Comment 1 for bug 1734653

Hi Bruno,

If we want to compute the volume associated to a crack, we should use directly crackAperture*crackArea as Vo in dV/Vo, no? Of course, this is not as straightforward because a cell is not associated to a unique crack in our scheme but still, why did you specifically propose V(tetrahedron)-crackAperture*crackArea-matrixPorosity? "aperture" defined in DFNFlow is the right candidate for crackAperture as it is defined as a function of the mechanical crack opening (particle-particle normal displacements) and hydraulic residual aperture. We should then probably change the way it is declared (locally in a function of DFNFlow right now).

Now, regarding the case of an pore contained in the intact rock matrix, are you suggesting that we need to "scale down" the porosity to adapt the scheme for rock materials? It makes sense of course but then we would need to define a scaling factor depending on the rock type and on the deviation of their microstructure with respect to the one of a granular assembly (e.g. a sandstone and a shale rock). The expression would then be something like Vo=scalingFactor*(Vtetrahedron-Vspheres) with scalingFactor=rockPorosity/granularAssemblyPorosity. Is that what you meant?

Luc