Table 1.

Fracture statistics and comparison with other fracture patterns

Scanline length (m)NumberSpacing (m)StrainCvNCC typeaPower law at small length scaleCluster width (m)Qual.b
Max.Min.Avg.ExponentCoefficient
Teton scanline180.4420340.0050.432 × 10−6c4.8612h−0.273.28241
Cluster A502629.530.0050.195.2 × 10−3c3.2312h−0.241.96c. 52
Cluster B351433.120.010.244.1 × 10−3c1.9912hddc. 22
Comparison datasets
Pedernales1599162.260.000080.0645.3 × 10−32.4312h−0.271.5172
Core21840>1c. 0.10.422.2 × 10−31.6512e, hn.c.en.c.n.c.3
Image log2450370>5c. 0.51.158.2 × 10−44.212h−1.70.66353
Faults3124.8431n.c.n.c.n.c.3.5 × 10−32.3712e−6.60.94144
Microfractures4f4–499fff1 × 10−4–2 × 10−10.54–3.69n.c.n.c.n.c.n.c.4
Sandstone5362.62540.5454.58.4n.c.1.80n.c.n.c.n.c.n.c.1
Granite 16323530.840.010.11n.c.0.93g12e, h−1.433.104h3
Granite 26372173.40.010.21n.c.1.89g12h−0.979.0565
Granite 36271910.960.010.14n.c.1.14g12h−1.144.735
Granite 46132070.40.010.06n.c.1.16g12h−1.470.816h5
Granite 56402001.580.010.2n.c.1.24g12h−1.038.314h3
Granite 66743675.530.010.21n.c.2.10g12h−1.0114.0351

aMarrett et al. (2018, fig. 12). bQualitative clustering degree: 1, high; 5, low. cAssuming all apertures are 0.001 mm, calculated as (sum of apertures)/(sum of spaces). dClose to indistinguishable from random. en.c., not calculated. f59 scanlines. gCv calculated by CorrCount. hWeak signal.

Comparison datasets: 1Carbonate rock (Marrett et al. 2018). 2Core and image log data, Cretaceous sandstone, set 1 (Li et al. 2018). 3Faults, Miocene sandstone (Laubach et al. 2018b). 4Microfractures, various sandstones (Hooker et al. 2018); average (avg.) Cv 1.4. 5Outcrop, Cretaceous sandstone (Laubach 1991). 6Outcrop, various granites (Ehlen 2000).