Advertisement

Numerical study on mechanical and hydraulic behaviour of blast-induced fractured rock

  • Saba Gharehdash
  • Luming ShenEmail author
  • Yixiang Gan
Original Article
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

In this research paper, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) with Johnson Holmquist damage model is adopted for modelling of the blast-induced fractures in Barre granite rock. The permeability of the blast-induced rock is then obtained using the implemented finite volume method code in OpenFOAM. It is found that the calculated permeability depends on the direction of fluid flow and with higher value in radial direction than the axial one. This is mainly due to the higher and larger connected pore network in the radial direction. This research work shows that the adopted SPH method along with finite volume method code can be effectively combined to qualitatively and quantitatively predict the fractured network, to analyse geometry of the fractured network, and to calculate the permeability of blast-induced rock.

Keywords

Permeability Blast Smoothed particle hydrodynamics Fractured network Rock OpenFOAM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects (DP140100945 and DP170102886) and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 11232003). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources and services from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government.

References

  1. 1.
    Sarbhukan MM (1990) Application of bore-blast technique for rock fracturing for drinking water: a case study of Ghotkarwadi, Taluka Akole District Ahmednagar. In: Proceedings of national seminar on modern techniques of rain water harvesting, water conservation and artificial recharge for drinking water, afforestation, horticulture and agriculture, Government of Maharashtra (India)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li W, Xue Z (2000) A review of gas fracturing technology. In: SPE, international petroleum conference and exhibition, Villahermosa, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo B, Shan J, Feng Y (2014) Productivity of blast-fractured wells in liquid-rich shale gas formations. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 18:360–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller JS, Johansen RT (1976) Fracturing oil shale with explosives for in situ recovery. Bartlesville Energy Research Centre, Bartlesville, Okla. 74003. Advances in Chemistry. American Chemical Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Austin CF, Leonard GW (1973) Chemical explosive stimulation of geothermal wells. Geothermal energy resources, production and stimulation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 269–292Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhu WC, Wei CH, Li S, Wei J, Zhang MS (2013) Numerical modelling on destress blasting in coal seam for enhancing gas drainage. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 59:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mokfi T, Shahnazar A, Bakhshayeshi I, Mahmodi Derakhsh A, Tabrizi O (2018) Proposing of a new soft computing based model to predict peak particle velocity induced by blasting. Eng Comput 34:881–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dehghan Banadaki MM (2010) Stress-wave induced fracture in rock due to explosive action. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nasseri MHB, Rezanezhad F, Young RP (2011) Analysis of fracture damage zone in anisotropic granitic rock using 3D X-ray CT scanning techniques. Int J Fract 168:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alañón A, Cerro-Prada E, Vázquez-Gallo J, P.Santos M A (2018) Mesh size effect on finite element modelling of blast-loaded reinforced concrete slab. Eng Comput 34:649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bendezu M, Romanel C, Roehl D (2017) Finite element analysis of blast induced fracture propagation in hard rocks. Comput Struct 182:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potyondy D, Cundall P, Sarracino R (1996) Modelling of shock- and gas-driven fractures induced by a blast using bonded assemblies of spherical particles. In: Mohanty B (ed) Rock fragmentation by blasting. A A Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pramanik R, Deb D (2015) Implementation of smoothed particle hydrodynamics for detonation of explosive with application to rock fragmentation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 16:92–99Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    An HM, Liu HY, Han H, Zheng X, Wang XG (2017) Hybrid finite-discrete element modelling of dynamic fracture and resultant fragment casting and muck-pilling by rock blast. Comput Geotech 81:322–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trivino LF, Mohanty B (2015) Assessment of crack initiation and propagation in rock from explosion-induced stress waves and gas expansion by cross-hole seismometry and FEM–DEM method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 77:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fakhimi A, Lanari M (2015) DEM–SPH simulation of rock blasting. Comput Geotech 55:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mishra BK, Murty CVR (2001) On the determination of contact parameters for realistic DEM simulations of ball mills. Powder Technol 115:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L (1995) Element-free Galerkin methods for static and dynamic fracture. Int J Solids Struct 32:2547–2570CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang D, Li Z, Li L, Wu Y (2011) Three dimensional efficient mesh free simulation of large deformation failure evolution in soil medium. Sci China Technol Sci 54:573–580CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vignjevic R, Campbell J (2009) Review of development of the smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. In: Hiermaier S (ed) Predictive modeling of dynamic processes. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dautriat J, Gland N, Guelard J, Dimanov AL, Raphanel J (2009) Axial and radial permeability evolutions of compressed sandstones: end effects and shear-band induced permeability anisotropy. Pure Appl Geophys 166:1037–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heiland J (2003) Laboratory testing of coupled hydro-mechanical processes during rock deformation. Hydrogeol J 11:122–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fourar M, Radilla G, Lenormand R, Moyne C (2004) On the non-linear behaviour of a laminar single-phase flow through two and three-dimensional porous media. Adv Water Resour 27:669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newman MS, Yin X (2013) Lattice Boltzmann simulation of non-Darcy flow in stochastically generated 2D porous media geometries. SPE J 18:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thauvin F, Mohanty K (1998) Network modelling of non-Darcy flow through porous media. Transp Porous Med 31:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soulaine C, Tchelepi HA (2016) Micro-continuum approach for pore-scale simulation of subsurface processes. Transp Porous Med 113:431–456MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Javadi M, Sharifzadeh M, Shahriar K (2010) New geometrical model for non-linear fluid flow through rough fractures. J Hydrol 389:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    OpenFOAM (2015) User guide, version 2.0.0, OpenCFD Ltd, UK. http://www.openfoam.org. Accessed 3 June 2016
  29. 29.
    Guibert R, Nazarova M, Horgue P, Hamon G, Creux P, Debenest G (2015) Computational permeability determination from pore-scale imaging, sample size, mesh and method sensitivities. Transp Porous Med 107:641–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scanlon TJ, White CK, Borg MC, Palharini R (2015) Open-source direct simulation monte carlo chemistry modelling for hypersonic flows. AIAA J 53:1670–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fabritius B, Tabor G (2016) Improving the quality of finite volume meshes through genetic optimisation. Eng Comput 32:425–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dong H, Blunt MJ (2009) Pore network extraction from micro computerized tomography images. Phys Rev E 80:1–11Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jung HB, Kabilan S, Carson JP, Kuprat AP, Um W, Martin PF, Dahl M, Kafentzis T, Varga T, Stephens S, Arey B, Carroll KC, Bonneville A, Fernandez CA (2014) Wellbore cement fracture evolution at the cement—basalt caprock interface during geologic carbon sequestration. Appl Geochem 47:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li L, Shen L, Nguyen GD, El-Zein A, Maggi F (2018) A smoothed particle hydrodynamics framework for modelling multiphase interactions at meso-scale. Comput Mech 62:1071–1085MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Monaghan J (1992) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu Rev Astron Astrophys 30:543–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    LS-DYNA LSTC (2015) Keyword user’s manual, Version R9.0.1, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gray JP, Monaghan JJ, Swift RP (2001) SPH elastic dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:6641–6662CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu MB, Liu GR (2010) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH): an overview and recent developments. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17:25–76MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ (1999) Response of boron carbide subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures. J Appl Phys 85:8060–8073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ranjan R (2007) Dynamic compression measurements on selected granitic rocks using split Hopkinson pressure bar test. M.A.Sc. Dissertation, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rate, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boisvert JB, Manchuk JG, Neufeld C, Niven EB, Deutsch CV (2012) Micro-modelling for enhanced small scale porosity–permeability relationships. In: Abrahamsen P, Hauge R, Kolbjornsen O (eds) Geostatistics. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations