a function of geometry (Cardenas et al., 2009). Other system
interactions that affect solute transport include channeling, matrix diffusion, sorption and the
variation in relative advection versus diffusion. These interactions may play a role in the
observed power law tailing in fractured media (Becker and Shapiro, 2000; Knapp et al., 2000;
Kosakowski, 2004; Cardenas et al., 2009).
48
Cardenas et al. (2007) quantified the effect of eddies on fracture solute transport. A 2D NS flow
and transport model was used from the commercially available software package COMSOL to
model a 15cm long x-ray mapped fracture. The original geometry of the fracture was modeled
along with modified aperture distributions to emphasize or deemphasize various features that
would lead to an eddy forming in a particular location. Power law tailing resulted for the
fracture containing an eddy at Re less than unity and extended to Re < 5 (Cardenas et al., 2009).
Lacking, however, is a broader more systematic approach to variations in fracture roughness and
geometry and their effects on flow and solute transport at high Reynolds numbers.
4.2 Methods and Validation
4.2.1 Fluid Flow Modeling in Fractures
The Lattice Boltzmann Methods have been used in engineering applications, specifically in the
field of porous and fractured media flow (Sukop et al., 2013). Comprehensive development of
LBM theory can be found in the literature (Succi, 2001; Sukop and Thorne, 2005; Latt, 2007).
For the purpose of modeling flow in fractures a 2D LBM was developed using nine velocity
directions ei, also known as D2Q9, which models the cross-section of a given fracture profile.
LBM can be summarized with the following equation:
∆ , ∆ , , , (4.1)
where the distribution function f of a fluid packet moves according to the streaming step on the
left hand side of the equation for a given position x and time t. The right hand side of the
equation represents the collision step. Collision of the fluid packets moves the system towards
equilibrium controlled by τ and the equilibrium distribution function . For the purposes of
fluid flow in a fracture boundary conditions include the no-slip condition along the fracture
surface and periodic boundaries along the primary direction of flow. Flow velocities are
controlled by a gravitational force acting on all elements and can be controlled to develop a
desired Reynolds number ( 2 ∙ ⁄ ) where the 2a is the aperture, u is the average velocity
and ν is the kinematic viscosity. A complete development of the LBM model and validation is
presented in Chapter 2.
Fracture profiles are synthetically generated using the software package SynFrac (Ogilvie et al.,
2006). Fractures are generated that have strongly correlated top and bottom surfaces at long
49
wavelengths but are independent at short wavelengths. This approach has been effective for
modeling fractures at the centimeter scale that directly relate to field scale systems at the 100
meter scale (Glover and Hayashi, 1997). Synthetic fractures were chosen to allow for systematic
changes in roughness without changing other fracture properties. Input parameters are chosen
which represent a 100mm fracture and an average aperture of 1.7 mm. The fractal dimension
(FD) is adjusted from 2.00 to 2.35 at 0.05 increments to generate eight 3D fractures surfaces.
The 2D fracture profiles are the same cross-sections used in Chapter 3 for the quantification of
eddies.
4.2.2 Solute Transport
Solute transport is simulated by modelling the discrete movement of particles through the
fracture. Water velocities are known from the LBM simulation and the local velocity
information is used to displace particles each time step. Diffusion follows a RW process to
model discrete particle movement. The RW group of methods have been developed and used
extensively for the purpose of solute transport in porous and fractured media (Ahlstrom et al.,
1977; Tompson and Gelhar, 1990; Wels et al., 1997; James and Chrysikopoulos, 1999; Delay et
al., 2005; Nowamooz et al., 2013).
For the purposes of studying the effects of roughness in a single fracture using the discrete RW
process, particles are assumed to be neutrally buoyant and exhibit no decay or matrix diffusion.
Particle-particle interactions are not modeled nor do particles affect flow. The only forces acting
on the particles are advective from the local fluid velocity and a diffusion process, both of which
are described by the following Fokker-Planck equation (James and Chrysikopoulos, 2011):
∆ ∙ ∆ 0,1 ∙ 2 ∙ . ∙ ∆ (4.2)
where is the local velocity at the location x of the particle at time t, 0,1 is normally
distributed random number for each dimension i with mean zero and a standard deviation of
unity. For a more detailed development of the Fokker-Planck approach the reader is referred to
Delay et al. (2005).
Numerical dispersion is minimized by ensuring ∙ ∆ ≪ ∆ (Tompson and Gelhar, 1990;
Hassan and Mohamed, 2003). A more strict limit is described by Maier et al. (2000) and further
constrains to ensure a particle moves a maximum of one half ∆ per time step.
50
∆ 6 ∆∆
(4.3)
With a sufficient number of particles a RW method can accurately model the process of
Brownian motion used to model diffusion. In general, more than 100,000 particles are required
to sufficiently model diffusion using RW (Hassan and Mohamed, 2003).
Solute transport is modeled using the LBM for fluid flow and RW for particle transport. The
particles are inserted upstream in the fracture as an instantaneous injection. The residence time,
t, for each particle is tracked and plotted as a histogram representing concentration against time.
To generalize the presented data, resident times are non-dimensionalized using the relative
fracture properties and is expressed by the term pore volume or PV:
∙
∙ (4.4)
where 2a is the mechanical aperture, Q is the flow in two dimensions through the fracture
calculated from the LBM velocity data and L is the total length of the fracture in which the
particle travels.
The method of temporal moments is used to calculate an effective dispersion coefficients ( )
for comparison between the synthetic fractures of increasing roughness (Levenspiel, 1972;
Govindaraju and Das, 2007).
(4.5)
(4.6)
2 (4.7)
∙ (4.8)
where M is total mass recovered, Q the average flow, the mean travel time, is the velocity
derived by the method of moments (Equation 4.7), specifically using and L where L is the
length of the fracture.
51
4.2.3 Model Validation
For a point-source in 2D space the analytical solution for diffusion as developed by Crank (1975)
in the form shown by Sukop and Thorne (2005) is:
(4.9)
where C is the concentration, Co is the initial concentration, Dm is the molecular diffusion
coefficient, Mo the initial mass, t is time and r is the spatial coordinate. Figure 4.1 shows the
results from the RW algorithm at three different time increments and their respective analytical
solutions from Equation 4.9. The fit between RW and the analytical solution is excellent with
some variation from the analytical solution due to the random nature of the RW method.
Figure 4.1: Point source diffusion in 2D and the relative concentrations at a given radius from the source. Results for time t = 1000, t = 2000 and t = 10000 are shown with their respective analytical solutions.
Taylor-Aris dispersion between parallel plates is defined as follows (Stockman, 1997):
∙
∙ (4.10)
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
r
C/C
o
t=1000
t=2000
t=10000
respectiveanalyticalsolutions
52
where Deff is the effective dispersion coefficient, Dm is molecular diffusion coefficient, 2a is the
plate separation and uavg is the average velocity. The above equation holds for over a range of
Peclet (Pe) numbers:
√210 ≪ ≪ / (4.11)
where L is the length of the system and the Peclet number is defined as:
(4.12)
Figure 4.2 indicates a good fit between the discrete RW and the analytical dispersion equation
for parallel plate applications. Values were chosen to be similar to those found in Sukop and
Thorne (2005) as an additional measure of comparison and validation.
Figure 4.2: Effective dispersion for the values: 0.0038 / and 0.0013 / after (Sukop and Thorne, 2005). The input values are given in terms of lattice units (lu) and time steps (ts), typical for LBM applications.
Finally, using the effective dispersion coefficients calculated in 4.10, the concentration at any
point can be determined analytically for the case of parallel plate flow. If the downstream exit is
taken as the reference location and the system is allowed to evolve over time the resultant
breakthrough of solute can be plotted. The analytical solution for the concentration of a solute
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deff[lu2/ts]
Aperture [lu]
Analytical
Model
53
subject to uniform flow u at a location x at time t for a 1D instantaneous injection is (Hunt,
1978):
, (4.13)
where M is the initial concentration of particles in the system, is the porosity and taken at unity
and is the effective dispersion from Equation 4.10.
4.3 Results
Breakthrough data from the model results are compared with the analytical solution for a parallel
plate system with an equivalent mechanical (arithmetic) aperture using Equation 4.13 and
labeled as the analytical solution in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3 shows the breakthrough curves for
7 10 ⁄ at Reynolds number 1 through 100 for the synthetic fractures generated
with original 3D fractal dimension (FD) on the range of 2.00 to 2.35. Also plotted are the results
for a parallel plate system with the same mechanical aperture as the rougher fractures, modeled
using the same LBM and RW methods (labeled as a slit). From Figure 4.3, the modeled slit
results are very close to the analytical solutions as expected. However, Non-Fickian behaviour
was apparent if the inequality of Equation 4.11 was not maintained as required and reported in
the literature (Cardenas et al., 2009; Qian et al., 2011b).
At low Re, below 10, roughness is not a large factor with only a slight impact on initial
breakthrough for rougher fractures. As Re increase we see a larger effect of roughness as
significant deviation from the analytical solution occurs. As reported in Chapter 3, the eddy
growth rate in the same group of synthetic fractures peaks at Re = 30 while eddy volume as a
ratio of total volume continues to increase at least through Re = 500. Therefore, eddy growth is
occurring at the same range of Re as is the deviation from analytical results in Figure 4.3. It
follows that some correlation between eddy growth and deviation from Fickian behaviour is
likely. The deviation from normal Fickian distributions becomes more apparent at the higher Re
and roughness reported.
54
Figure 4.3: Breakthrough curves for 7 10 ⁄ at Reynolds numbers 1 through 100 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. The ‘Slit’ represents a parallel plate system modeled in the same way as all FD results; finally the analytical solution for each case is shown for comparison. Concentration profiles (C) are plotted relative to the total number of particles (M) and normalized.
The breakthrough curves reported in Figure 4.3 show a trend of moving to later PV including
initial, peak and late breakthrough of solutes relative to the analytical solution. Using PV non-
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 1
C/M
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 20
C/M
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 40
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 50
C/M
PV0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Re 100
PV
Slit
2.002.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.302.35
Analytical
55
dimensionalizes time as a function of the ratio of flow to fracture volume and so later PV results
will be a result of either later absolute time for solute transport, larger flow rates or smaller
fracture volumes. Although an attempt is made to ensure the mechanical aperture is the same
between all fracture samples, due to the discrete nature of the grid, this is difficult to achieve.
The fracture volume differs by 2.2% between all profiles modeled, which does not account for
the increasing residence time shown at large Re and FD. Regarding the flow rates, fractures with
rougher cross-sections experience relatively slower flow rates and would therefore tend to move
the residence times in the opposite direction than reported in Figure 4.3. Since the breakthrough
curves, including initial, peak and tail, move towards large PV it can be concluded that the solute
residence time in the fractures are larger than expected.
From the real-time display of solute transport in the model (not shown), it is evident that the
solute is entering secondary flow zones, or areas with eddies, and being retarded from earlier
breakthrough. The diffusion in and out of eddies is occurring at a rate that maintains a
breakthrough similar to the normal distribution of the analytical case for low Re and FD.
However at large Re and FD approaching 100 and 2.35 respectively, the normal distribution
breaks down and becomes non-Fickian. Non-Fickian transport behaviour is characterized by
Nowamooz et al. (2013) as having early breakthrough and late-time tailing. However, the results
of Figure 4.3 do not indicate early breakthrough but late breakthrough combined with a shift in
the peak and tailing of particles. While their experiment used transparent fracture replicas with
no matrix diffusion, their experimental fractures were driven by constant flow pumps while our
work uses a gravity, or pressure, driven boundary. Other numerical work, by Cardenas et al.
(2007), showed late-time tailing and attributed the results to eddies that formed in the fracture.
Their work resulted from finite-element analysis using the commercially available COMSOL
software package. However, the variation in late-time tailing was analysed by arbitrarily altering
the fracture profile while the current study takes a more systematic approach to evaluating the
effects of fracture roughness.
Figure 4.4 shows the effective dispersion coefficient as calculated from Equation 4.8. Similarly
to Figure 4.3, data from the slit comes from the LBM and RW model while the analytical
solution is calculated from Equation 4.9, both are plotted for comparison. Again we see little
change below Re = 10 and increasing rate of change for higher Reynolds numbers likely
associated with the emergence and growth of eddies. At larger Re, secondary flows are
contributing to an increased dispersion of solutes within the fracture.
56
The combined differentiation of factors between previously published results, including
experimental and numerical work, indicates that while the results from this study do not
duplicate results, similar trends are occurring for the conditions being modeled. Significantly
however, the deviations of the breakthrough curves from Fickian behaviour are occurring at the
same range of Re and FD shown in Chapter 3 to be associated with the onset and growth of
secondary flows.
Figure 4.4: Effective dispersion coefficients using data from the LBM and RW model using the method of moments except for the analytical solutions with is calculated from Equation 4.8. Data shown for
7 10 ⁄ at Reynolds numbers 1 through 100 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35.
Adjustments in the diffusion coefficient are expected to change the breakthrough curve
distributions. Figure 4.5 shows three cases with increasing molecular diffusion coefficient
values of 3.5 10 ⁄ , 7 10 ⁄ and 14 10 ⁄ . As
the diffusion coefficient is increased the effects due to roughness are decreased and breakthrough
curves align with the analytical solution. When advective forces dominate, either with high
Reynolds numbers or low diffusion coefficients, non-Fickian behaviour emerges at high Re and
FD likely due to the complexities of secondary flow paths. When the diffusive forces dominate,
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dispersion Coefficien
t [m
2/s]
Re
Analytical
Slit
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
57
either with low Reynolds numbers or high diffusion coefficients, fracture roughness is less
controlling due to solute being able to move more freely between the bulk flow and secondary
flow regimes.
Figure 4.5: Breakthrough curves for 3.5 10 ⁄ , 7 10 ⁄ and 1410 ⁄ respectively at a Reynolds number of 50 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. The ‘Slit’ represents a parallel plate system modeled in the same way as all FD results, finally the analytical solution for each case is shown for comparison.
4.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Based on the constraint on how far a particle is allowed to travel each time step, ideally
constrained by Equation 4.3 and restated for convenience below. To maintain the inequality, the
discrete time step can be reduced while the discretization of space is fixed for a given model. For
a given Reynolds number the maximum time step will change and the example of Re = 50 is
shown in Figure 4.6. A total of four models are run, two above and two below the empirical
limit expressed by:
∆ 6 ∆∆
(4.14)
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Dm
=3.510 m2/sC
/M
PV0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Dm
=710 m2/s
PV0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Dm
=1410 m2/s
PV
Slit 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 2.35 Analytical
58
Figure 4.6: Data shown is for Re = 50 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35. Case 1 and 2 do not meet the constraint for minimizing numerical dispersion.
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Case 1
C/M
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Case 2
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Case 3
C/M
PV0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Case 4
PV
Slit2.00
2.05
2.10
2.152.20
2.25
2.30
2.35Analytical
59
Figure 4.7: For a set bin size when calculating the histogram, a larger number of particles gives a more accurate description of the dispersion of particles through the fracture without changing the overall behaviour. Data shown is for Re = 50 for synthetic fractures generated from a 2D slice of a 3D surface with fractal dimensions (FD) 2.00 through 2.35.
Sensitivity analysis shows from Figure 4.6 that considerations of the minimum time step must be
taken into account to reduce numerical dispersion which is most prevalent in Case 1. Case 3 and
Case 4 begin to reach convergence and for the purpose of accuracy balanced with computation
limits; most models were run with parameters similar to Case 3. In terms of particle count, 215
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1215 Particles
C/M
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1218 Particles
C/M
PV
Slit2.00
2.05
2.10
2.152.20
2.25
2.30
2.35Analytical
60
particles are sufficient for most models and reduces computational requirements versus 218
particles (Figure 4.7). A smaller bin size is used to compensate for the reduced number of
particles for calculations using the method of moments and delivers sufficient accuracy.
4.5 Conclusions
1. Solute transport is affected similarly to fluid flow using the same set of fractures with
increasing roughness. Initially, at Reynolds numbers less than 10, little if any difference
is apparent comparing the analytical solutions with fractures of different roughnesses. At
larger Re, especially Re > 20 a significant change in behaviour is observed with
increasing roughness possibly explained by the emergence and growth of eddies as
reported in Chapter 3.
2. The deviations of the breakthrough curves from Fickian behaviour are occurring at the
same range of Re and FD shown in Chapter 3 to be associated with the onset and growth
of secondary flows.
3. At the highest roughness and Reynolds numbers modeled, it is clear that the flow
interacting with unique fracture geometries create a non-linear response to solute
transport and eddy formation is a key factor in the behaviour.
61
Chapter 5
Effects of Roughness and Shear on Biofilm Populations and
Structure in a Single Rock Fracture
Abstract
A parametric study of roughness on biofilm development in fractures was investigated using
numerical simulations at varying Reynolds (Re) numbers. Discrete modeling approaches to the
motion of fluid, and substrate transport in a single fracture were taken using Lattice Boltzmann
Methods (LBM), Random Walk (RW) methods respectively. Simulations were conducted for
statistically generated, hypothetical fractures where only the fracture roughness, in terms of a
Fractal Dimension, was altered. Biofilm development was modelled using a discrete Cellular
Automata (CA) approach where each node represents a group of bacteria and their evolution is
controlled by local rules based consumption of substrate. The effects of fracture roughness are
associated with non-linear changes to hydraulic behaviours in the fracture. Also studied were the
effects of changing Re, diffusion coefficients, substrate concentrations and biofilm shear
strength.
5.1 Introduction
A biofilm is the phenotypic expression of a cluster of bacteria when attached to a surface. The
biofilm phenotype is the predominant and preferred form of most bacterial species (Costerton,
2007). In fractured media stimulation of the formation of biofilms can be used as a remediation
technique to degrade undesired contaminants or to act as bio-barriers impeding transport of
contaminants. The natural background level of a bacterial community can be augmented to
encourage growth and development of biofilms that are able to degrade a given contaminant.
Experimental and numerical studies of biofilms have helped to develop and test theories of
fundamental biofilm behaviours. Using micro-scale discrete numerical algorithms, the current
study examines the behaviour expressed by a biofilm developing in a fracture and improves the
understanding of the role of fracture geometry and flow rates in a single rock fracture.
62
A brief overview of biofilm modeling follows, for more depth the reader is directed to other
more detailed reviews (Characklis et al., 1990; Purevdorj-Gage et al., 2004; de Beer et al., 2006;
Wang and Zhang, 2010; Stewart, 2012). Initial biofilm models considered the growth of the
bacterial colony with varying levels of complexity but no bulk fluid flow. For example,
Hermanowicz (2001) developed a 2D model using a discrete cellular automata (CA) grid where
biofilm growth was determined by local evolution rules. It was found that when limitations were
imposed on the external mass transfer of nutrients mushroom shaped structures resulted. These
rough structures have also been experimentally found by de Beer et al. (1994). Three-
dimensional models of biofilm growth have improved on biofilm modeling capability and, for
example, considered various attachment and detachment factors in biofilms including nutrient
starvation, chemical signaling and antimicrobial attack (Hunt et al., 2003; Hunt et al., 2004; Hunt
et al., 2005). These models also resulted in structured biofilms typically in towering or
mushroom shapes.
Some early models by Picioreanu et al. (1999) incorporated hydrodynamic considerations with
biofilm modeling. Their model qualitatively described smooth biofilms under substrate rich
conditions and Re = 10 for a single sided smooth plane or surface. A substrate rich condition is
created by these high Reynolds numbers when the fast flow compresses the mass transfer
boundary layer creating a shorter diffusion path for substrate. Conversely, under low Reynolds
numbers the boundary layer is thicker creating longer substrate diffusion paths resulting in a
substrate limited condition. Under the substrate limited conditions (Picioreanu et al., 1999)
found structures became heterogonous and mushroom shaped. Further work with this model
resulted in a shear induced detachment model (Picioreanu et al., 2001) both of which simulated
biofilm growth using a CA approach while the bulk fluid was modeled using LBM.
Further biofilm modeling algorithms were based on a continuous-continuous approach to biofilm
modeling (Kreft et al., 1998; Kreft et al., 2001). The approach treats each bacterium as a sphere
along a continuous coordinate system. As the spheres grow and divide they push outwards as a
shifting algorithm adjusts their location. This model produces similar biomass results to
comparable CA algorithms but the shape differed, the biofilms created are more rounded and
confluent compared to the rough and disjointed CA models. Under similar continuous
diffusion-reaction conditions as the CA models, the individual-based-model (Ibm) develops
towering or mushroom shaped biofilm structures.
63
A discrete approach to substrate transport was taken using the Random Walk (RW) technique to
simulate substrate advection and diffusion. The micro-scale approach allows for a unique view
on the biofilm growth process where local substrate-to-bacteria reactions drive growth. This
discrete model can capture local effects as a biofilm will only grow when a substrate particle is
physically adjacent to a bacteria cell in the numerical grid.
RW methods have been used for decades to describe transport in porous media with work dating
back to Ahlstrom et al. (1977) which built on work by Bear (1972) and Csanady (1973), since
then work has continued and further developments can be found in the literature (James and
Chrysikopoulos, 1999; Delay et al., 2005; Jiménez-Hornero et al., 2005; James and
Chrysikopoulos, 2011). RW methods use the process of Brownian motion to step particle
motion randomly in time. Each time step a particle is shifted based on a normally distributed
random number. The small movements result from smaller molecular and atomic vibrations and
collisions. When a sufficient number of particles are used, depending on the implementation and
size of the model, a normal distribution emerges from the random motion of an individual
particle and the diffusion process can be simulated (Valocchi and Quinodoz, 1989). It is also
important to maintain a sufficiently small RW time step such that a particle will not move more
than one grid cell distance per time step to reduce numerical diffusion (Tompson and Gelhar,
1990). Using the local velocity at each grid location from the bulk fluid modeling, advection of
the particles are tracked along with diffusion. The complex geometries of rock fractures create
locations of recirculation, or eddies, areas of stagnation and separation all of which add
complexity to the trajectory of each substrate particle.
Flow through a single rock fracture is analysed using a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)
numerical model. LBM is discrete in time and space where many cells are used to allow the
emergent behaviours of fluids to be observed. Comprehensive development of LBM can be
found in Succi (2001), Sukop and Thorne (2005) and Latt (2008a). For the purpose of describing
laminar flow in a rock fracture a 2D LBM using a BGK collision operator is sufficient and is
summarized in Equation 1.
)),(),((1
),(),( txeq
iftxftx
ifttt
iex
if
(5.1)
where the left hand side of the equation represents the streaming step and the right hand side
represents the collision step.
64
5.2 Model Implementation
The model includes three components that work together to simulate development of biofilms in
rock fractures under flowing conditions. The biofilm growth is based on local evolutionary CA
rules while the substrate is simulated using RW and flow is modeled using a LBM approach.
5.2.1 Biofilm
A CA approach to biofilm modeling is used as CA exhibit complex and chaotic behaviour from
simple evolutionary rules. They are based on local relationships and interactions and have been
shown to proficiently model local phenomenon such as spikes or discontinuities in population
distribution. The state of a CA cell which is discrete in time and space describes whether a
bacterium is present or not at that location and its mass.
The bacteria in the model are given simple life-cycle rules. When substrate becomes available
local to a bacterial cell, the cell can consume the substrate and divide after a threshold mass has
been reached. When a substrate is present, the growth model behaves according to discrete rules.
Each bacterial cell consumes substrate when a particle is adjacent to one of its eight neighbours.
The mass of the particle is converted to biofilm mass via a yield coefficient and conservation of
mass is used to validate growth of the biofilm throughout the simulation.
Once a biofilm cell has increased in mass to twice its original mass a division process occurs. A
search is made for free spaces surrounding the nearest four neighbours and one of the free spaces
is chosen randomly for the new cell produced by the division. If no free spaces are available, one
of the four occupied neighbouring spaces is chosen randomly and the existing cell is displaced
by the newly created daughter cell. This displaced cell is then subjected to the same process,
beginning with a search for free space then displacing another cell if needed. Finally, this
continues until all new cells and displaced cells have been moved into free spaces.
EPS (extracellular polymeric substance) is excreted by the bacteria during the biofilm process
the behaviour of which is associated with the phenotypic change that occurs in bacteria when
they move from the planktonic to a biofilm state. For the purposes of this model it is assumed
that EPS and bacteria are acting together in each cell and in the growth of a biofilm cluster.
This is not entirely accurate as some bacteria have been seen to form EPS structures and then
leave and move to more nutrient rich areas (Costerton, 2007).
65
Sloughing of biofilm due to shear from the bulk fluid can be optionally applied in the biofilm
model. Biofilms observed experimentally are considered to behave as a visco-elastic material,
however for the purposes of the numerical simulations in this study, they are assumed to be rigid
with a maximum specified shear strength above which sloughing occurs. When the maximum
shear strength is reached for a given cell in the model, the cell is removed and the bacterium is
flushed from the system with no re-attachment downstream. The shear stress experienced by a
given bacterium is calculated from the velocity profile of the cross-section of the model in which
the bacterium resides. The velocity gradient or time rate of strain, dV/dy (Crowe et al., 2001)
where V is the fluid velocity and y is the distance from the wall is used to defined the shear
stress.
(5.2)
where τ is the shear stress and μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. To simplify the calculation
of shear it is assumed that the velocity gradient is constant requiring only the knowledge of two
points on the velocity profile. The velocity at the wall is zero and the velocity at the maximum
streamline is a value Vmax and is found from the LBM output. Vmax is measured perpendicular to
the global horizontal axis at every cross-section along the fracture and its respective value used
for biofilm shear calculations along the wall. Therefore the shear becomes:
(5.3)
where Δy is the distance between any given biofilm cell and the maximum velocity streamline at
the required cross-section.
Since no specific physical species or mixed species biofilms are modeled where a specific shear
strength may be known, instead a range of biofilm shear strengths are used to demonstrate the
relative change in biofilm behaviour at increasing Re and fracture roughness. The shear strength
of specific biofilms species and mix culture biofilms have been measured in the literature using a
variety of methods and measurements (Möhle et al., 2007). The range of reported tensile,
compressive and shear strengths is significant and difficult to compare based on the varying
methods. Some early worked focusing on shear strength reported values between 5 to 50 N/m2
using a centrifuge to apply a tensile stress (Ohashi and Harada, 1994). Stoodley et al. (1999)
observed in-situ mixed-culture biofilms under an applied fluid shear with time lapse microscopy
66
and reported an elastic modulus E of 40 N/m2. While the shear modulus G of mixed culture
biofilms was measured in the range of 0.2 to 24 N/m2 (Towler et al., 2003). More recent work
has measure the shear strength of biofilms over similarly large ranges between 0.12 and 7 N/m2
(Chen et al., 2005; Möhle et al., 2007), All three mechanical properties of the biofilm structure,
E, G and shear strength play an important role in the biofilm behaviour and rheology, however,
for the purposes of comparison at varying Re and fracture roughnesses the shear strength is
varied over several orders of magnitude in this study.
5.2.2 Substrate
Particles within the systems are displaced via the processes of advection and diffusion.
Advection is calculated using the local velocity at the known particle coordinates while diffusion
is calculated using a discrete RW method. The displacement due to both of these factors is
summarized by Equation 5.4:
∆ ∙ ∆ 0,1 ∙ 2 ∙ ∙ ∆ (5.4)
where is the local velocity at the location of the particle in the dimension i, 0,1 is a
normally distributed random number for each dimension i with mean zero and a standard
deviation of unity and ∆ is the fundamental time step in the simulation and is taken as unity
since the calculation is performed once per time step. The molecular diffusion coefficient Dm
used is 7 10 ⁄ , similar to glucose in water.
A substrate particle exhibits two other behaviours. First, when a substrate particle hits a wall it is
reflected back into the modeling domain. Second, when a particle encounters a biofilm it can be
consumed or it may diffuse into the biofilm. Diffusion coefficients within the biofilm are
assumed to be the same as in the bulk flow. It is assumed that the substrate particles have no
interactions with other particles. There is no matrix diffusion of the substrate into the rock
fracture, no buoyancy effects and gravity is not considered to be acting on the particles. Finally
the particles do not affect the bulk fluid flow in the system.
Substrate concentrations are determined by converting a discrete number of particles into a
global concentration in terms of grams per liter. To achieve a desired 10 g/L substrate
concentration 205,312 particles are required considering the physical and numerical conversion
factors. To simplify unit conversions and increase computation speed, it is assumed that each
substrate particle, when consumed, is completely consumed and that it is of sufficient mass to
67
allow for bacterial growth leading to division. The calculations for these assumptions can be
done using representative 3D cell within the 2D slice of the fracture assuming the third
dimension has the same depth as the height and width of the individual LBM cells. Each LBM
cell in the synthetic fracture has the same discretization at 12.2 microns for a total volume of
1819 microns3. Taking a representative cylindrical shaped bacterium with mass 1 10 ,
length 4 microns and a 1 micron diameter and assuming no specific packing orientation
approximately 455 bacteria can fit in each discrete LBM cell. Next, using a biofilm yield
coefficient of 0.45 grams of biofilm produced for each gram of substrate consumed 1.01
10 of substrate must be consumed to allow growth of a discrete cell which contains
approximately 455 bacteria. The number of particles is then finally calculated from the desired
global concentration of 10 g/L knowing the fracture dimensions (100 mm x 1.7 mm x 12.2
microns).
5.2.3 Bulk Fluid Flow
Flow in the fractures is gravity driven which is implemented in the LBM, requiring only bounce
back boundaries at the walls and periodic boundaries at each end of the system in the direction of
flow. For all flow simulations shown, gravity driven flow drives the fluid from left to right, as if
gravity was acting to the right, with solid boundaries across the top and bottom of the model.
The hydrostatic pressure gradient applied by gravity drives flow in the system and results in
similar behaviour to pressure boundaries. Periodic boundary conditions are used at the ends of
the modeling domain effectively connecting the left side to the right and allowing the fluid being
simulated to continually wrap around the domain. The system is simplified with periodic
boundaries; particularly there are no entry or exit effects (Sukop and Thorne, 2005). Conversely,
velocity boundaries would impose a predetermined velocity profile at the entry and exit of the
fracture and would require a significantly longer domain to account for these effects. Other
complications arise with the implementation of velocity boundaries with LBM and must be
considered carefully to conserve mass (Zou and He, 1997).
One of the distinct advantages of the LBM comes from its discrete nature. It is efficient for
modeling complex geometries (Chen et al., 1994; Eker and Akin, 2006; Lammers et al., 2006;
Brewster, 2007) which arises in the analysis of rock fractures. An array is stored to set the value
of any point in the LBM grid to represent either a fluid particle or a solid boundary (rock surface
or bacteria). At the solid boundaries, a no-slip condition is used to create zero velocity at the
68
boundary surface. At the boundaries the LBM use a different set of collision equations as
described by Succi (2001) and are referred to as mid-plane bounce back boundary conditions.
The name arises from the applied boundary rules. Fluid particles entering a boundary at time t
are sent back out with equal magnitude and opposite direction at time t+Δt this effectively puts
the boundary at a distance midway between a fluid and solid node.
Gravity driven conditions are used according to the method described by Sukop and Thorne
(2005). The force of gravity is added to the horizontal velocity component resulting in gravity
acting along the horizontal axis, this is done for convenience to line up with the primary axis of
flow. The acceleration due to gravity is converted to a velocity term as shown in Equation 5.5.
dt
dummaF (5.5)
where F is the external force added into the LBM calculations in the form of a local velocity. In
LBM, the mass (m) is proportional to the density (ρ) and relaxation parameter (τ) can be
substituted for time arriving at Equation 5.6.
F
u (5.6)
where Δu represents a discrete velocity increment and is added to the horizontal velocity
component used to calculate the equilibrium distribution function in Equation 5.1.
To minimize the potential for numerical instabilities and maintain the second order accuracy of
the LBM, the model parameters are defined using the method laid out by Latt and Krause (2008)
as part of the OpenLB User Guide. The process involves selecting physical units then converting
to lattice units to finally obtain the relaxation parameter τ. The relaxation parameter plays an
important role in the collision term of the LBM. It controls the tendency of the system to move
towards local equilibrium. In the literature, the relaxation parameter has been found to cause
numerical instabilities at values approaching 0.5 from the right hand side (τ must be greater than
0.5 for physical viscosities) (Sukop and Thorne, 2005).
5.2.4 Fracture Generation
Fractures profiles used for growing biofilm are the same profiles used in Chapter 3. The profiles
are generated using SynFrac, a synthetic fracture generation software developed by Ogilvie et al.
69
(2006). Synfrac can generate 3D fractures surfaces based on several input parameters including:
fractal dimension (FD), resolution, standard deviation, anisotropy and mismatch length. The
mismatch length refers to the correlation between the top and bottom surfaces. Below the
mismatch length the fractures surfaces will be mostly independent while above it they will be
correlated. SynFrac has multiple methods for determining the mismatch length, building on
previous research (Brown et al., 1995; Glover et al., 1998a; Glover et al., 1998b). For the
purposes of this work the SynFrac implementation of the (Brown et al., 1995) mismatch length is
set to 15 mm. The total fracture is 100 mm square with a resolution set to 1024 by 1024,
standard deviation equal to 1 mm and anisotropy factor of 1.0. The 2D LBM model domain is
2048 elements in length and uses linear interpolation to expand the 1024 elements from SynFrac
resulting in a 48.8 micron grid spacing. The FD is set over a range of 2.00 through 2.35 for this
study (Figure 5.1), where the upper limit is based on work by Ogilvie et al. (2006) who found
that sandstone and granodiorite samples had fractal dimensions approaching 2.35. Given all the
parameters Synfrac generates two 3D surfaces and positions them with a separation that creates a
single contact point. For our purposes a 2D slice is taken at the same location for each FD such
that no contact point is intersected. The separation of each 2D slice is adjusted to obtain an
average mechanical aperture of 1.7 mm. To ensure no interference with the periodic boundary
conditions for fluid flow the aperture and alignment are held constant at the entry and exit of the
fracture profile.
70
Figure 5.1: Fracture profiles b through i generated using a synthetic fracture generator called SynFrac. Total fracture length is 100 mm and each fracture has a mean aperture of 1.7 mm, only the fractal dimension (FD) input parameter is adjusted in SynFrac. Fracture profile a represents a parallel plate system with an equivalent mean 1.7 mm aperture.
5.3 Biofilm Growth Model
The biofilm growth model incorporates fluid dynamics, substrate transport, biofilm population
dynamics and biofilm sloughing due to shear. Initially the model consists of fracture walls, fluid
at rest and no biofilm. The modeling starts by allowing the fluid to begin moving at a desired
Reynolds number and is given time to reach equilibrium. Substrate transport is initialized next
with particles being randomly distributed across the entire system to minimize any preferential
locations of growth. Finally the system is seeded with bacterial cells added as continuous
monolayer along the upper and lower fracture surfaces. As biofilm is assumed to be
impermeable to flow, when a continuous biofilm structure bridges the top and bottom fracture
surfaces flow will be stopped in the fracture. All biofilm models are run until a clogging event
stops flow moving through the fracture. A clogging event is defined as the threshold where the
flow rate is 1/100th of the flow rate before the biofilm started developing. The main program
loop begins from this point and proceeds as follows (also shown in Figure 5.2):
1. A fluid step is completed using the LBM incorporating any new geometry changes from
the previous biofilm step (if applicable).
a) parallel plate
b) FD 2.00
c) FD 2.05
d) FD 2.10
e) FD 2.15
f) FD 2.20
g) FD 2.25
h) FD 2.30
i) FD 2.35
71
2. A substrate transport step is completed using RW particle transport to account for
diffusion while advection is accounted for from the known fluid velocities calculated by
the LBM step.
3. If a biofilm step is called for based on the timescale analysis (discussed below) the
algorithm will proceed to modeling biofilm growth. Otherwise the algorithm loops back
to step 1.
4. Within the biofilm population growth step several sub steps are required and described
here:
a. For each biofilm cell a search is made for available substrate in any of its 8
neighbouring cells.
b. If substrate is present the substrate is consumed by the biomass cell and the cell
mass is increased according to the yield coefficient and the particle mass (only
one particle can be consumed by one biofilm cell per time step).
c. Any biofilm cell that is now above the division threshold will be divided and a
new daughter cell will be created.
d. First priority for locating a new daughter cell is given to choosing at random a
free space among the 4 neighbours sharing an edge. If no free space in available
one of the 4 occupied neighbours is displaced and replaced with the new daughter
cell. The search step is repeated for the displaced cell until all cells have found
empty space in which to move (Picioreanu et al., 1998).
e. When applied, shear is calculated for any biofilm cells adjacent to fluid cells and
any cells above the threshold strength are removed from the system, assumed to
be sloughed off and not to re-attach downstream.
f. The system is now in a new state which has accounted for biofilm growth and
shearing. The algorithm now returns to step 1.
72
LBM
Substrate TransportNo
Substrate available at any of the 8 neighbours?
Biofilm Population Dynamics
Yes
Consume substrate: Divide?
Update grid
Shear
Yes
No
No
Update grid
Run biofilm population dynamics?
Yes
Initialize grid:No Flow
No SubstrateNo Biofilm
Run LBM until equilibrium is reached
Enable substrate transport: Initialize
particles with random locations
Enable biofilm growth along fracture wall
Figure 5.2: Main program loop which includes the processes of fluid dynamics, substrate transport and biofilm growth.
5.4 Timescales
Simulated time scales of fluid flow, substrate transport, and biofilm growth in a single rock
fracture occur over several orders of magnitude. To deal with the discrepancy of the time scales,
73
the physical processes are split into two groups: fast and slow time. Fast processes include fluid
flow and substrate transport while the slow processes include biofilm consumption, division and
detachment due to shear. In general the following holds:
∆ ≪ 1 ≪ ∆ (5.7)
where fast time scales are much less than one second and slow time scales are much larger.
Specifically, time scales for the LBM and substrate transport are on the order of 10-5 seconds or
less while a typical biofilm specific growth rate (µ) is of the order 0.3 per hour or a division
every 3.3 hours. As biofilm development can take several weeks it becomes impractical to
simulate the entire domain using the smallest time scales. Using a similar approach found in the
literature (Picioreanu et al., 1999; Picioreanu et al., 2000) the domain is split into two time
scales. For the purposes of balancing computational capacity and the time required to grow
biofilms, the LBM and RW are run for 0.02 seconds between successive biofilm steps. Given
the small incremental changes that may occur if a bacterium divides it is assumed that the fluid
reaches equilibrium within the 0.02 seconds between each biofilm step.
The substrate transport time scale needed for stable and accurate results is of a similar order as
the LBM. Once a substrate particle is consumed it is converted to biomass which marginally
decreases the global concentration by approximately 10-5 g/L per particle. The discrete locations
of substrate are driving biofilm growth and development and whether a bacterium may consume
a particle is determined from the local availability of that substrate particle. When the substrate
time (fast process) is disconnected from biofilm population dynamics (slow processes) a new
field of particles is presented to the biofilm algorithm each time step and depending on the ratio
of LBM and RW time steps to biofilm growth time steps, substrate particles move varying
distance between time steps. Moreover, as the biofilm growth is heavily dependent on substrate
availability this will affect the growth rates of the biofilm. With the use of varying timescales,
the length of a biofilm time step becomes arbitrary and would require validation against known
systems to calculate the physical time elapsed for the biofilm. Sensitivity analysis of the time
scale ratio is shown later to demonstrate the global effect on biofilm populations.
74
5.5 Results and Discussion
5.5.1 Biofilm with No Sloughing
Biofilms are modeled for Re over two orders of magnitude, between 1 and 100, to capture
potential effects of secondary flows that develop within the fractures. Secondary flows are
associated with increasing roughness and Re (Chapter 3) and have a non-linear effect on the
hydraulics and solute transport in the model. The development of biofilm structures also plays a
role in both of these aspects leading to complex flow streamlines (Figure 5.3). Figure 5.3 is a
representative example of biofilm growth shown along a 1 mm segment of the 100 mm fracture,
biofilms develop large towering structures. The biofilm colonies tend to grow at locations of
local aperture constrictions, where the fracture surface is closest to the bulk flow, minimizing
substrate diffusion distances. Biofilms from the top and bottom fracture surfaces have a
tendency to grow in tandem meeting near the middle of the fracture aperture.
Figure 5.3: A representative sample of biofilm structure in a fracture. For the fracture shown, Re = 50, FD = 2.35, Biofilm shear strength is 0.045 Pa. The plotted segment is approximately 1mm of the total 100mm fracture. Blue represents flow with streamlines plotted on top, green represent a biofilm cell and pink represent locations where biofilms are permitted to develop.
Figure 5.4 represents the biofilm population over time for three different Reynolds numbers: 1,
5 and 100. Two quantities are used to describe biofilm populations. First the biomass is
reported in terms of percent increase from initial inoculation. Relative results are shown since
each fracture has a different roughness and therefore a different perimeter and will begin with a
different number of nodes allowing growth of bacteria. Secondly the FD is reported, similarly to
biomass, as a percent increase over time. On the left hand column of Figure 5.4 the FD change
over time and shown and on the right hand side the biomass change over time. The biomass
75
grows at an almost constant rate for most cases suggesting a zero-order Monod growth rate.
However the FD of the biofilm initially grows quickly then slows at late time. A larger FD is
associated with towering biofilm structures indicating that biofilms need to grow into the bulk
flow, away from the wall, to best capture substrate. As Re increases this effect is augmented
possibly due to the decrease in effective hydraulic aperture contributing to bulk flow (as
discussed in Chapter 3). At higher Re, advection becomes a more prominent transport
mechanism and therefore the highest probability of finding substrate is in the bulk flow zone,
which is decreasing at higher Re, as a result biofilm, should it grow, will need to find substrate in
this zone. Consequently biofilms must grow farther away from the fracture wall resulting in
larger FD at earlier time for increasing Re.
As a proof-of-principle the qualitative shapes formed by the biofilm are generally consistent with
the literature as discussed in the introduction of Chapter 5 which indicated that under substrate
poor conditions biofilms have been shown to develop rough towering structures (de Beer et al.,
1994; Picioreanu et al., 1999; Hermanowicz, 2001; Hunt et al., 2004). More specifically, in the
field of contaminant hydrogeology, Arnon et al. (2005) found biofilms clogging and affecting
preferential flow paths within naturally fractured chalk. While not being able to compare results
directly between the 3D experimental setup and the 2D modeled results, clogging clearly
controls the hydraulics of the fractures of both systems. The flow rates presented in this work
relative to the diffusion coefficients are such that substrate transport is limited by diffusion and
therefore in zones between the bulk flow and the wall, where diffusion is the primary mechanism
for moving between streamlines, substrate limiting conditions arise. Conversely, when the
diffusion coefficient or substrate concentrations are increased, the system develops biofilms of
more uniform thickness.
76
Figure 5.4: Biofilm characteristics expressed by two different quantitative measurements: relative FD on the left and relative biomass on the right. Values are relative to the initial FD and biomass of each respective fracture. Results are shown for Re 1 through 100 and normalized time.
For the three Re in Figure 5.4, the growth rates are faster at higher Reynolds numbers where
advection dominates the transport of substrate. The resultant biofilm development grows into the
fracture aperture, away from the surface, increasing FD and resulting in clog events sooner than
at lower Re. At higher Re, clogging occurs sooner which may be due to increasing flows alone
or, in addition, the role of secondary flow may become significant for delivering substrate to
existing colonies as eddies develop around new biofilm colonies.
Re = 1
Re = 50
Re = 100
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 50 100
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 50 100
FD Change
Time
PP 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 2.35
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 100 200 300
Biomass Change
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 50 100Biomass Change
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 50 100
Biomass Change
Time
77
The effects of secondary flow, consisting primarily of eddies along the rough fracture play a non-
linear role in terms of substrate transport to the biofilm. A few factors lead to this non-linear
relationship. First, where the fractures are parallel plates, as the Re increases, the boundary layer
is compressed due to hydraulic forces. A compressed boundary layer reduces the diffusion
distance a substrate particle must travel from the bulk flow to the biofilm. However, since the
fractures are complex, rough surfaces, their effect on the boundary layer is non-linear. It was
shown (Chapter 3) that as the Re values increase, the bulk flow zone decreases resulting in an
increased thickness of boundary layer. A larger boundary layer would increase the diffusion
distance for substrate. However, the boundary layer is composed of secondary flows, typically
eddies, which contribute their own non-linearity of advection and diffusion resulting in a
complex feedback loop between fluid flow, transport behaviour and their direct effects on
biofilm development. Substrate particles that are captured in eddies and delayed in the fracture
as shown in Chapter 4 may have an increased likelihood of coming into contact with a biofilm
cell. Finally, as biofilm colonies grow and constrict flow, they will compress the boundary layer
and reduce the diffusion distance for substrate transport to the biofilm (Picioreanu et al., 2001).
While two-way biofilm-fluid interactions are not being modeled as they are in Taherzadeh et al.
(2010), the hydrodynamic conditions of the model impact biofilm growth and development. The
biofilm can only grow where substrate is available and its highest availability is through
advection (for the given diffusion coefficient) which becomes more dominant at higher Re.
The data in Figure 5.4 highlights the similarity in growth rates and shape over time regardless of
roughness but it is the clogging event that differentiates the various roughnesses. Figure 5.5
summarizes the total biofilm mass when clogging occurs which is significantly lower for the
rougher fractures. Again, at higher Re, advection dominates and the biofilm will tend to grow
into these substrate rich advection dominated zones which will cause clogging of the fracture
more rapidly and with lower biomass.
78
Figure 5.5: Total biomass is plotted at time of a clogging event for fractures with FD 2.00, 2.15 and 2.35. Results for parallel plates are shown for reference.
Plotting the biomass verses relative hydraulic aperture, calculated from Chapter 3 illustrates the
effect on hydraulic conditions and how they are affected by bio-accumulation (Figure 5.6).
Results suggest less biomass is required to reduce the effective hydraulic apertures with
increasing Re and increasing fracture roughness. Some variation is shown due to the random
nature of both the RW substrate transport and CA based biofilm model. Overall Figure 5.6
shows a linear decrease in hydraulic aperture as biomass accumulates with a departure from
linearity just before a clogging event (when the model is stopped).
Given the geometric properties of a fracture along with the flow conditions and substrate
availability it is feasible to use the model to determine the likelihood that clogging will occur.
Clogging of a fracture results in a no-flow condition, or in 3D indicates a change in preferential
flow paths. In both cases, the flow rates will be reduced as flow no longer moves according to
its original, lowest energy flow pattern. In the model, a clogged fracture can no longer remediate
fluids as contaminants are no longer being transported over the biofilm. In three-dimensional
clogging at a larger scale fluid would be forces to flow to new zones which may not be rich in
bacteria or favourable for bioremediation. Ideally an engineered bioremediation implementation
would be designed to encourage biofilm development while discouraging clogging possibly by
controlling induced flow rates, substrate concentrations, or the choice of augmented bacterial
populations.
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
1 10 100
Biomass at Clog Even
t
Re
PP 2.00 2.15 2.35
79
Figure 5.6: Biomass growth plotted against the relative hydraulic aperture as a measure of hydraulic behavior in fractures with increasing roughness. Results shown for Re = 1, 50 and 100. Each model is run until a clogging event negates the usefulness of further hydraulic measurements.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
Relative Hydraulic Aperture
PP
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
Biomass Growth
Re 50
Re 100
Re 1
80
5.5.2 Biofilm with Sloughing
Sloughing events due to the shear strength of the biofilm being exceeded are modeled using the
know velocity distribution in the fracture which develops according to Equation 5.2. Sloughing
occurs at the per-element level and once sloughed it is assumed the bacterium travels far
downstream (out of the domain) without re-attaching. The effect of increasing the shear strength
of the biofilm is shown graphically in Figure 5.7 for Re = 50. From left to right, top to bottom
the shear strength of the biofilm in Figure 5.7 are: 0.030, 0.035, 0.040, 0.045, 0.050 and 40 Pa.
Depending on roughness and Re the biofilm is strong enough to resist sloughing and can develop
above a threshold shear strength. Even at low strengths a biofilm can still develop, although at a
slower rate. As a biofilm builds mass and structure it will increase drag and reduce flow rates
and therefore the resulting shear stress, allowing the biofilm to grow into new areas. In addition,
advection dominates the substrate transport process and biofilm will therefore grow into the
substrate rich zones instead of in low shear zones. These two behaviours govern at all shear
strengths for a given diffusion coefficient.
While the model only simulates rigid biofilm structures, the heterogeneous, towering biofilm
colonies with narrow support structures would be expected to deform in the downstream
direction and develop into biofilm streamers as previously reported in the literature (Taherzadeh
et al., 2010). From the model results, although limited to 2D and rigid structures, it can be seen
that substrate transport still governs development and the biofilm will grow into the bulk flow if
at all possible.
81
Figure 5.7: Streamlines are plotted along a segment of the total fracture representing approximately 1 mm of the model at Re = 50. Shear strength from left to right, from top to bottom: 0.030, 0.035, 0.040, 0.045, 0.050, 40 Pa (similar to no shear enabled in the model). Biofilm is shown in green while pink represent locations where biofilms are permitted to develop. The plotted results are shown at the time of a clogging event, or late-time for those shear strengths that do not clog.
Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show changes in FD and biomass respectively for shear strengths between
0.01 and 40 Pa, including, for comparison the case where sloughing due to shear is not enabled.
. ⁄ . ⁄
. ⁄ . ⁄
. ⁄ . ⁄
. ⁄
82
For the case of smooth parallel plates there is some threshold shear strength, depending on Re,
below which no biofilm development occurs. For increasingly rougher fractures there will be
zones of local aperture change resulting in varying distances between the fracture surface and
maximum velocity stream line (Δy in Equation 5.2) which is used to predict shear forces. These
changes allow for biofilm to form in more diverse locations leading to a transition zone between
low shear strength, no growth scenario to high shear strength, high growth scenarios where some
biofilm may form at this transitional strength but not sufficiently to develop a clog. For a fixed
diffusion coefficient this threshold is dependent on roughness and Re. Again, advection is still
the dominant form of substrate transport in these models and biofilm will grow into the bulk flow
and eventually clog the fracture for shear strength values above the threshold. For shear strength
values below the threshold, the biomass cannot grow sufficiently to increase drag and reduce
flow in the fracture and therefore allow for more growth through an overall reduction of shear
and the associated sloughing. For shear strength values at the threshold, for example τ = 0.04 Pa
for the case of Re = 50 and FD = 2.15, it is not clear whether growth will continue until clogging
or if growth will plateau and reach a steady value. A key, qualitative indicator that the biofilm
shear strength is in a threshold range is to determine where the biofilm is developing. For all
shear strengths that eventually lead to clogging, biofilms tend to develop along local peaks in the
fracture surface, or aperture constrictions. However for the threshold shear strengths, biofilms
only grow in zones where apertures are relatively large, or areas where the sloughing forces
acting on the biofilm are minimized.
83
Figure 5.8: Results for relative change in FD for fractures with FD 2.15 and 2.35 shown with the parallel plate case for comparison. For the case of Re = 1 all shear strength values exhibit similar behaviour and follow the same trend. Biofilm shear strength varies from 0.01 to 40 Pa with the case of no sloughing also shown for comparison. Various biofilm shear strength values are highlighted to emphasise the shift in the threshold growth values over increasingly rough fractures.
Parallel Plates
FD = 2.15
FD = 2.35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
FD Change
Re 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
FD Change
Time
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.050.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60.7 0.8 0.9 1 25 10 20 40 No Shear
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
Re 50
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
Time
0.05 Pa
0.04 Pa
0.03 Pa
0.04 Pa
0.03 Pa
0.06 Pa
0.05 Pa
0.05 Pa
84
Figure 5.9: Results for relative change in biomass for fractures with FD 2.15 and 2.35 shown with the parallel plate case for comparison. Biofilm shear strength varies from 0.01 to 40 Pa with the case of no sloughing also shown for comparison. Various biofilm shear strength values are highlighted to emphasise the shift in the threshold growth values over increasingly rough fractures.
5.5.3 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis takes on two forms in this study. The first analysis covers the effects of
physical parameters including substrate concentrations and molecular diffusion coefficients. The
second analysis covers numerical assumptions made for the model including the treatment of
Parallel Plates
FD = 2.15
FD = 2.35
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 200 400 600
Biomass Change
Re 1
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 200 400 600
Biomass Change
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 200 400 600
Biomass Change
Time
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 100 200 300
Re 50
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 100 200 300
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 100 200 300
Time
0.06 Pa
0.05 Pa
0.05 Pa
0.04 Pa
0.04 Pa
0.03 Pa
0.05 Pa
85
substrate when it is consumed, and whether the discrete substrate particles are re-introduced into
the system to maintain the same absolute concentration and how the time scales are treated
between flow, substrate transport and biofilm population dynamics. Finally the variation from
running the same model multiple times is analysed as the algorithm includes two calculations
which use pseudo random number generators: RW and choice of daughter cell locations.
The assumption that substrate particles are removed from the system after consumption is
analysed in Figure 5.10, the discrete particles for the results presented have been removed
completely from the system after being consumed by bacteria. A few alternatives were
considered including re-introducing particles along the cross-section of the fracture. However, if
particles are re-introduced too close to the fracture wall they will artificially affect the location of
biofilm growth. Instead particles are re-injected half way between the fracture surfaces at the
entry of the fracture. Since particles are re-injected along the centre of the fracture in is expected
that it will take some time and distance for those new particles to diffuse to the fracture surfaces
to allow for more uniform biofilm growth. In the case of no shear conditions, the biofilm will
clog before any effect from particle behaviour can be observed (Figure 5.10). Whereas, in the
case when sloughing due to shear is enabled, the additional particles eventually reach the fracture
surfaces and the biofilm begins a new phase of increased growth that leads to a clogging event.
Figure 5.10: Sensitivity of the biofilm growth behaviour to whether particles are re-injected after being consumed by a bacteria cell. Re = 50 and FD = 2.35.
Another important numerical modeling factor is the various timescales of the system including
flow, substrate transport and biofilm growth. Flow and substrate transport are dealt with at the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 100 200 300
FD Increase
TimeNo Shear No Shear & Re‐Inject
Shear = 0.04 N/m² Shear = 0.04 N/m² & Re‐Inject
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 100 200 300
Biomass Change
Time
86
same relative timescale, approximately 10-5 seconds, which is much faster than that of biofilm
growth. For the results shown in Figure 5.1 through 5.10, the disconnect of timescales is as
follows: flow and transport are allowed to simulate 0.02 seconds or approximately 1000 time
steps between each biofilm growth step. The assumption holds well for fluid flow since 0.02
seconds is enough time for the flow to reach equilibrium after any incremental changes in
biofilm shape. The effect of various timescales or Time Step (TS) ratios which represent the
number of LBM/RW steps relative to biofilm growth steps are reported (Figure 5.11) and results
are shown indicating the TS ratio between each biofilm growth step. The timescale variations
introduce an unknown discrepancy in the physical representation of time. Therefore, the results
are shown with relative timescales in place of a physical time. Increasing the TS ratio allows
more RW iterations between biofilm steps and substrate particles diffuse farther and are more
likely to move towards the biofilm growing on the fracture walls. This increases substrate
availability and has an effect similar to increasing the diffusion coefficient or substrate
concentration. Also shown in Figure 5.11 in the black dotted lines is the result of re-injecting
substrate particles after consumption by a biofilm node. For the case of re-injecting particles at
high TS ratios the assumption that particle re-injection does not affect results breaks down at
earlier and earlier time. From the results it is evident that at larger TS ratios the increased
number of LBM/RW time steps allows greater time for substrate diffusion between substrate
consumption/biofilm growth steps and all particles are consumed in relatively shorter times
(Figure 5.12). As particles are re-injected growth is allowed to continue.
Figure 5.11: Timescale sensitivity analysis for the case of Re = 50 and FD = 2.35. Results are shown using for various Time Step (TS) ratios between successive steps.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 20 40
FD Change
TimeTS Ratio = 1 TS Ratio = 10 TS Ratio = 100
TS Ratio = 1,000 TS Ratio = 10,000 TS Ratio = 100,000
TS Ratio = 100,000 Re‐Inject TS Ratio = 1,000,000 TS Ratio = 1,000,000 Re‐Inject
0%
300%
600%
900%
1200%
1500%
1800%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Biomass Change
Time
87
Figure 5.12: Visualization of sensitivity of the timescale used between successive biofilm iterations. Shown from top to bottom represent Time Step (TS) ratio of 100; 1,000; 10,000; 100,000 and 1,000,000. The segment of fractures shown represents approximately 2 mm of the total 100 mm fracture. All five cases are for Re = 50 and FD 2.35.
A graphical representation of Figure 5.11 is shown in Figure 5.12; a segment of the fracture is
captured and displayed relative to the same cross-section for values with an increasing TS ratio.
TS ratio = 1,000,000
TS ratio = 100,000
TS ratio = 10,000
TS ratio = 1,000
TS ratio = 100
88
For the lowest TS ratios, biofilm structures are narrow and biomass accumulation is minimal. As
the timescale separation increases, more substrate transport time steps are simulated such that
when a biofilm step is calculated, the likelihood of a substrate being adjacent to the biofilm in
increased. The net result is similar to increasing the diffusion coefficient or initial substrate
concentrations. By the largest TS ratios all substrate is consumed and a more homogenous
biofilm develops.
The effects of fracture roughness for the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000 (Figure 5.13) are similar
to the trends for a TS ratio of 1,000 (Figure 5.4) with exception that at largest values, all particles
are quickly consumed, slowing growth. By simulating particle re-injection in the large TS ratio
cases, biofilm growth in not limited and is able to grow until a clogging event. Some differences
are still evident for large TS ratio models for example at late time, for the case when substrate
particles are re-injected into the fractures, the biofilm eventually stops growing into the bulk
fluid, evident from a reduction of FD growth rates. At this time, before a clog develops, the
biofilm will fill in gaps between the initial towering biofilm structures resulting in an overall
decrease in the FD and smoother biofilm (Figure 5.13). Smooth and homogeneous biofilm
structures are expected in substrate rich environments. At the stage when the rate of FD growth
is decreasing, biomass growth rates accelerate and can be explained, in part, by two factors. First,
the amount of biofilm surface area capable of consuming substrate increases as evident from the
FD results. Secondly, the global substrate concentrations are increasing as the volume of fluid in
the fracture constantly decreases with increasing biofilm volume while the discrete number of
particles remains constant.
89
Figure 5.13: Biofilm FD and biomass results for the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000 for fractures with increasing roughness.
Hydraulic behaviour for large TS ratios values versus the results for TS ratios of 1000 follow
comparable trends, again with variations near the end of the simulation. For a TS ratio of 1,000
hydraulic apertures decreased linearly with increasing biomass with the controlling effects of
roughness and Re determining the rate of decrease. At some point of biomass accumulation,
depending on roughness and Re, the hydraulic aperture decreased rapidly until a clog formed.
For the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000 hydraulic apertures remain linear throughout biomass
accumulation for both treatments of particle re-injection. Only a single Re is studied for this
case while all fracture roughnesses are compared in Figure 5.14. Increasing fracture roughness
leads to a more rapid decrease in hydraulic aperture as biomass accumulates which is the same
general behavior as the TS ratio of 1,000.
TS 1,000,000 Re‐inject
TS 1,000,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 5 10 15 20
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 5 10 15 20
FD Change
Time
PP 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35
0%
500%
1000%
1500%
2000%
0 5 10 15 20
Biomass Change
0%
1000%
2000%
3000%
4000%
0 5 10 15 20Biomass Change
Time
90
Figure 5.14: Biomass growth as a percent increase plotted against the relative effective, or hydraulic, aperture for the case of a TS ratio of 1,000,000. Presented hydraulic apertures are normalized to unity for a relative comparison between fractures of varying roughness. The bottom figure enables particle re-injection relative to the top figure.
Varying the diffusion coefficient in the numerical model has the same qualitative effect as
changing the TS ratio as shown by graphically in Figure 5.12. Diffusion coefficients varying
over three orders of magnitude are shown in Figure 5.15. As diffusion coefficients increase,
particles are diffusing much faster leading to high substrate availability and significantly
increased biofilm growth rates. Growth is limited when all particles are consumed which occurs
for these simulations at diffusion coefficients above 7 10 ⁄ . It would be
expected that the growth rates for the highest diffusion coefficients would not stop growing in
the time shown should particles be re-injected.
For the threshold shear strength value of 0.04 Pa the increase in diffusion coefficient results in a
more subtle change in biofilm behaviour however the same general trends hold.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0% 1000% 2000% 3000% 4000% 5000%
TS Ratio = 1,000,000
Relative Effective Aperture
PP
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.30
2.35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0% 1000% 2000% 3000% 4000% 5000%TS ratio = 1,000,000 Re‐Inject
Relative Effective Aperture
Biomass Growth
91
Figure 5.15: Sensitivity analysis for diffusion coefficients in fracture with Re = 50 and FD = 2.35.
Figure 5.16: Sensitivity analysis of initial substrate concentrations in fracture with Re = 50 and FD = 2.35.
The analysis of substrate concentration is conducted by changing the discrete number of particles
in the systems as described in Section 5.2.2. By increasing the number of discrete particles, the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 50 100
FD Change
TimeNo Shear, Dm = 3.5E‐10 m²/sNo Shear, Dm = 7E‐10 m²/sNo Shear, Dm = 1.4E‐9 m²/sNo Shear, Dm = 7E‐9 m²/sNo Shear, Dm = 7E‐8 m²/sNo Shear, Dm = 7E‐7 m²/sShear = 0.04 Pa, Dm = 3.5E‐10 m²/sShear = 0.04 Pa, Dm = 7E‐10 m²/sShear = 0.04 Pa, Dm = 1.4E‐9 m²/s
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 50 100
Biomass Change
Time
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 50 100
FD Change
Time
No Shear, Cs = 5 g/LNo Shear, Cs = 10 g/LNo Shear, Cs = 20 g/LShear = 0.04 Pa, Cs = 5 g/LShear = 0.04 Pa, Cs = 10 g/LShear = 0.04 Pa, Cs = 20 g/L
0%
300%
600%
900%
0 50 100
Biomass Change
Time
92
likelihood that a particle is near a biofilm cell is increased and growth rates increase with
increasing substrate (Figure 5.16).
Finally, analysis of the reproducibility of the model is shown in Figure 5.17 for the single Re =
50. Three different models runs are conducted with the same input parameters and allowed to
run through until a clogging event occurs. The final values for FD, biomass and the time to a
clogging event show a standard error between one and 6 percent. The variation between model
runs had no relation to initial fracture roughness.
Figure 5.17: Sensitivity analysis of reproducibility of the model in fracture with Re = 50 and FD = 2.35.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 25 50 75 100
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 25 50 75 100
FD Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 25 50 75 100
FD Change
Time
PP 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 25 50 75 100
Biomass Change
Time
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 25 50 75 100
Biomass Change
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
0 25 50 75 100
Biomass Change
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
93
5.6 Conclusions
Using a discrete-discrete small scale model has led to complex simulations of biofilm growth in
rock fractures using simple rules and algorithms. Based on the presented work the following
conclusions were made:
1. 2D flow is ultimately controlled by clogging events that occur at local aperture
constrictions. Aperture constrictions tend to be offset between the top and bottom
fracture surfaces since fracture surfaces are not correlated below 15 mm. Biofilm
colonies that develop on a local peak along the surface will tend to grow towards a
biofilm colony on the opposite surface. There is a slight preference for growing in the
upstream direction driven by substrate availability.
2. While biomass typically grows at a constant rate when substrate is available, FD initially
grows quickly then slows at later time. A larger FD is associated with towering biofilm
structures indicating that biofilms need to grow into the bulk flow, away from the wall, to
best capture substrate.
3. Relative growth rates are faster at higher Re indicating the dominance of advection
relative to diffusion for substrate transport for diffusion coefficients similar to sugar.
4. Roughness does not affect relative growth rates for any given Re but rougher fractures
will clog sooner with less biomass.
5. For increasing Re and FD, less biomass is required for the same reduction in the effective
hydraulic aperture. Rougher fractures may have smaller aperture constrictions and when
biomass accumulates at these locations, flow is reduced and clogging is likely to occur
sooner, at lower biomass levels. Similarly, for increasing Re, growth rates are faster,
reducing effective hydraulic aperture more quickly.
6. Shearing of biofilm significantly controls the biomass growth rates. The threshold at
which biofilm can form is dependent on shear strength, Re and roughness.
94
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Overall Conclusions
Using a newly developed high performance 2D model, the effects of roughness on fluid flow,
substrate transport and biofilm development in a single rock fracture are examined. A lattice
Boltzmann model (LBM) is used to simulate fluid flow through fractures and has been used to
investigate the initiation and growth of secondary flow, such as eddies, within irregular fractures.
Also the model simulates discrete particle transport throughout the fracture as well as discrete
biofilm growth using a cellular automata (CA) approach. All three physical phenomena are
strongly influenced by the roughness of the fracture which can be described by a fractal
dimension (FD). In addition, the Reynolds number (Re), substrate diffusion coefficient, biofilm
shear strength play an important role in the behaviour of biofilm in a fracture. The following
conclusions summarize the overall results and observations:
1. The LBM model simulations presented in this study are consistent with other modeling
studies of flow in rock fractures (Brown, 1987; Tsang, 1984) and also fit well with the
statistical roughness model described by Zimmerman et al. (1991) and Renshaw (1995)
(Chapter 1 and 2).
2. The LBM model is well suited for simulating laminar flows through systems where
complex flow patterns are produced by the combination of pressure gradients on the fluid
as it interacts with the kind or irregular boundaries found in rock fractures. Even under
laminar flow conditions, tortuous flow paths and surface roughness create unique flow
conditions that the current model can effectively capture. The model efficiently
simulates 2D fracture systems at the micron to millimeter scale and allows real-time
rendering of the resulting flow. The general purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU)
implementation of LBM can simulate systems faster, by an order of magnitude, compared
to CPU based codes, allowing for faster analysis and efficient parametric studies.
(Chapter 2).
95
3. Significantly, this work shows that eddies may be present at virtually all scales of flow in
fractures, and that their first formation extends below previously reported Reynolds
numbers reported in the literature (Crandall et al., 2010). Eddies at the lowest Reynolds
numbers may require a minimum roughness, or a zone of rapid aperture change, to be
formed in fracture (Chapter 3).
4. An important threshold for eddy development occurs near a Reynolds number of around
unity: beyond this value, any existing eddies experience more rapid growth and new
eddies form more readily; this threshold is consistent with earlier work (Zimmerman et
al., 2004). However, unlike previous work, the growth is herein attributed to the complex
flow arising at the boundaries, such as eddies, that are directly associated with the change
in effective hydraulic aperture.
5. This eddy growth behaviour suggests a three-zone non-linear model of fracture flow
similar to that found for porous media by Chaudhary et al. (2011). This work expands
the application of the three-zone model to rough fractures. In Zone I at Re < 1 effective
aperture is constant but dependent on initial fracture geometry; Zone II begins at Re
approaching 1 where conventional fracture modeling breaks down as a result of the
significant increase in eddy growth rates. The reduction in eddy growth rate represents
the boundary of Zone II and Zone III and can vary for the fracture system being modeled
(Chapter 3).
6. The three-zone model of fracture flow also applies to tortuosity as the growth of eddies in
a fracture are directly linked to a non-linear change in measured tortuosity (Chapter 3).
7. Solute transport is affected similarly to fluid flow as is clearly demonstrated through the
flow studies that use the same set of fractures as in the hydraulic study with increasing
roughness. Initially, at Reynolds numbers less than 10, little if any difference is apparent
comparing the analytical solutions with fractures of different roughnesses. At larger Re,
especially for Reynolds numbers exceeding twenty, a significant change in behaviour is
observed with increasing roughness possibly explained by the emergence and growth of
eddies associated with the three-zone model of fracture flow (Chapter 4).
8. For low flow rates, a Fickian diffusion model is shown to accurately represent transport
phenomena. However, deviations of the breakthrough curves from Fickian behaviour
96
are progressively noted with higher flows; significantly, such deviations begin to appear
at the same range of Re and FD shown in Chapter 3 to be associated with the onset and
growth of secondary flows (Chapter 4).
9. At the highest roughness and Reynolds numbers modeled, it is clear that the fluid flow
interacting with unique fracture geometries create a non-linear response to solute
transport and as shown by the three-zone model of fracture flow, eddy formation is a key
factor in that behaviour (Chapter 4).
10. Using a discrete-discrete small scale model permits complex simulations of biofilm
growth in rock fractures using simple rules and algorithms. As expected 2D flow is
controlled by clogging events. This can occur anywhere along the fracture aperture and
act to stop fluid flow in the model, however the tendency is for biofilm to develop in
areas of aperture constriction (Chapter 5).
11. While biomass typically grows at a constant rate when substrate is available, the biomass
FD initially grows quickly then slows at later time. A larger FD is associated with
“towering biofilm structures” (structure which stretch widely across the flow aperture)
indicating, not surprisingly, that biofilms need to grow into the bulk flow, away from the
wall, to best capture substrate (Chapter 5).
12. Relative growth rates of biofilms are faster at higher Re suggesting the dominance of
advection to substrate transport for diffusion coefficients similar to sugar (Chapter 5).
13. Roughness does not affect relative growth rates for any given Re however rougher
fractures will clog sooner with less biomass. (Chapter 5).
14. For increasing Re and FD, less biomass is required to reduce the effective hydraulic
aperture. Rougher fracture, may have smaller aperture constrictions and when biomass
accumulate at these locations, flow is reduces and clogging is likely to occur sooner, with
less biomass present. Similarly, for increasing Re, growth rates are faster, reducing
effective hydraulic aperture more quickly (Chapter 5).
15. Introducing biofilm shear strength significantly controls the biomass growth rates. The
threshold at which biofilm can form is dependent on shear strength, Re an FD (Chapter
5).
97
6.2 Contributions
The significant contributions of this thesis are as follows:
1. The 2D biofilm model developed herein is the first to systematically analyse the effects
of roughness and secondary flows on the hydraulics, transport and biofilm behaviour in
fractured media. The model is shown to be capable of efficiently simulating three primary
phenomena: gravity driven flow through a single rock fracture using the LBM, solute
transport using RW and biofilm population dynamics using CA.
2. The 2D biofilm model uses high performance GPGPU programming to significantly
improve performance of the LBM and RW algorithms decreasing analysis times and
increasing the number of models feasible to run for any given project.
3. The presence of eddies was detected at Reynolds numbers below that previously reported
in the literature. The model can be used to determine when flow become complex and
require CFD tools, such as the presented model, to describe the hydraulic properties of a
fracture.
4. This work extends the three-zone non-linear model of flow in porous media to include
fractured media. The transition between these three zones is shown to be correlated with
the onset and growth of secondary flows in a fracture. In Zone I at Re < 1 effective
aperture is constant but dependent on initial fracture geometry; Zone II begins at Re
approaching 1 where conventional fracture modeling will break down as a result of the
significant increase in eddy growth rates. The reduction in eddy growth rate represents
the boundary of Zone II and Zone III and can vary for the fracture system being modeled
5. The emergence and growth of eddies in fractures are shown to correlate with the
transition to non-Fickian behaviour of breakthrough curves in a single rock fracture.
6. Based on the presented 2D model, fracture roughness does not affect relative growth rates
of biofilm in a single rock fracture. Instead, rougher fractures when modeled in 2D are
clogged more quickly than smoother fractures. However fracture roughness does affect
the reduction in effective hydraulic aperture as flow in rougher fractures will drop more
quickly than smooth fractures.
7. The 2D biofilm model can be used to determine biofilm growth rates and time-to-
clogging given as input: biofilm shear strength, Re and FD. Ideally an engineered
bioremediation site would encourage biofilm development while discouraging clogging
98
possibly by controlling induced flow rates or the choice of augmented bacterial
populations.
6.3 Critical Appraisal
Experience with the methods and methodologies used here offer insight into their respective
strengths and weaknesses. To this end, it is desirable to evaluate the choices made and discuss
their ramifications for this work with the benefit of hindsight.
The biofilm model is inherently deterministic and it does not consider the stochastic nature of the
hydrologic cycle, for example the uncertainty of rain events that drive most groundwater flows at
some time scale. The geologic conditions are also transient, undergoing changes in confinement
pressures over time leading to changing flow rates and aperture dilations and contractions. As
fracture networks within bedrocks change as new fractures propagate, old pathways close or
become clogged with rock fragments and debris. Within a host rock, rock properties will vary
spatially, the nature of the roughness, anisotropy or relative matrix permeability may change
over time and space. Bacterial communities are also always changing to best suit the
surrounding environment without even considering the anthropogenic components of
contamination or other engineering activities. A system that attempts to consider some or all of
these factors would be required to move towards a stochastic modeling regime, for example
using Monte Carlo methods. A broader parametric analysis significantly increases computation
cost and would benefit from using emerging parallel computer systems such as the GPGPUs
used in the work. Even so, the scalability of the presented model is unknown and
implementation would impose its own challenges. Ideally to minimize the parametric space, 2D
modeling of various system inputs and properties would give a better understanding of their
relative impacts and whether to they need to be included in Monte Carlo analysis.
The use of a 2D model limits specific results of the thesis however it is expected that the overall
results would still hold. Specifically, in 3D, biofilm structure and growth would be able to
expand in a further dimension and reduce the impact of clogging in 2D. Preferential flow paths
develop in 3D around clogging sites however flows would still be reduced as it is in 2D. Growth
outside the preferential flow paths would slow as they would be limited by substrate diffusion
while growth in the advective dominant zones would be faster but balanced with sloughing.
Similar behaviour was shown for 2D systems with maximum shear strengths applied to the
biofilm, it might have been expected that biofilm could not grow in high shear zones, and they
99
did have had delayed initial growth times, but as biomass and structure increase, the pressure
driven flow runs into more resistance. Eventually, flows diminish to an extent where biofilms
can develop and similar clogging events occur even with relatively low biofilm shear strengths.
Developing a 3D model is still a primary consideration for the extension of this work however
the complexity of implementing a 3D system in addition to the computation cost maintains the
applicability and usefulness of 2D work
The use of high performance computing will always be required when modeling systems with
large grid sizes and small time steps. With modern computers this leads to the use of parallel
computing systems of which GPGPUs are and one of the least expensive options. They offer a
pre-packaged high performance computer with little to no additional hardware requirements. One
of the big costs with GPGPUs comes with the implementation at the software level. GPGPUs
evolved in a graphics based software ecosystem where the types of problems being solved
suggest an optimal hardware design. When extending GPUs to general purpose programing a
few key issues quickly control the performance efficiency. First, GPUs have limited bandwidth
between host and GPU. Ideally any given problem should be solved entirely on the GPU to
minimize the impact of the interconnect bottleneck. This is a reasonable and achievable goal in
high performance computing as it is always beneficial to minimize external communications
whether it is between multiple nodes of a cluster or between GPUs. Secondly, this generation of
GPGPUs consist of many small processors with relatively simple logic implementations in
comparison to modern CPUs which are composed of a few large processors. Therefore it can be
expected that each type of hardware architecture is most suitable for different tasks. For
GPGPUs, code should be generated that takes advantage of hundreds of processors doing the
same task or what is known as Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD). In this way, the same
instruction is sent to every processor to work on its given slice of data. This works well for both
the LBM and RW implementations as each node of the grid works on similar instructions and
applies those rules to the local available data, taking information from the individual node or
immediate neighbour. However the biofilm growth model requires significant neighbour
communication at levels above immediate neighbours. During a bacteria growth step, the code
must choose at random where to grow and then check the validity of that choice. If all
immediate neighbours are occupied, the algorithm becomes recursive as it begins to shift cells
and make room for daughter cells. Both of these steps require conditional branching and
recursive functions that are not traditional strengths of GPGPUs because they break the single
100
instruction component of SIMD, during a conditional statement, there are now two instructions
for each data component. Some GPGPU implementations will calculate both branches of a
conditional statement and simply discard the unused branch as it is faster than first calculating
one, then checking the results and deciding if the other also needs calculating. Regardless, a
significant performance penalty is taken for branching and recursion. Therefore the goal would
be to create a biofilm growth model that requires little if no branching or recursion, such a
method is best suited for research in the field of computer science and collaboration with said
group would be beneficial.
6.4 Future Work
The results of this research indicate that more work is needed to refine the model and improve its
predictive capacity. To this end, several recommendations are listed below and organized into
three groups: Extending the types of fractures being modeled, numerical modeling improvements
and lab scale validation.
The existing model has several features which have not been completely explored. To this end
the following future work is recommend:
1. Compare the presented gravity based boundary conditions with other boundary
conditions, for example constant flux. This would improve the scope of problems that
could be simulated with the presented model.
2. Analyze fracture flow, transport and biofilm development results controlling for other
fracture properties including mismatch length and anisotropy. Results would extend the
conclusions already discussed to include a larger variation in fracture topologies.
3. Compare synthetic fractures and real fractures with respect to biofilm modeling and the
effects of fracture roughness.
4. Extend the single fracture results to include simple fracture networks. Moving from a
single fracture to fractured networks would allow for more general conclusions regarding
flow, transport and biofilm population dynamics in fractured media.
It is a constant requirement that numerical models be improved in terms of accuracy, ability and
performance while simultaneously reducing trade-offs. Accordingly, the following future work
is recommended to improve the numerical model developed in this thesis:
101
1. Extend the biofilm, substrate transport and fluid dynamics models to three-dimensions to
capture the expected channeling effect of fluid moving through fracture surfaces and
around biofilm colonies.
2. While moving to three-dimensional modeling is beneficial, the computational costs and
complexities of implementation are significant. Instead, developing methods for
simulating 3D phenomena in 2D could be beneficial. For example the impact of 2D
clogging could be reduced by introducing a variable biofilm permeability factor
dependent on time and space that would allow fluid to move through biofilm colonies to
simulate the effects of 3D tortuosity. The factor could be calibrated using real 3D
experiments.
3. Implement a larger variety of biofilm states. The current CA model considers bacteria to
be either active or non-existent whereas real bacteria exhibit more complex traits
including: Attached, detached, active and dormant roles and their respective
transformations. Furthermore differentiating between EPS structure and biomass would
allow for more realistic comparison with biofilms found in the lab and in natural
environments.
4. Extend the biofilm model to include a more complex model biofilm structure including
treating it as viscoelastic material and separating the biofilm processes of sloughing and
erosion.
5. Improve the parallel implementation of biofilm population dynamics to bring it up to par
with the fluid and substrate transport implementations. This would minimize the effects
of the broad timescales required and discussed in section 5.4.
Finally, it is important to continue improving the biofilm model with respect to its ability to
model biofilms actually seen in the lab and natural environment. It would be recommended to
conduct experiments to compare the behaviour of fluid, transport and biofilm growth to
numerical results of the model. Fracture profiles and surfaces can be scanned and modeled
numerically while also run in the lab at controlled flow rates. Implementing the improved
numerical steps as list above would enable running lab scale comparison tests to calibrate the
timescale effects discussed in section 5.4. Model comparison with lab scale work would
significantly strengthen the presented work and potentially lead to new avenues of research and
contribute to engineering recommendations in the field. Specifically, the model results to date
suggest that if the fractured media could be characterized for its geometry and roughness, biofilm
102
growth could be qualitatively predicted along with the likelihood of clogging and the sensitivity
to a range of parameters for example: Re, shear strength and diffusion coefficients.
103
Chapter 7 Bibliography
Ahlstrom, S.W., Foote, H.P., Arnett, R.C., Cole, C.R., Serne, R.J., 1977. Multicomponent mass
transport model: theory and numerical implementation (discrete-parcel-random-walk
version). BNWL-2127; TRN: 78-000390 United States10.2172/7083383TRN: 78-
000390Mon Aug 03 09:40:27 EDT 2009Dep. NTIS, PC A07/MF A01.PNNL; ERA-03-
009016; NTS-78-000544; EDB-78-010942English.
Alpkvist, E., Picioreanu, C., van Loosdrecht, M., Heyden, A., 2006. Three‐dimensional biofilm
model with individual cells and continuum EPS matrix. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, 94(5): 961-979.
Armaly, B.F., Durst, F., Pereira, J.C.F., Schoenung, B., 1983. Experimental and theoretical
investigation of backward-facing step flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 127: 473-496.
Arnon, S., Ronen, Z., Adar, E., Yakirevich, A., Nativ, R., 2005. Two-dimensional distribution of
microbial activity and flow patterns within naturally fractured chalk. Journal of
contaminant hydrology, 79(3): 165-186.
Bailey, P., Myre, J., Walsh, S.D.C., Lilja, D.J., Saar, M.O., 2009. Accelerating lattice Boltzmann
fluid flow simulations using graphics processors, 2009 International Conference on
Parallel Processing (ICPP 2009), 22-25 Sept. 2009. Proceedings of the 2009 International
Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP 2009). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 550-7.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. American Elsevier Publishing Co., New
York.
Becker, M.W., Shapiro, A.M., 2000. Tracer transport in fractured crystalline rock: Evidence of
nondiffusive breakthrough tailing. Water Resources Research, 36(7): 1677-1686.
Berkowitz, B., Cortis, A., Dentz, M., Scher, H., 2006. Modeling non-Fickian transport in
geological formations as a continuous time random walk. Reviews of Geophysics, 44(2):
RG2003.
Bouquain, J., Méheust, Y., Bolster, D., Davy, P., 2012. The impact of inertial effects on solute
dispersion in a channel with periodically varying aperture. Physics of Fluids (1994-
present), 24(8): -.
Boutt, D.F., Grasselli, G., Fredrich, J.T., Cook, B.K., Williams, J.R., 2006. Trapping zones; the
effect of fracture roughness on the directional anisotropy of fluid flow and colloid
transport in a single fracture. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(21).
104
Brewster, J.D., 2007. Lattice-Boltzmann simulations of three-dimensional fluid flow on a
desktop computer. Analytical Chemistry, 79(Compendex): 2965-2971.
Brown, S., Caprihan, A., Hardy, R., 1998. Experimental observation of fluid flow channels in a
single fracture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B3): 5125-5132.
Brown, S.R., 1987. Fluid flow through rock joints: the effect of surface roughness. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 92(Copyright 1987, IEE): 1337-47.
Brown, S.R., 1989. Transport of fluid and electric current through a single fracture. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 94(B7): 9429-9438.
Brown, S.R., Stockman, H.W., Reeves, S.J., 1995. Applicability of the Reynolds Equation for
modeling fluid flow between rough surfaces. Geophysical Research Letters, 22(18):
2537-2540.
Brush, D.J., Thomson, N.R., 2003. Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled fractures: Navier-
Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations. Water Resour. Res., 39(4): 1085.
Cao, J., Kitanidis, P.K., 1998. Adaptive finite element simulation of Stokes flow in porous
media. Advances in Water Resources, 22(1): 17-31.
Cardenas, M.B., Slottke, D.T., Ketcham, R.A., Sharp, J.M., 2009. Effects of inertia and
directionality on flow and transport in a rough asymmetric fracture. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(B6): B06204.
Cardenas, M.B., Slottke, D.T., Ketcham, R.A., Sharp Jr., J.M., 2007. Navier-Stokes flow and
transport simulations using real fractures shows heavy tailing due to eddies. Geophysical
Research Letters, 34.
Characklis, W.G., Turakhia, M.H., Zelver, N., 1990. Transport and interfacial transfer
phenomena. In: Characklis, W.G., Marshall, K.C. (Eds.), Biofilms. John Wiley & Sons,
New York (USA), pp. p265-340.
Chaudhary, K., Cardenas, M.B., Deng, W., Bennett, P.C., 2011. The role of eddies inside pores
in the transition from Darcy to Forchheimer flows. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(24):
L24405.
Chaudhary, K., Cardenas, M.B., Deng, W., Bennett, P.C., 2013. Pore geometry effects on
intrapore viscous to inertial flows and on effective hydraulic parameters. Water
Resources Research, 49(2): 1149-1162.
Chen, M., Zhang, Z., Bott, T., 2005. Effects of operating conditions on the adhesive strength of<
i> Pseudomonas fluorescens</i> biofilms in tubes. Colloids and Surfaces B:
Biointerfaces, 43(2): 61-71.
105
Chen, S., Doolen, G.D., Eggert, K.G., 1994. Lattice-Boltzmann fluid dynamics; a versatile tool
for multiphase and other complicated flows. Los Alamos Science, 22: 98-109.
Coats, K., Smith, B., 1964. Dead-end pore volume and dispersion in porous media. Old SPE
Journal, 4(1): 73-84.
Costerton, J.W., 2007. The Biofilm Primer. Springer series on biofilms,. Springer, Berlin ; New
York, viii, 199 p. pp.
Crandall, D., Bromhal, G., Karpyn, Z.T., 2010. Numerical simulations examining the
relationship between wall-roughness and fluid flow in rock fractures. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(5): 784-796.
Crank, J., 1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion. Clarendon Press, Oxford, Brunel University,
Uxbridge.
Crowe, C.T., Elger, D.F., Roberson, J.A., 2001. Engineering Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Csanady, G.T., 1973. Turbulent diffusion in the environment. Springer.
de Beer, D. et al., 2006. The prokaryotes. null, null. Springer-Verlag, New York (USA).
de Beer, D., Stoodley, P., Lewandowski, Z., 1994. Liquid flow in heterogeneous biofilms.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 44(5): 636-641.
Delay, F., Ackerer, P., Danquigny, C., 2005. Simulating Solute Transport in Porous or Fractured
Formations Using Random Walk Particle Tracking: A Review. Vadose Zone Journal,
4(2): 360-379.
Detwiler, R.L., Rajaram, H., Glass, R.J., 2000. Solute transport in variable-aperture fractures: An
investigation of the relative importance of Taylor dispersion and macrodispersion. Water
Resources Research, 36(7): 1611-1625.
Dijk, P., Berkowitz, B., Bendel, P., 1999. Investigation of flow in water-saturated rock fractures
using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI). Water Resources Research, 35(2):
347-360.
Dijk, P.E., Berkowitz, B., 1999. Three-dimensional flow measurements in rock fractures. Water
Resources Research, 35(12): 3955-3959.
Eberhard, J., Ewing, R.E., Cunningham, A., 2005. Coupled cellular models for biofilm growth
and hydrodynamic flow in a pipe. International Journal for Multiscale Computational
Engineering, 3(4).
Eker, E., Akin, S., 2006. Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Fluid Flow in Synthetic Fractures.
Transport in Porous Media, 65(3): 363-384.
106
Faybishenko, B., Witherspoon, P.A., Bodvarsson, G.S., Gale, J.E., 2005. Dynamics of fluids and
transport in fractured rock. Geophysical Monograph Series, 162. American Geophysical
Union, Washington, D. C., 207 pp.
Fourar, M., Radilla, G., 2009. Non-Fickian Description of Tracer Transport Through
Heterogeneous Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 80(3): 561-579.
Frisch, U., Hasslacher, B., Pomeau, Y., 1986. Lattice-gas automata for the Navier-Stokes
equation. Physical review letters, 56: 1505-1508.
Gleick, P.H., 1996. Water resources. In: Schneider, S.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Climate and
Weather. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 817-823.
Glover, P.W.J., Hayashi, K., 1997. Modelling fluid flow in rough fractures: Application to the
Hachimantai geothermal HDR test site. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 22(1–2): 5-
11.
Glover, P.W.J., Matsuki, K., Hikima, R., Hayashi, K., 1998a. Fluid flow in synthetic rough
fractures and application to the Hachimantai geothermal hot dry rock test site. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B5): 9621-9635.
Glover, P.W.J., Matsuki, K., Hikima, R., Hayashi, K., 1998b. Synthetic rough fractures in rocks.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B5): 9609-9620.
Govindaraju, R.S., Das, D.S., 2007. Moment analysis for subsurface hydrologic application.
Springer.
Habich, J., Feichtinger, C., Köstler, H., Hager, G., Wellein, G., 2013. Performance engineering
for the Lattice Boltzmann method on GPGPUs: Architectural requirements and
performance results. Computers & Fluids, 80: 276-282.
Hassan, A.E., Mohamed, M.M., 2003. On using particle tracking methods to simulate transport
in single-continuum and dual continua porous media. Journal of Hydrology, 275(3–4):
242-260.
Hermanowicz, S.W., 1998. A model of two-dimensional biofilm morphology. Water Science and
Technology, 37(4): 219-222.
Hermanowicz, S.W., 2001. A simple 2D biofilm model yields a variety of morphological
features. Mathematical Biosciences, 169(1): 1-14.
Hunt, B., 1978. Dispersion sources in uniform ground water flow. J. Hydraulic Div., 104(1): 74-
85.
107
Hunt, S.M., 2004. Theoretical Investigation of Biofilm Detachment and Protection from Killing
Using a Bacterium Level Automata Model, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman.
Hunt, S.M., Hamilton, M.A., Sears, J.T., Harkin, G., Reno, J., 2003. A computer investigation of
chemically mediated detachment in bacterial biofilms. Microbiology, 149(5): 1155-1163.
Hunt, S.M., Hamilton, M.A., Stewart, P.S., 2005. A 3D model of Antimicrobial action on
biofilms. Water Science & Technology, 52(7): 143-148.
Hunt, S.M., Werner, E.M., Huang, B., Hamilton, M.A., Stewart, P.S., 2004. Hypothesis for the
role of nutrient starvation in biofilm detachment. Appl Environ Microbiol, 70(12): 7418-
25.
Indekeu, J., Giuraniuc, C., 2004. Cellular automaton for bacterial towers. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 336(1): 14-26.
James, S.C., Chrysikopoulos, C.V., 1999. Transport of polydisperse colloid suspensions in a
single fracture. Water Resources Research, 35(3).
James, S.C., Chrysikopoulos, C.V., 2011. Monodisperse and polydisperse colloid transport in
water-saturated fractures with various orientations: Gravity effects. Advances in Water
Resources, 34(10): 1249-1255.
Jiménez-Hornero, F.J., Giráldez, J.V., Laguna, A., 2005. Simulation of Tracer Dispersion in
Porous Media Using Lattice Boltzmann and Random Walk Models. Vadose Zone
Journal, 4(2): 310-316.
Knapp, R.B., Chiarappa, M.L., Durham, W.B., 2000. An experimental exploration of the
transport and capture of abiotic colloids in a single fracture. Water Resources Research,
36(11): 3139-3149.
Koch, D.L., Brady, J.F., 1985. Dispersion in fixed beds. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 154(1):
399-427.
Koch, D.L., Brady, J.F., 1987. Nonlocal dispersion in porous media: Nonmechanical effects.
Chemical Engineering Science, 42(6): 1377-1392.
Kosakowski, G., 2004. Anomalous transport of colloids and solutes in a shear zone. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, 72(1–4): 23-46.
Krawczyk, K., Dzwinel, W., Yuen, D.A., 2003. Nonlinear development of bacterial colony
modeled with cellular automata and agent objects. International Journal of Modern
Physics C, 14(10): 1385-1404.
108
Kreft, J.-U., Booth, G., Wimpenny, J.W.T., 1998. BacSim, a simulator for individual-based
modelling of bacterial colony growth. Microbiology, 144(12): 3275-3287.
Kreft, J.-U., Picioreanu, C., Wimpenny, J.W.T., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2001. Individual-based
modelling of biofilms. Microbiology, 147(11): 2897-2912.
Lammers, P., Beronov, K.N., Volkert, R., Brenner, G., Durst, F., 2006. Lattice BGK direct
numerical simulation of fully developed turbulence in incompressible plane channel flow.
Computers and Fluids, 35(Compendex): 1137-1153.
Latt, J., 2007. Hydrodynamic limit of lattice Boltzmann equations, University of Geneva.
Latt, J., Krause, J., 2008. OpenLB User Guide. Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole
Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL).
Levenspiel, O., 1972. Chemical reaction engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Lewandowski, Z., Webb, D., Hamilton, M., Harkin, G., 1999. Quantifying biofilm structure.
Water Science and Technology, 39(7): 71-76.
Luna, E., Domínguez-Zacarias, G., Ferreira, C.P., Velasco-Hernández, J.X., 2004. Detachment
and diffusive-convective transport in an evolving heterogeneous two-dimensional biofilm
hybrid model. Physical Review E, 70(6): 061909.
Maier, R.S. et al., 2000. Pore-scale simulation of dispersion. Physics of Fluids (1994-present),
12(8): 2065-2079.
Martys, N.S., Hagedorn, J.G., 2002. Multiscale modeling of fluid transport in heterogeneous
materials using discrete Boltzmann methods. Materials and structures, 35(10): 650-658.
Möhle, R.B. et al., 2007. Structure and shear strength of microbial biofilms as determined with
confocal laser scanning microscopy and fluid dynamic gauging using a novel rotating
disc biofilm reactor. Biotechnology and bioengineering, 98(4): 747-755.
Mondal, P.K., Sleep, B.E., 2012. Colloid Transport in Dolomite Rock Fractures: Effects of
Fracture Characteristics, Specific Discharge, and Ionic Strength. Environmental Science
& Technology, 46(18): 9987-9994.
Mondal, P.K., Sleep, B.E., 2013. Virus and virus-sized microsphere transport in a dolomite rock
fracture. Water Resources Research, 49(2): 808-824.
Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., Tähtinen, P., 1982. Tracer movement in a single fissure in granitic
rock: Some experimental results and their interpretation. Water Resources Research,
18(4): 849-858.
109
Nowamooz, A., Radilla, G., Fourar, M., Berkowitz, B., 2013. Non-Fickian Transport in
Transparent Replicas of Rough-Walled Rock Fractures. Transport in Porous Media,
98(3): 651-682.
Ogilvie, S.R., Isakov, E., Glover, P.W.J., 2006. Fluid flow through rough fractures in rocks. II: A
new matching model for rough rock fractures. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
241(3–4): 454-465.
Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 1994. Adhesion strength of biofilm developed in an attached-growth
reactor. Water Science and Technology, 29(10): 281-288.
Patir, N., Cheng, H.S., 1979. Application of average flow model to lubrication between rough
sliding surfaces. Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Lubrication Technology,
101(Copyright 1980, IEE): 220-30.
Picioreanu, C., van Loosdrecht, M.C., Heijnen, J.J., 1998. A new combined differential-discrete
cellular automaton approach for biofilm modeling: application for growth in gel beads.
Biotechnology and bioengineering, 57(6): 718-731.
Picioreanu, C., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Heijnen, J.J., 1999. Discrete-differential modeling of
biofilm structure. Water Science & Technology, 39(7): 115-122.
Picioreanu, C., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Heijnen, J.J., 2000. Effect of diffusive and convective
substrate transport on biofilm structure formation: A two-dimensional modeling study.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 69(5): 504-515.
Picioreanu, C., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Heijnen, J.J., 2001. Two-dimensional model of biofilm
detachment caused by internal stress from liquid flow. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, 72(2): 205-218.
Piquemal, J., 1992. On the modelling of miscible displacements in porous media with stagnant
fluid. Transport in Porous Media, 8(3): 243-262.
Piquemal, J., 1993. On the modelling conditions of mass transfer in porous media presenting
capacitance effects by a dispersion-convection equation for the mobile fluid and a
diffusion equation for the stagnant fluid. Transport in Porous Media, 10(3): 271-283.
Plouraboué, F., Kurowski, P., Boffa, J.-M., Hulin, J.-P., Roux, S., 2000. Experimental study of
the transport properties of rough self-affine fractures. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
46(3–4): 295-318.
Purevdorj-Gage, L.B., Stoodley, P., Ghannoum, M., O'Toole, G.A., 2004. Microbial biofilms.
null, null. ASM Press, Washington (DC).
110
Qian, J., Chen, Z., Zhan, H., Guan, H., 2011a. Experimental study of the effect of roughness and
Reynolds number on fluid flow in rough-walled single fractures: a check of local cubic
law. Hydrological Processes, 25(4): 614-622.
Qian, J., Liang, M., Chen, Z., Zhan, H., 2012. Eddy correlations for water flow in a single
fracture with abruptly changing aperture. Hydrological Processes, 26(22): 3369-3377.
Qian, J., Zhan, H., Chen, Z., Ye, H., 2011b. Experimental study of solute transport under non-
Darcian flow in a single fracture. Journal of Hydrology, 399(3–4): 246-254.
Reitsma, S., Kueper, B.H., 1994. Laboratory measurement of capillary pressure-saturation
relationships in a rock fracture. Water Resources Research, 30(4): 865-878.
Renshaw, C.E., 1995. On the relationship between mechanical and hydraulic apertures in rough-
walled fractures. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100(B12): 24,629-24,636.
Roux, S., Plouraboué, F., Hulin, J.-P., 1998. Tracer Dispersion in Rough Open Cracks. Transport
in Porous Media, 32(1): 97-116.
Skjetne, E., Hansen, A., Gudmundsson, J.S., 1999. High-velocity flow in a rough fracture.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 383: 1-28.
Statistics Canada, 2010. Human Activity and the Environment Freshwater supply and demand in
Canada 2010, Ottawa, Ontario.
Stewart, P.S., 2012. Mini-review: Convection around biofilms. Biofouling, 28(2): 187-198.
Stockman, H.W., 1997. A lattice gas study of retardation and dispersion in fractures: Assessment
of errors from desorption kinetics and buoyancy. Water Resources Research, 33(8):
1823-1831.
Stoodley, P., Lewandowski, Z., Boyle, J.D., Lappin‐Scott, H.M., 1999. Structural deformation of
bacterial biofilms caused by short‐term fluctuations in fluid shear: An in situ
investigation of biofilm rheology. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 65(1): 83-92.
Succi, S., 2001. The lattice Boltzmann equation for fluid dynamics and beyond. Clarendon press,
Oxford.
Sukop, M.C., Huang, H., Alvarez, P.F., Variano, E.A., Cunningham, K.J., 2013. Evaluation of
permeability and non-Darcy flow in vuggy macroporous limestone aquifer samples with
lattice Boltzmann methods. Water Resources Research, 49(1): 216-230.
Sukop, M.C., Thorne, D.T., 2005. Lattice Boltzmann Modeling: An Introduction for
Geoscientists and Engineers. Springer.
Taherzadeh, D. et al., 2010. Computational study of the drag and oscillatory movement of
biofilm streamers in fast flows. Biotechnology and bioengineering, 105(3): 600-610.
111
Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., 2009. A method to evaluate the three-dimensional roughness of
fracture surfaces in brittle geomaterials. Review of Scientific Instruments, 80(12):
125110-10.
Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., 2010. A new 2D discontinuity roughness parameter and its
correlation with JRC. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
47(8): 1391-1400.
Tolke, J., 2010. Implementation of a Lattice Boltzmann kernel using the Compute Unified
Device Architecture developed by nVIDIA. Computing and Visualization in Science,
13(Copyright 2011, The Institution of Engineering and Technology): 29-39.
Tompson, A.F.B., Gelhar, L.W., 1990. Numerical simulation of solute transport in three-
dimensional, randomly heterogeneous porous media. Water Resources Research, 26(10).
Towler, B.W., Rupp, C.J., Cunningham, A.B., Stoodley, P., 2003. Viscoelastic properties of a
mixed culture biofilm from rheometer creep analysis. Biofouling, 19(5): 279-285.
Tsang, Y.W., 1984. The effect of tortuosity on fluid flow through a single fracture. Water
Resources Research, 20(Copyright 1985, IEE): 1209.
Valocchi, A.J., Quinodoz, H.A.M., 1989. Application of random walk method to simulate the
transport of kinetically adsorbing solutes, Proceedings of the Symposium held during the
Third IAHS Scientific Assembly. IASH Publ., Baltimore MD.
Wagner, A.J., 2008. A practical introduction to the lattice boltzmann method. Adt. notes for
Statistical Mechanics, 463: 663.
Wang, Q., Zhang, T., 2010. Review of mathematical models for biofilms. Solid State
Communications, 150(21–22): 1009-1022.
Wels, C., Smith, L., Beckie, R., 1997. The influence of surface sorption on dispersion in parallel
plate fractures. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 28(1–2): 95-114.
Wimpenny, J.W., Colasanti, R., 1997. A unifying hypothesis for the structure of microbial
biofilms based on cellular automaton models. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 22(1): 1-16.
Witherspoon, P.A., Wang, J.S.Y., Iwai, K., Gale, J.E., 1980. Validity of Cubic Law for fluid
flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resources Research, 16(6): 1016-1024.
Yan, Y., Koplik, J., 2008. Flow of power-law fluids in self-affine fracture channels. Physical
Review E, 77(3): 036315.
Yu, D., Mei, R., Luo, L.-S., Shyy, W., 2003. Viscous flow computations with the method of
lattice Boltzmann equation. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 39(5): 329-367.
112
Zhu, H., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Wu, E., 2006. Simulation of miscible binary mixtures based on lattice
Boltzmann method. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 17(3‐4): 403-410.
Zimmerman, R., Al-Yaarubi, A., Pain, C., Grattoni, C., 2004. Non-linear regimes of fluid flow in
rock fractures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(3): 384.
Zimmerman, R., Bodvarsson, G., 1996. Hydraulic conductivity of rock fractures. Transport in
Porous Media, 23(1): 1-30.
Zimmerman, R., Main, I., 2003. Chapter 7 Hydromechanical Behavior of Fractured Rocks. In:
Yves, G., Maurice, B. (Eds.), International Geophysics. Academic Press, pp. 363-421.
Zimmerman, R.W., Kumar, S., Bodvarsson, G.S., 1991. Lubrication theory analysis of the
permeability of rough-walled fractures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 28(4): 325-331.
Zou, Q., He, X., 1997. On pressure and velocity boundary conditions for the lattice Boltzmann
BGK model. Physics of Fluids (1994-present), 9(6): 1591-1598.