GEOHORIZONS

AUTHORS

A scale-independent approach
to fracture intensity and average
spacing measurement
Orlando J. Ortega, Randall A. Marrett, and
Stephen E. Laubach

Orlando J. Ortega received his M.S. degree and

his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin.
He is a structural geologist specializing in fractures
for Shell Exploration and Production in Houston, Texas.
Randall A. Marrett
Department of Geological Sciences, John A. and Katherine G.
Jackson School of Geosciences, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1101

ABSTRACT
Fracture intensity, the number of fractures per unit length along a
sample line, is an important attribute of fracture systems that can
be problematic to establish in the subsurface. Lack of adequate constraints on fracture intensity may limit the economic exploitation
of fractured reservoirs because intensity describes the abundance of
fractures potentially available for fluid flow and the probability
of encountering fractures in a borehole. Traditional methods of
fracture-intensity measurement are inadequate because they ignore
the wide spectrum of fracture sizes found in many fracture systems
and the consequent scale dependence of fracture intensity. An alternative approach makes use of fracture-size distributions, which
allow more meaningful comparisons between different locations
and allow microfractures in subsurface samples to be used for
fracture-intensity measurement. Comparisons are more meaningful because sampling artifacts can be recognized and avoided, and
because common thresholds of fracture size can be enforced for
counting in different locations. Additionally, quantification of the
fracture-size distribution provides a mechanism for evaluation of
uncertainties. Estimates of fracture intensity using this approach for
two carbonate beds in the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico, illustrate
how size-cognizant measurements cast new light on widely accepted interpretation of geologic controls of fracture intensity.

INTRODUCTION
Sampling problems represent a fundamental challenge to subsurface fracture characterization because complete sampling of large
conductive fractures that dominate fluid flow in the subsurface is

Copyright #2006. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received April 1, 2005; provisional acceptance August 5, 2005; revised manuscript received
August 16, 2005; final acceptance August 25, 2005.
DOI:10.1306/08250505059

AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 2 (February 2006), pp. 193 208

Orlando J. Ortega
Shell International

Exploration and Production, 200 North Dairy
Ashford, Houston, Texas 77079;
orlando.ortega@shell.com

193

Randall A. Marrett is an associate professor in

the Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson
School of Geosciences, University of Texas at
Austin. Quantitative analysis of fracture systems
is a major area of his research. He received
his Ph.D. from Cornell University.
Stephen E. Laubach
Bureau of Economic
Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson
School of Geosciences, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas 78713-8924;
steve.laubach@beg.utexas.edu
Stephen E. Laubach is a senior research scientist
at the Bureau of Economic Geology, where he
conducts research in structural diagenesis. His
Ph.D. is from the University of Illinois.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was partially supported by the National Science Foundation Grant EAR-9614582,
the Texas Advanced Research Program Grant
003658-011, and the industrial associates of the
Fracture Research and Application Consortium:
Anadarko, Bill Barrett Corp., BG Group, Chevron
Texaco, Conoco Inc., Devon Energy Corporation, Ecopetrol, EnCana, EOG Resources, Huber,
Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo, Japan National
Oil Corp., Lariat Petroleum Inc., Marathon Oil,
Petroleos Mexicanos Exploracion y Produccion,
Petroleos de Venezuela, Petrobras, Repsol-YPFMaxus, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Schlumberger,
Tom Brown, TotalFinaElf, Williams Exploration
& Production. We thank Faustino Monroy Santiago, Julia Gale, Jon Olson, and Bob Goldhammer for valuable discussion and Alvar Braathen, Ross Clark, Wayne Narr, and Amgad
Younis for thoughtful reviews.

unfeasible. Large fractures in the subsurface typically

are widely spaced and have much larger dimensions
than the diameter of a borehole. Consequently, the
probability of encountering such fractures in a given
layer are small, and even where such fractures are intersected, only fragmentary data can be collected (Narr,
1991). Large fractures commonly are more open than
smaller equivalents, so core recovery of these fractures
is typically incomplete (Laubach, 2003; Laubach et al.,
2004). Horizontal boreholes enhance the likelihood
of encountering large fractures but at most intersect
only a fraction of the population because of the finite
strike lengths of fractures.
One approach for overcoming limitations to sampling fractures in the subsurface is to treat abundant
microfractures as proxies for related macrofractures in
the same rock volume. For example, orientations of
microfractures may provide estimates of macrofracture orientations (Laubach, 1997; Ortega and Marrett,
2000). Likewise, microfracture abundance is directly
related to macrofracture abundance in many cases
(Marrett et al., 1999; Ortega and Marrett, 2000). This
approach relies on systematic measurement of microfracture attributes in samples retrieved from the subsurface. A more traditional approach for predicting
the abundance of subsurface fractures is to understand
how geologic parameters like mechanical-layer thickness control variations in fracture intensity. For example, measurable characteristics of sedimentary layers
might be used to predict the intensity of natural fractures in the subsurface for identifying and ranking exploration and exploitation targets.
For the purposes of this article, fracture intensity
is the number of fractures encountered per unit length
along a sample line oriented perpendicular to the fractures in a set. Nelson (1985) summarized some widely
accepted ideas of geologic controls on fracture intensity: (1) composition, (2) texture (including grain size
and porosity), (3) structural position, and (4) stratigraphy (bed thickness). Compositional controls on fracture intensity have been studied in laboratory experiments (e.g., Handin et al., 1963) and with systematic
measurements of fracture spacings in outcrop (Das
Gupta, 1978; Sinclair, 1980). Core studies show that
progressive diagenesis causes mechanical properties to
evolve with marked effects on fracture-intensity patterns (Marin et al., 1993). Price (1966) found an inverse
relation between rock strength and porosity, and
Nelson (1985) proposed that lower porosity rocks of
similar composition should have more abundant fractures than higher porosity rocks. Perhaps the most
194

Geohorizons

widespread paradigm of geologic controls on fracture

intensity is that of bed thickness (or mechanical-layer
thickness). Bogdonov (1947) was apparently the first to
document the intuitive result that fracture intensity
increases (i.e., fracture spacing decreases) with decreasing bed thickness, but numerous other authors have
subsequently arrived at similar conclusions (Price, 1966;
Ladeira and Price, 1981; Huang and Angelier, 1989;
Narr and Suppe, 1991; Gross, 1993; Mandal et al.,
1994; Gross and Engelder, 1995; Wu and Pollard, 1995;
Becker and Gross, 1996; Narr, 1996; Pascal et al., 1997;
Ji and Saruwatari, 1998; Bai and Pollard, 2000).
However, a common flaw shared by all previous
empirical investigations quantifying controls on fracture
intensity is a lack of an explicit accounting for fracture
size. Although many joints in outcrop apparently have a
narrow size range, opening-mode fractures formed in
the deep subsurface vary significantly in size, in some
cases ranging across at least five orders of magnitude,
with larger fractures typically being progressively less
abundant (Gillespie et al., 1993; Marrett et al., 1999).
Cumulative frequency is commonly related to fracture
size in the form of a power law (e.g., Marrett et al., 1999).
Moreover, geomechanical models of fracture growth
indicate that many combinations of rock properties and
loading paths should result in fracture populations
having a wide spectrum of sizes (Olson, 1997, 2003).
As we demonstrate below, cumulative frequency
is a direct measure of fracture intensity, so there is an
implicit covariance of fracture intensity with fracture
size. Consequently, it is meaningless to quantify fracture intensity without specifying what range of fracture sizes are represented, and it is risky to compare
fracture-intensity measurements from different locations if the results have not been normalized to a common range of fracture sizes.
In this contribution, we present a new method
that explicitly accounts for variation of fracture intensity according to fracture size. Applying this method
to several different locations permits meaningful comparison of resulting fracture-intensity measurements
and quantification of variation with independent geologic parameters. Moreover, the approach is amenable
to systematic observations at any scale, so it can be
used for microfracture-based subsurface studies, thus
circumventing fracture-sampling challenges.
We use examples from the Sierra Madre Oriental,
northeastern Mexico, to illustrate the new approach.
The Sierra Madre Oriental is a northeast-directed, thinskinned fold-thrust belt of early Tertiary (Laramide)
age (Figure 1), which exposes a thick sequence of

Mesozoic carbonate strata that, near Monterrey, have

been deformed into isoclinal anticlines (e.g., Marrett
and Aranda-Garca, 1999). Excellent outcrops in this
area provide an ideal opportunity to study sedimentary and stratigraphic controls on fracture intensity.
This platform-to-basin carbonate system is the subject
of numerous sedimentologic and stratigraphic studies
(e.g., Goldhammer et al., 1991, and references therein). The fractures studied in the Lower Cretaceous
carbonate strata have high aperture-to-length ratios
and are mostly calcite and/or dolomite filled, so they
represent veins. The mineral-fill patterns and shapes of
these fractures closely match those found in core, and
except for late-stage calcite fill, these outcrop fractures
are good analogs to fractures in producing fields (Laubach, 2003). Relative timing constraints suggest the
veins predominantly formed early in the burial history
of the rocks (Marrett and Laubach, 2001) and significantly predate local Laramide-age folding.

FRACTURE DATA COLLECTION

The essential fracture documentation technique of this
study was to measure fracture attributes along linear
traverses (scan lines). Fracture orientation, morphology, crosscutting relationships, composition and texture of fracture fill, and mechanical-layer thickness
were recorded for each fracture set of the beds studied.
Opening displacement (or kinematic aperture; hereafter, aperture) of each fracture, intercepted by a fracture set perpendicular scan line, was also recorded.
Beds were chosen so that they would represent contrasting sedimentary facies, various bed thicknesses,
and different degrees of dolomitization (Figure 2). Mechanical bed thickness ranges from less than 10 cm
(4 in.) to nearly 2 m (6.6 ft). Dolomite content ranges
from 0 to 100%, but most beds are either highly dolomitized or only weakly dolomitized. Dolomite content was measured in digital photomicrographs of

Figure 1. Location of the study area on a map of the geologic provinces of Mexico. Basins adjacent to the study area produce
hydrocarbons from units that are equivalent to those studied. Tectonic elements are conceptual. Modified from Benavides (1956).
Ortega et al.

195

Fracture Set Determination

Patterns of fracture attributes, like fracture morphology, timing, and orientation, can be used to establish
fracture sets. Although fracture orientation is commonly used alone for distinguishing fracture sets, in
many cases, fracture timing is mostly diagnostic. Interpretations of fracture timing are most based on
crosscutting relationships. Crosscutting principles suggest that a fracture set that systematically crosscuts
another fracture set must postdate the other set. Although crosscutting relationships do not constrain the
absolute time of fracture formation, they can be used to
separate groups of fractures that formed contemporaneously and probably under similar remote stress conditions. Fracture timing can also be constrained in relation to products of other geologic processes, such as
diagenesis and tectonism. Fractures that systematically
abut against other fractures can be interpreted as younger (e.g., Gross, 1993). Statistically based abutting relationships between fracture sets have been used to
support fracture timing relationships based on orientation and crosscutting relations.

Fracture Size Data

Figure 2. Variation of facies, bed thickness, and dolomite

content among layers studied. The facies definition includes
textural groups and depositional environment interpretations.
Some histograms exclude multifacies beds and/or chert beds.
Total dolomite content is based on thin-section point counting.

thin sections stained with alizarine red, but we did not

distinguish dolomite resulting from different diagenetic events. The beds studied were classified into six
different sedimentary facies on the basis of dominant
texture and allochem content, along with the interpretation of the depositional environment. However,
fracture-intensity analyses were done independently
for two broadly defined sedimentary textures: mudsupported and grain-supported facies. Here, we present and illustrate the methodology; the complete
fracture analysis of the Sierra Madre Oriental carbonate rocks will be presented elsewhere.
196

Geohorizons

Fracture size was quantified by measuring apertures

along scan lines drawn perpendicular to each fracture
set in bed-perpendicular exposures (Figure 3). More
than 14,000 fracture apertures from 42 beds compose
the fracture-size database for the Sierra Madre Oriental. Outcrop limitations generally prevented the collection of sufficient fracture-aperture measurements
for a reliable determination of fracture intensity of
weakly developed fracture sets (Bonnet et al., 2001).
However, an effort was made to obtain fractureintensity data from low-fracture-intensity beds to document approximate fracture intensity and to facilitate
comparison with other beds.
Accurate aperture measurement of these fractures is
possible because they are filled by secondary mineralization. To collect fracture-aperture measurements, we
used a logarithmically graduated comparator (Figure 4).
Using this tool with a hand lens allows documentation of
fracture apertures as small as about 0.05 mm (0.002 in.)
on sufficiently exposed outcrops in the field. The comparator contains lines with increasing width starting
at 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) and ending at 5 mm (0.2 in.).
Increments in line width represent approximately uniform multiples of each other and are thus evenly spaced

Figure 3. Segment of the scan line for

aperture-data collection in bed 3, La Escalera Canyon. The mechanical boundaries are indicated by dashed lines and
correspond to the systematic terminations
of fractures. Two scan lines were constructed for this bed, one for each of
the two fracture sets present. The scan
line shown (white traces) is approximately
perpendicular to fracture set B (inclined
with respect to bed boundaries).

when plotted on a logarithmic axis. In this way, apertures

were measured with consistent accuracy as viewed in
a log-log graph.

NORMALIZED FRACTURE INTENSITY

A complete inventory of apertures along a scan line
provides a more complete estimate of fracture intensity than methods that do not account for size (e.g.,
Bogdonov, 1947; Ladeira and Price, 1981; Narr and
Suppe, 1991; Wu and Pollard, 1995; Narr, 1996). In
our data set, we find that fracture-size distributions
follow power-law scaling. However, the new method
is equally applicable to any type of cumulative size
distribution.
Fracture intensity, fracture density, average fracture spacing, and fracture frequency all describe spatial
abundance of fractures. Fracture frequency is a general
term that subsumes fracture intensity and fracture density. Fracture intensity has units of inverse length and
is a ratio of the number of fractures, sum of fracture
lengths, or sum of fracture surface areas to the length,
area, or volume of observation, respectively (Mauldon
et al., 2001). The literature contains numerous examples of fracture-intensity determinations, mostly from
outcrops (e.g., Corbett et al., 1987; Huang and Angelier, 1989; Narr and Suppe, 1991; Gross, 1993) and
also from the subsurface (Corbett et al., 1987; Lorenz
and Hill, 1991; Narr, 1996) and laboratory tests (Rives
et al., 1992, 1994; Wu and Pollard, 1992, 1995; Mandal

Figure 4. Fracture-aperture comparator. Versions used in the

field have been calibrated by microscope. The version reproduced
in this article is affected by printer limitations and paper quality
and should not be used without recalibration. Reproduction
using photocopying methods will further reduce the accuracy
of the line widths.
Ortega et al.

197

et al., 1994). Fracture intensity (F) is most commonly

determined from one-dimensional observation domains
(i.e., scan lines) by dividing the number of fractures (N)
by the total length (L) of the scan line:
F

N
L

However, the most common indication of fracture

abundance reported in the literature is the average
spacing (S ) between fractures along a scan line (Huang
and Angelier, 1989; Narr, 1991; Gross, 1993; Ji and
Saruwatari, 1998). Average spacing is the inverse of the
fracture intensity:

N
1 X
L 1
Si
N i1
N F

where S i is the spacing between the nearest neighbor

fractures along the scan line.
Some fracture spacing data sets follow a normal
distribution (Ji and Saruwatari, 1998), but most are
better modeled by negative exponential (Priest and
Hudson, 1976; Pineau, 1985), log-normal (Sen and
Kazi, 1984; Narr and Suppe, 1991; Rives et al., 1992;
Becker and Gross, 1996; Pascal et al., 1997), or gamma
distributions (e.g., Huang and Angelier, 1989; Gross,
1993; Castaing et al., 1996). Sampling bias might explain variations in the best mathematical model for
fracture spacing distributions, but Rives et al. (1992)
and Ji and Saruwatari (1998) have proposed alternative explanations.
Although numerous measurements of fracture intensity or average spacing have been made previously,
these estimates typically do not explicitly account for
fracture size. Thus, data used to infer relations between bed thickness and fracture intensity or spacing
are commonly unclear about the size of fractures used
for spacing determinations. In some cases where numerous smaller fractures are obvious, a rule is specified about the fracture size (bed-normal dimension) to
be measured relative to bed thickness; that is, only
fractures that span a given bed thickness are to be
measured (for example, Laubach and Tremain, 1991;
Laubach et al., 1998 for fractures in coal). However,
in most instances, fractures counted could be all that
were visible to the naked eye, perhaps only those that
reached the boundaries of the mechanical layer, or
merely those that are prominent (Huang and Angelier,
1989; Lorenz and Hill, 1991; Castaing et al., 1996).
198

Geohorizons

Moreover, the size of fractures visible on an outcrop

varies according to exposure quality and fracture-fill
characteristics, which typically have not been accounted
for. Furthermore, if we changed the scale of observation, for example, from outcrop scale to microscopic
scale, estimates of fracture intensity or spacing would
typically be different. This lack of rigor potentially
introduces bias in the calculation of fracture intensity
or spacing and, consequently, may undercut conclusions regarding relationships between fracture intensity
and geologic parameters.
In the subsurface, the bed thickness cannot be
generally measured, except under rare circumstances
(e.g., Marin et al., 1993). However, in most subsurface
cases, there will be insufficient fractures having the
size of interest (i.e., large conductive fractures) to derive a statistically significant estimate of spacing.

Calculation of Normalized Fracture Intensity

Use of cumulative-frequency fracture-size distributions
addresses the potential scale bias inherent to average
fracture intensity or spacing determinations because
they yield a measure of fracture abundance that explicitly varies according to their size. This method
effectively quantifies fracture intensity for detection
thresholds corresponding to all fracture sizes considered.
It has the advantage of facilitating a comparison between
data sets collected at different scales of observation or
levels of resolution. The following example illustrates
the advantages of using cumulative-frequency fracturesize distributions over the traditional method to measure and compare fracture abundance.
Figure 5 shows a schematic cross section of a fractured layer in which fracture abundance is to be determined along a 1-m (3.3-ft)-long scan line at three
different scales of observation. This example represents
real aperture data collected along a scan line in a dolomitized mudstone bed (bed 3) that is approximately
8 cm (3.1 in.) thick, studied in La Escalera Canyon,
northeastern Mexico. The fractures have been randomly located in the cross section because, for the following
analysis, the actual location of the fractures is not important. First, only fractures with apertures greater
than 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) are counted (Figure 5A). Fracture size spans an order of magnitude from 0.5 to 5 mm
(0.02 to 0.2 in.) in aperture, measurable with a 0.5-mm
(0.02-in.) graduated ruler. At this scale of observation
(24 fractures in 1000 mm [39 in.]), we find that the
fracture intensity is approximately 24 fractures/m

Figure 5. Schematic cross section of bed 3, La Escalera Canyon. Fractures of set A are solid white lines, and fracture aperture is the
number next to each fracture. The scan line is represented by a dashed line that runs perpendicular to the fractures. (A) Fractures
shown all have apertures greater than 0.5 mm (0.02 in.), the minimum size of fractures that span the mechanical layer. The average
spacing between fractures of this size is 40 mm (1.57 in.). (B) The first 20% of the scan line (shaded area in A) showing the fractures
with apertures of 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) or greater. The average fracture spacing at this scale of observation is 7 mm (0.27 in.). (C) Scan
line at the microscopic scale (black area in B) showing fractures having apertures of 0.005 mm (0.0002 in.) or larger in a thin section.
The average fracture spacing at the thin-section scale is about 1.2 mm (0.04 in.). All fractures in the thin section are invisible at
outcrop scale, with the exception of one fracture 0.115 mm (0.0045 in.) wide.

(7.3 fractures/ft). However, if we included all fractures

with apertures down to 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) along one
part of the scan line (28 fractures in 200 mm [8 in.])
measurable with a hand lens and the aperture comparator (Figure 4), then the fracture intensity is 140 fractures/m (42.7 fractures/ft) (Figure 5B) and nearly an
order of magnitude higher than the first estimate. Furthermore, microfracture-aperture data from a thin section of this bed (Figure 5C) indicate that the intensity
of fractures wider than 0.005 mm (0.0002 in.) (10 fractures in 12 mm [0.47 in.]) is nearly another order of
magnitude higher, about 830 fractures/m (253 fractures/ft). This example illustrates that fracture intensity varies with changes in resolution (which typically

accompany changes in observation scale) because the

number of fractures observed in a domain will increase
as the threshold size for fracture detection decreases.
Consequently, fracture intensity (and average spacing)
is only meaningful if the fracture-detection threshold is
quantified.
Cumulative-frequency fracture-size distributions
provide a measure of fracture intensity (or average
spacing) that explicitly accounts for fracture size and
permits a comparison of data collected at different locations and/or observation scales. For purposes of comparing any two data sets, normalization of fracture
intensities is effectively achieved by choosing a common fracture-detection threshold. To estimate the
Ortega et al.

199

cumulative-frequency fracture-size distribution for a

scan-line data set, we followed these steps:
1. List all measurements of fracture size (aperture is
used to quantify fracture size in the examples presented here), and sort them from the largest to the
smallest.
2. Number the sorted fracture sizes, such that the
largest is number 1 and successively smaller fractures receive higher numbers as fracture size decreases (i.e., generate a list of cumulative numbers).
3. Simplify the list by eliminating all fractures having
the same size (given the resolution of measurements), except for the one with the largest cumulative number.
4. Normalize the cumulative numbers by the length of
the scan line. This will generate estimates of cumulative fracture intensity (i.e., number of fractures of
a certain size or larger per unit length of scan line).
This parameter is a measure of the fracture intensity as a function of detection threshold and can be
used to compare and contrast fracture intensities
from different beds and/or observation scales.
5. Plot cumulative fracture intensity versus fracture
size to provide a graphical display of the distribution. Several fracture-size distributions can be adequately modeled using simple mathematical laws.
Power-law distributions plot as lines in a log-log plot.
Exponential fracture-size distributions plot as a line
in a log-linear graph.
6. Obtain the parameters of the best model for the distribution observed (e.g., coefficient and exponent of the
power law, as determined by least-squares regression).

Figure 6. Normalized fracture intensity

from cumulative fracture-size distribution
for fracture set A in bed 3, La Escalera
Canyon. Fracture abundance can be characterized as intensity (cumulative frequency) or average spacing (inverse of
cumulative frequency). Open and filled
squares are field data. The open squares
are data subject to truncation bias not
used in regression. The dashed line is
a power-law regression. In the formula,
m  1 and mm  1 refer to the left-hand
and right-hand scales.

200

Geohorizons

The size distribution for the example discussed

above (Figure 5) is shown in Figure 6. A power law
adequately models these data across four orders of
magnitude variation in aperture. The power law relates
fracture size to the intensity of fractures having a certain
size or larger or, alternatively, to the average spacing of
fractures of a certain size or larger. The coefficient represents the value of the power law for a fracture size of
one (and, therefore, depends on the units chosen to
quantify fracture size). The exponent of the power law
represents the slope of the power-law line in a log-log
plot. This exponent is always negative, because by definition, the cumulative number of fractures must increase or remain constant as fracture size decreases.
Obtaining the normalized fracture intensity or average spacing for a given fracture-detection threshold is
straightforward. From the cumulative-frequency fracture-size distribution plot (Figure 6), we read the corresponding frequency (number of fractures per unit
length of scan line) for a given fracture size using the
power-law distribution model as a guide. We can also
obtain an average spacing estimate using the power law,
referring to an ordinate axis graduated with inverse frequency values (i.e., average spacing). For the exercise
discussed previously, we can now obtain the fracture intensity and average spacing for any scale of observation.
The arrows in Figure 6 indicate the scale dependence of fracture abundance. Figure 7 illustrates the
range of possible fracture-intensity results based on
counting fractures without accounting for their sizes.
This approach generates a single estimate of average
spacing and intensity that is only valid for some specific
threshold of fracture aperture that remains unknown.

Figure 7. Representation of the fracture-counting method for fracture-intensity calculation in a log-log graph of fracture-size
distribution. Thick lines represent the example explained in the text, and lower detection ranges are approximate for the Cupido
Formation. The counting method is fraught with errors introduced by inconsistent limits of minimum fracture size counted for the
calculation. Patterned areas are determined by the approximate minimum size detectable at various observation scales. Note the
range of possible fracture intensities and overlapping areas.

Consequently, average spacing or intensity estimates

cannot be compared confidently with measurements
from other scan lines because fracture-detection thresholds might differ because of variable outcrop quality,
different fracture morphologies, or different sizes of
fractures that span a layer. Additionally, there is no
information about sampling bias possibly affecting the
data. If identical fracture sizes are chosen for fracture
spacing measurement at different locations, then conventional approaches and this population-based approach will give the same results. However, this condition is unlikely to occur without a conscious effort to
maintain a consistent fracture size threshold from location to location. Figure 7 indicates ranges of fracture
intensity that might be inferred for different observation scales or resolution levels.
Sampling and Topologic Artifacts
Fault-scaling studies dominate the literature on fracture scaling (Ackermann and Schlische, 1997; Marrett
et al., 1999; Bonnet et al., 2001, and references therein).

Much less abundant is the literature on opening-mode

fracture scaling. However, there is now agreement
about the power-law nature of many opening-mode
fracture-size distributions (Gudmundsson, 1987; Wong
et al., 1989; Heffer and Bevan, 1990; Barton and Zoback, 1992; Gillespie et al., 1993; Hatton et al., 1994;
Sanderson et al., 1994; Belfield and Sovich, 1995; Clark
et al., 1995; Gross and Engelder, 1995; Johnston and
McCaffrey, 1996; Marrett, 1997; Marrett et al., 1999;
Ortega and Marrett, 2000; Bonnet et al., 2001). Most
work on this aspect of fracture population statistics has
been done for fracture length. However, fracture-length
determinations are fraught with uncertainty, most of
which arise from the difficulties of clearly defining what
is a throughgoing fracture where fractures branch or
intersect (Ortega and Marrett, 2000). Studies of
fracture-aperture distributions are less common in the
literature, perhaps because of the lack of appropriate
tools for effective fracture-aperture measurement in the
field. However, considerable progress has been made in
recent years using new methods for accurate fractureaperture measurements, which have generated some
Ortega et al.

201

well-constrained fracture aperture-size distributions

(Ortega et al., 1998; Marrett et al., 1999).
Marrett et al. (1999) showed examples of openingmode fracture and fault-size distributions that follow
consistent power laws across three to five orders of
magnitude in size. Some of these distributions included
microscopic-scale aperture data from sandstones and
carbonate rocks. However, fracture-size distributions
commonly show deviations from an ideal power law in
the small and large fracture-size parts of the distribution. Deviations from power-law behavior can be explained by consideration of sampling and topologic and
statistical artifacts, which can be assessed from patterns
of fracture-size distributions. To use scaling methods,
these artifacts need to be understood and minimized.
Truncation Artifacts
Deviations of small fractures from the scaling shown
by larger fractures of a population have been long
recognized as truncation artifacts (Baecher and Lanney, 1978; Barton and Zoback, 1992; Pickering et al.,
1995). Truncation artifacts arise from variable sampling completeness for fracture sizes near the limits of
resolution of the observation tool (e.g., smallest fracture size accurately measurable with the naked eye
varies from place to place in outcrop exposures). Although a mathematical description of truncation artifacts has not yet been proposed, the part of a size distribution affected by truncation artifacts (commonly the
smallest fractures) typically shows a convex-upward
curve that decreases in slope with decreasing fracture
size. Truncation artifacts can be minimized by artificially imposing a threshold size for fracture measurement that can be readily observed at all locations in a
sampling domain. Although smaller fractures might be
visible (at least locally), fractures of such size might not
be reliably measured everywhere in the sampling
domain and lead to an incomplete sample.
Censoring Artifacts
Censoring artifacts (Baecher and Lanney, 1978; Laslett,
1982; Barton and Zoback, 1992; Pickering et al., 1995)
have been best described for fracture-length distributions obtained from two-dimensional domains (i.e.,
maps). Censoring occurs where some or all of the
largest fractures in a population are incompletely sampled, or only minimum estimates of their sizes can be
made. Censoring of fracture-length measurements can
result from fracture traces that continue beyond the
limits of an observation domain, so their true sizes
cannot be determined. Censoring of fracture-aperture
202

Geohorizons

measurements can happen in core-based studies because the largest aperture fractures commonly result
in incomplete core recovery, so some of the largest
fracture apertures are preferentially missed. Enhanced
erosion at large fractures in outcrops can produce a
similar effect. Inclusion of minimum estimates of fracture length in a size distribution acknowledges the
presence of such fractures but degrades accuracy of the
length distribution. Omission of large fractures in a
size distribution produces a more pronounced effect.
Censoring results in an apparent homogeneity of
large fracture sizes compared with the wider range of
sizes for uncensored fractures. Censoring disproportionately affects data from the largest fractures because the probability of censoring is proportional to
fracture size. Censoring effects on a fracture-size distribution typically show a convex-upward curve that increases in slope with increasing fracture size.
Topologic Artifacts
Topologic artifacts are best illustrated by referring to a
specific example. Assume that several layer-perpendicular fractures are randomly distributed in a layer of
rock, and that these fractures follow a power-law distribution of sizes. The volume of rock will contain
some fractures that span the thickness of the layer and
other fractures whose tip lines are partly or totally
embedded within the layer. In a layer-parallel twodimensional slice of this volume, the probability of
sampling a fracture that does not reach both layer
boundaries depends on the fracture height, but a complete sampling of fractures that span the layer thickness
will be obtained because they will intersect any layerparallel two-dimensional slice. This means that a threedimensional sampling of spanning fractures is effectively
obtained from a two-dimensional observation domain.
However, fractures that do not span the layer thickness
will show lower apparent abundance than their true
abundance in three dimensions. The cumulative size
distribution will reflect this change in apparent abundance as a discrete decrease in the slope of the powerlaw distribution for nonspanning fractures, which typically are most abundant (Marrett, 1996).
A similar reasoning can be extended to onedimensional sampling domains. A scan line perpendicular to the fractures in the layer will sample a subset of all fractures in the volume. The probability that
a scan line will sample a fracture is proportional to the
fracture surface area. In this case, not only fracture
height but also fracture length and the geometry of the
fracture surface will determine the sampling probability.

Fractures that span the layer and the limits of the study
volume will reflect three-dimensional sampling. Fractures
that do not reach the bed boundaries or the lateral boundaries of the study region will reflect one-dimensional
sampling.

Mechanical Boundary Effect

The effect of mechanical-layer thickness on fractureheight distribution is trivial and can be explained using
topologic arguments. However, the effects of mechanical-layer boundaries on fracture-length and aperture
distributions are poorly known. Ortega and Marrett
(2000) showed an example in which uncensored
fractures in fracture-length distributions deviate from
ideal power-law distributions with exponents that cannot be explained by topologic artifacts. It is possible
that limits to fracture propagation affect the relationship between aperture and length; however, no systematic study of fracture-aperture and fracture-length
scaling variations below and above the length scale of
the mechanical layer has been done. If the length and/
or aperture growth rates are perturbed when fractures
reach the bed boundaries, then nontopologic effects
might result, and these might be difficult to distinguish
from topologic effects.

Undersampling of Large Fractures

Power-law scaling predicts that the largest fractures
are least common in a fractured volume of rock. Consequently, most size distributions are poorly constrained
at the large-scale end of the distribution. In addition,
the spatial distribution of fractures will affect sampling probabilities. For example, if fractures are highly
clustered and a short scan line intersects a fracture
swarm, then the size distribution may show an anomalously high number of fractures for the size of the
observation domain. Fracture clusters commonly include the largest fractures of a population (Gomez,
2004). Mechanical modeling of en echelon fracture
arrangements suggests that the enhanced growth of
clustered large fractures is favored in this type of spatial
distribution (Olson and Pollard, 1991; Olson, 2004).
More typically, scan lines shorter than the half-spacing
between clusters will undersample large fractures. Consequently, spatial distribution of fractures affects estimates of a large-fracture intensity. The calculation of
intensity or average spacing of small fractures is more
reliable, particularly if long scan lines and large amounts
of data are collected.

Quantification of Uncertainties
Measuring fracture intensity for a volume of rock is
challenging, but estimating uncertainties is even more
difficult. In the previous sections, we discussed how
the scales of observation and fracture size affect estimates of fracture intensity. The use of fracture-size
distributions promises a solution to the influence of
fracture size on fracture intensity by choosing a common fracture size as the basis of fracture-intensity
comparisons. However, sampling, topology, number
of observations, and spatial architecture of fracture
arrays can limit the accurate attainment of the underlying size distribution for a given fracture system. For
example, we expect a progressively more reliable approximation of the fracture intensity to be obtained as
we collect progressively more fracture data by extending an observation scan line. Extending the scan
line reduces possible spatial distribution effects on
fracture-size distributions and improves the likelihood
of adequately sampling the largest fractures.
One estimate of the uncertainty in fracture-intensity
determinations is the variance of consecutive fractureintensity estimates as data collection progresses along
a scan line. To evaluate this uncertainty, the normalized fracture intensity can be calculated for progressively larger parts of a complete scan line, choosing a
minimum fracture size to be considered for fracture
intensity (this does not have to be the threshold size
for fracture measurement). The standard deviation of
the normalized fracture-intensity estimates can then
be calculated for every new fracture encountered along
the scan line, using all of the estimates obtained up to
that point along the scan line. The normalized fractureintensity estimate and its uncertainty can be plotted
in a graph of the normalized fracture frequency versus the fracture number along the scan line (Figure 8).
Such graphs show that when a fracture of the minimum size or larger is found along an observation scan
line, normalized abundance increases if the last spacing is smaller than the average spacing up to that point.
However, if the last spacing is greater than the average
spacing up to that point, the normalized abundance decreases. Where only fractures smaller than the minimum
size are found, fracture-intensity estimates decrease because of the increase in scan-line length. The standard
deviation of successive normalized fracture intensities
provides a measure of the variability of fracture intensity. One standard deviation around the expected
fracture-intensity estimate encompasses approximately
68% of the normalized intensity estimates determined
Ortega et al.

203

Figure 8. Uncertainty (68% confidence

interval) for fracture-intensity estimate
of set A in bed 3, La Escalera Canyon. Only
fractures having an aperture of 0.2 mm
(0.008 in.) or larger were included in the
fracture-intensity estimate. The graph
suggests that the fracture-intensity average does not change much after collecting
the first 100 fractures. The uncertainty
in the intensity determination diminishes
progressively toward the end of the scan
line, suggesting that there are no major
changes in the spatial distribution of fractures in the scan line measured. Large
changes in fracture intensity at the beginning of the scan line are expected for
sparse data.

up to a given spot along the scan line (Koch and Link,

1971).
For the estimates of intensity uncertainties in
Figure 8, the first 20 fracture-intensity estimates were
ignored because the normalized fracture intensity is
unstable when a small number of fractures are used.
We assumed that the normalized fracture intensity up
to a given point in the scan line is independent of previous determinations, and thus, the expected value is the
last normalized intensity obtained. We justify the use
of this method because we expect a progressively more
representative fracture-intensity determination as the
scan line progresses, whereas a mean fracture-intensity
determination is a worse approximation. Estimation of
uncertainty (i.e., dispersion) using one standard deviation around the expected value is conservative.
The determination of total fracture intensity in a
bed requires accounting for all fracture sets present in
the bed. We do this by simply adding the scan-line
based estimates of fracture intensity for each set. The
propagation of errors for the addition of normalized
fracture intensities must be estimated. If Q is the sum
of the fracture intensities for all sets (e.g., sum of intensities for sets A, B, C, etc.), we can obtain the approximate uncertainty sQ as
s
n
X
sQ
s2i

i1

where s is the standard deviation, and i represents each

of the n fracture sets present in the bed (Young, 1962).
Another way of estimating the combined uncertainty of
204

Geohorizons

the sum of fracture intensities (sall) is by weighting the

intensity of each fracture set (F i) by the inverse of the
uncertainty associated with each of the estimate (1/si).
This method of weighting aims to decrease the impact
of the least confident estimates commonly associated
with problematic size distributions or limited data and
provides a better approximation to the uncertainty of
fracture intensity in the bed. The formula used to calculate this dispersion is
n
P

sall i1
n
P
i1

Fi
4
Fi
si

Uncertainty estimates using equations 3 and 4 prove

to be similar in most cases, but consistently higher estimates result from equation 3. The uncertainties reported below and in Figure 8 were obtained using
equation 4.

COMPARISON OF FRACTURE INTENSITY IN

TWO LAYERS
For a comparison of the results shown in Figures 6
and 8, we provide analogous results from another
layer studied in the Sierra Madre Oriental. Bed 7 is a
carbonate mudstone approximately 60 cm (24 in.)
thick and only slightly dolomitized (10% of the total
volume of rock) studied near Iturbide, northeastern
Mexico. This bed is thicker than bed 3. Thicker beds

are expected to have a wider average spacing than

thinner beds (Bogdonov, 1947; Price, 1966; Ladeira
and Price, 1981; Huang and Angelier, 1989; Narr
and Suppe, 1991; Gross and Engelder, 1995; Wu and
Pollard, 1995; Becker and Gross, 1996; Pascal et al.,
1997; Ji and Saruwatari, 1998; Bai and Pollard, 2000),
and consequently, thicker beds have lower fracture
intensity than thinner beds. Bed 7 is also less dolomitized than bed 3. Sinclair (1980) found that dolostones
have higher fracture intensity than limestones. Both of
these considerations indicate that bed 7 is expected to
have lower fracture intensity than bed 3. The fractureaperture distribution obtained from measurements along
a scan line perpendicular to set C in bed 7 produces a
fracture-size distribution that can be adequately modeled by a power law across more than one order of
magnitude variation in aperture (Figure 9). Set C is
the most abundant fracture set in bed 7, and the
fracture set studied in bed 3 is also the most abundant
in bed 7.
For comparing fracture intensity in the two layers,
we use 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) as the minimum aperture
considered for fracture-intensity estimation. Apertures as small as 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) were measured
in both layers, but apertures of 0.2 mm (0.008 in.)
were well constrained for all layers in our Sierra Madre
Oriental database. Fracture intensity in bed 3 is nearly
five times higher than the fracture intensity in bed 7
(Figure 10). Confidence intervals for fracture intensities in the two beds do not overlap after 50 or more
fractures have been observed, suggesting that fracture
intensity in bed 7 is significantly lower than in bed 3.

The uncertainty of fracture intensity is slightly higher

for bed 3 than for bed 7, suggesting that fractures
having apertures of 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) or larger are
slightly more clustered in bed 3 than in bed 7. The
variation of fracture intensity and uncertainty in bed 7
suggest that several apertures 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) or
larger were encountered near the beginning of the scan
line. After encountering 50 fractures, the fracture intensity progressively decreases, and the fracture intensity changes little after sampling 100 fractures, although it continues decreasing very slightly until the
end of the scan line is reached.
The difference in the fracture intensity obtained
from beds 3 and 7, where 229 and 197 fractures were
measured, respectively, implies considerably different
scan-line lengths. The scan line for bed 3 was 1.7 m
(5.5 ft) long, but a scan line 6.2 m (20.3 ft) long was
needed to encounter a comparable number of fractures in bed 7.

CONCLUSIONS
Fracture-intensity estimates for a single rock volume
vary according to the observation scale because of variation of the smallest fracture size included. A comparison of fracture intensities among different volumes of
rock requires fracture-intensity estimates that share a
common minimum size of fracture. The method described here provides a scale-independent approach
to fracture intensity that uses fracture-size distributions

Figure 9. Aperture distribution of

fracture set C in bed 7, Iturbide. The
aperture distribution can be adequately modeled by a power law for
more than an order of magnitude
variation in aperture. The coefficient
of this power law is approximately
a factor of 8 smaller than the coefficient in the power-law regression
for bed 3, suggesting that this bed has
lower fracture intensity than the
first bed. Filled squares are field
data used for regression. In the formula, m  1 and mm  1 refer to the
left-hand and right-hand scales.

Ortega et al.

205

Figure 10. Comparison of fracture intensity and uncertainty for beds 3 and 7, La Escalera Canyon and Iturbide, respectively. Only
fractures having aperture of 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) or larger were included in fracture-intensity estimates. In bed 7, fracture intensity
remains approximately constant after the first 100 fractures measured. The uncertainties for fracture intensity in the two beds studied
do not overlap at the 68% confidence level after 50% or more fractures have been observed, suggesting that the fracture intensity in
bed 7 is statistically lower than in bed 3. The scan-line length used to estimate the fracture intensity in bed 3 (229 fractures
measured) was 1.7 m (5.5 ft) long. The scan-line length used to estimate the fracture intensity in bed 7 (197 fractures measured) was
6.2 m (20.3 ft) long. Normalized fracture intensities and their associated uncertainties allow the direct comparison of fracture
abundance in these beds, independent of observation scale and resolution levels.

and permits choosing the minimum fracture size such

that sampling artifacts are minimized. The technique
can be used to estimate the fracture intensity and porosity in the subsurface.
Uncertainty of fracture-intensity estimates is obtained by calculating the standard deviation of fracture
abundance as collection of data progresses. A graph of
the variation of fracture abundance and uncertainty as
data collection progresses provides information on the
clustering of fractures larger than the normalization
size. This graph also illustrates whether the number of
data collected are sufficient for a stable estimate of
fracture intensity.
The use of scale-independent fracture-intensity estimates allows a reassessment of the geologic controls
on fracture intensity that have hitherto been broadly
accepted. Because previous methods do not account
for fracture size, it is likely that many fracture-intensity
estimates reflect arbitrary (or at least unexamined)
choices or assumptions about which fractures to measure. Moreover, this variation might have been systematically related to the very geologic controls under
examination. For example, if smaller fractures are more
readily visible in one lithology than another, then biased
fracture-intensity estimates can falsely indicate a pat206

Geohorizons

tern of geologic control. Lithologic controls on fracture

intensity need to be reexamined with appropriate scaleindependent estimators.

REFERENCES CITED
Ackermann, R. V., and R. W. Schlische, 1997, Anticlustering of
small normal faults around larger faults: Geology, v. 25, no. 12,
p. 1127 1130.
Baecher, G. B., and N. Lanney, 1978, Trace length biases in joint
surveys, in Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on Rock Mechanics: Rotterdam, Balkema, v. 1, p. 56 65.
Bai, T., and D. D. Pollard., 2000, Fracture spacing in layered rocks:
A new explanation based on the stress transition: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 22, p. 43 57.
Barton, C. A., and M. D. Zoback, 1992, Self-similar distribution and
properties of macroscopic fractures at depth in crystalline rock
in the Cajon Pass Scientific Drill Hole: Journal of Geophysical
Research, B, v. 97, no. 4, p. 5181 5200.
Becker, A., and M. R. Gross, 1996, Mechanisms for joint saturation
in mechanically layered rocks An example from southern
Israel: Tectonophysics, v. 257, p. 223 237.
Belfield, W. C., and J. P. Sovich, 1995, Fracture statistics from
horizontal wellbores: Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 34, no. 6, p. 47 50.
Benavides, L., 1956, Notas sobre la geologia petrolera de Mexico, in
E. J. Guzman, ed., Symposium sobre yacimientos de petroleo y
gas: XX Congreso Geologico Internacional, Tomo III, p. 350
562.

Bogdonov, A. A., 1947, The intensity of cleavage as related to the

thickness of beds: Soviet Geology, v. 16, p. 102 104.
Bonnet, E., O. Bour, N. E. Odling, P. Davy, I. Main, P. Cowie, and
B. Berkovitz, 2001, Scaling of fracture systems in geological
media: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 39, no. 3, p. 347 383.
Castaing, C., et al., 1996, Scaling relationships in intraplate fracture
systems related to Red Sea rifting: Tectonophysics, v. 261,
p. 291 314.
Clark, M. B., S. L. Brantley, and D. M. Fisher, 1995, Power-law vein
thickness distributions and positive feedback in vein growth:
Geology, v. 23, p. 975 978.
Corbett, K., M. Friedman, and J. Spang, 1987, Fracture development and mechanical stratigraphy of Austin Chalk, Texas:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 71, no. 1, p. 17 28.
Das Gupta, U., 1978, A study of fractured reservoir rocks, with
special reference to Mississippian carbonate rocks of southwest
Alberta: Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, 261 p.
Gillespie, P. A., C. B. Howard, J. J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993,
Measurement and characterization of spatial distributions of
fractures: Tectonophysics, v. 226, p. 113 141.
Goldhammer, R. G., P. J. Lehman, R. G. Todd, J. L. Wilson, W. C.
Ward, and C. R. Johnson, 1991, Sequence stratigraphy and
cyclostratigraphy of the Mesozoic of the Sierra Oriental,
northeast Mexico: Gulf Coast Section SEPM, 85 p.
Gomez, L., 2004, Predicting macrofracture spatial arrangement
from small rock samples: Testing new analytical techniques
using microfracture spacing (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting
Program, v. 13, p. A53.
Gross, M. R., 1993, The origin and spacing of cross joints: Examples from the Monterrey Formation, Santa Barbara coastline,
California: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 15, no. 6, p. 737
751.
Gross, M. R., and T. Engelder, 1995, Strain accommodated by
brittle failure in adjacent units of the Monterey Formation,
U.S.A.: Scale effects and evidence for uniform displacement
boundary conditions: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 17,
p. 1303 1318.
Gudmundsson, A., 1987, Geometry, formation, and development
of tectonic fractures on the Reykjanes Peninsula, southwest
Iceland: Tectonophysics, v. 139, p. 295 308.
Handin, J., R. V. Hager Jr., M. Friedman, and J. N. Feather, 1963,
Experimental deformation of sedimentary rocks under confining pressure; pore pressure tests: AAPG Bulletin, v. 47, no. 5,
p. 717 755.
Hatton, C. G., I. G. Main, and P. G. Meredith, 1994, Non universal
scaling of fracture length and opening displacement: Nature,
v. 367, p. 160 162.
Heffer, K. J., and T. G. Bevan, 1990, Scaling relationships and
natural fractures: Data, theory and applications: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Europec 90, The Hague, October 22
24, SPE Paper 20981, p. 367 376.
Huang, Q., and J. Angelier, 1989, Fracture spacing and its relation to
bed thickness: Geological Magazine, v. 126, no. 4, p. 355 362.
Ji, S., and K. Saruwatari, 1998, A revised model for the relationship
between joint spacing and layer thickness: Journal of Structural
Geology, v. 20, no. 11, p. 1495 1508.
Johnston, J. D., and K. J. W. McCaffrey, 1996, Fractal geometries of
vein systems and the variation of scaling relationships with mechanism: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 18, no. 2 3, p. 349
358.
Koch Jr., G. S., and R. F. Link, 1971, Statistical analysis of geological data: New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 438 p.
Ladeira, F. L., and N. J. Price, 1981, Relationship between fracture
spacing and bed thickness: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 3,
no. 2, p. 179 183.
Laslett, G. M., 1982, Censoring and edge effects in areal and line

transects sampling of rock joint traces: Mathematical Geology,

v. 14, no. 2, p. 125 140.
Laubach, S. E., 1997, A method to detect natural fracture strike in
sandstones: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no. 4, p. 604 623.
Laubach, S. E., 2003, Practical approaches to identifying sealed and
open fractures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 4, p. 561 579.
Laubach, S. E., and C. M. Tremain, 1991, Regional coal fracture
patterns and coalbed methane development, in J. C. Rogiers,
ed., Rock mechanics as multidisciplinary science: Proceedings
of the 32nd U.S. Symposium: Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema,
p. 851 859.
Laubach, S. E., R. A. Marrett, J. E. Olson, and A. R. Scott, 1998,
Characteristics and origins of coal cleat: A review: International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 35, p. 175 207.
Laubach, S. E., R. M. Reed, J. E. Olson, R. H. Lander, and L. M.
Bonnell, 2004, Coevolution of crack-seal texture and fracture
porosity in sedimentary rocks: Cathodoluminescence observations of regional fractures: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 26,
no. 5, p. 967 982.
Lorenz, J. C., and R. E. Hill, 1991, Subsurface fracture spacing:
Comparison of inferences from slant/ horizontal core and
vertical core in Mesaverde reservoirs: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and LowPermeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 15 17,
SPE Paper 21877, p. 705 716.
Mandal, N., S. K. Deb, and D. Khan, 1994, Evidence for a nonlinear relationship between fracture spacing and layer thickness:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 16, no. 9, p. 1275 1281.
Marin, B. A., S. J. Clift, H. S. Hamlin, and S. E. Laubach, 1993,
Natural fractures in Sonora Canyon sandstones, Sonora and
Sawyer fields, Sutton County, Texas, in Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 25895, p. 523 531.
Marrett, R., 1996, Aggregate properties of fracture populations, in
P. A. Cowie, R. J. Knipe, I. G. Main, and S. F. Wojtal, eds.,
Special issue: Scaling laws for fault and fracture populations;
analyses and applications: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 18,
no. 2 3, p. 169 178.
Marrett, R., 1997, Permeability, porosity, and shear-wave anisotropy from scaling of open fracture populations, in T. E. Hoak,
A. L. Klawitter, and P. K. Blomquist, eds., Fractured reservoirs: Characterization and modeling guidebook: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 217 226.
Marrett, R., and M. Aranda-Garca, 1999, Structure and kinematic
development of the Sierra Madre Oriental fold-thrust belt,
Mexico, in J. L. Wilson, W. C. Ward, and R. A. Marrett, compilers and eds., Stratigraphy and structure of the Jurassic and
Cretaceous platform and basin systems of the Sierra Madre
Oriental, Monterrey and Saltillo areas, northeastern Mexico, a
field book and related papers: South Texas Geological Society,
for the Annual Meeting of the AAPG and SEPM, p. 69 98.
Marrett, R., and S. E. Laubach, 2001, Fracturing during burial
diagenesis, in R. Marrett, ed., Genesis and controls of reservoirscale carbonate deformation, Monterrey salient, Mexico: University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook, v. 28, p. 109 120.
Marrett, R., O. Ortega, and C. Kelsey, 1999, Extent of power-law
scaling for natural fractures in rock: Geology, v. 27, no. 9,
p. 799 802.
Mauldon, M., W. M. Dunne, and M. B. Rohrbaugh Jr., 2001, Circular scanlines and circular windows: New tools for characterizing the geometry of fracture traces: Journal of Structural
Geology, v. 23, p. 247 258.
Narr, W., 1991, Fracture density in the deep subsurface: Techniques
with application to Point Arguello oil field: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 75, no. 8, p. 1300 1323.

Ortega et al.

207

Narr, W., 1996, Estimating average fracture spacing in subsurface

rock: AAPG Bulletin, v. 80, no. 10, p. 1565 1586.
Narr, W., and J. Suppe, 1991, Joint spacing in sedimentary rocks:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 13, p. 1037 1048.
Nelson, R. A., 1985, Geologic analysis of naturally fractured
reservoirs: Houston, Gulf Publishing, 320 p.
Olson, J. E., 1997, Natural fracture pattern characterization using a
mechanically-based model constrained by geologic data
Moving closer to a predictive tool: International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, v. 34, no. 3 4, paper
no. 237, p. 403 and CD-ROM.
Olson, J. E., 2003, Sublinear scaling of fracture aperture versus
length: An exception or the rule?: Journal of Geophysical
Research, B9, v. 108, no. 2413, doi:10.1029/2001JB000419.
Olson, J. E., 2004, Predicting fracture swarms The influence of
subcritical crack growth and the crack-tip process zone on joint
spacing in rock, in J. W. Cosgrove and T. Engelder, eds., The
initiation, propagation, and arrest of joints and other fractures:
Geological Society (London) Special Publication 231, p. 73
87.
Olson, J. E., and D. D. Pollard, 1991, The initiation and growth of
en e`chelon veins: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 13, no. 5,
p. 595 608.
Ortega, O., and R. Marrett, 2000, Prediction of macrofracture
properties using microfracture information, Mesaverde Group
sandstones, San Juan basin, New Mexico: Journal of Structural
Geology, v. 22, no. 5, p. 571 588.
Ortega, O., R. Marrett, S. Hamlin, S. Clift, and R. Reed, 1998,
Quantitative macrofracture prediction using microfracture
observations: A successful case study in the Ozona Sandstone,
west Texas (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting Program, v. 7,
p. A503.
Pascal, C., J. Angelier, M.-C. Cacas, and P. L. Hancock, 1997,
Distribution of joints: Probabilistic modeling and case study
near Cardiff (Wales, U.K.): Journal of Structural Geology,
v. 19, p. 1273 1284.
Pickering, G., J. M. Bull, and D. J. Sanderson, 1995, Sampling
power-law distributions: Tectonophysics, v. 248, p. 1 20.
Pineau, A., 1985, Echantillonnage des espacements entre fractures:

208

Geohorizons

Une distribution exponentielle negative troquee: Comptes

Rendus de lAcademie des Sciences, II, v. 301, p. 1043 1046.
Price, N. J., 1966, Fault and joint development in brittle and
semibrittle rocks: Oxford, Pergamon Press, 176 p.
Priest, S. D., and J. A. Hudson, 1976, Discontinuity spacing in rock:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science, and
Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 13, p. 135 148.
Rives, T., M. Razack, J.-P. Petit, and K. D. Rawnsley, 1992, Joint
spacing: Analog and numerical simulations: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 14, p. 925 937.
Rives, T., K. D. Rawnsley, and J.-P. Petit, 1994, Analogue
simulation of natural orthogonal joint set formation in brittle
varnish: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 16, no. 3, p. 419
429.
Sanderson, D. J., S. Roberts, and P. Gumiel, 1994, A fractal
relationship between vein thickness and gold grade in drill core
from La Codosera, Spain: Economic Geology, v. 89, p. 168
173.
Sen, Z., and A. Kazi, 1984, Discontinuity spacings and RQD estimates from finite-length scanlines: International Journal of
Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences, and Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 21, p. 203 212.
Sinclair, S. W., 1980, Analysis of macroscopic fractures on Teton
anticline, northwestern Montana: M.S. thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, 102 p.
Wong, T. F., J. T. Fredrich, and G. D. Gwanmesia, 1989, Crack
aperture statistics and pore space fractal geometry of Westerly
Granite and Rutland Quartzite: Implications for an elastic
contact model of rock compressibility: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 94, p. 10,267 10,278.
Wu, H., and D. D. Pollard, 1992, Propagation of a set of openingmode fractures in layered brittle materials under uniaxial strain
cycling: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 97, p. 3381
3396.
Wu, H., and D. D. Pollard, 1995, An experimental study of the
relationship between joint spacing and layer thickness: Journal
of Structural Geology, v. 17, p. 887 905.
Young, D. H., 1962, Statistical treatment of experimental data:
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 172 p.