Advertisement

Hydraulic and Mechanical Responses of Porous Sandstone During Pore Pressure-Induced Reactivation of Fracture Planes: An Experimental Study

  • Daisuke AsahinaEmail author
  • Peng-Zhi Pan
  • Minoru Sato
  • Mikio Takeda
  • Manabu Takahashi
Original Paper
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

Herein, we subjected Kimachi sandstone samples to several experimental tests to identify the hydraulic and mechanical responses associated with fracture plane reactivation induced by elevated pore-fluid pressure. In particular, fracture plane reactivation was achieved through a series of pore pressure increments under stress conditions controlled using a true triaxial test apparatus. A hydraulic line equipped in the direction of the intermediate principal stress allowed direct measurement of each specimen’s permeability in the direction nearly parallel to the pre-generated fault plane. Flow pump tests were performed to measure the permeability evolution. Two Kimachi sandstone samples were used to test different confinement conditions, and the measured hydraulic and mechanical responses (stress, displacement, and permeability) exhibited instantaneous changes at elevated pore pressures. Irreversible and anisotropic displacement measurements indicated fracture reactivation. Micro-focused X-ray computed tomography imaging and photomicrography were used to characterize internal fracture configurations and revealed the formation of cataclastic fracture surfaces that contributed to permeability reduction during pore pressure tests.

Keywords

Fracture reactivation Pore pressure True triaxial test Hysteresis effect Permeability Kimachi sandstone 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of the Geological Sample Preparation Group (Geological Survey of Japan) for technical assistance in preparing the polished specimens shown in figures. This work was partially supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0804203), the International Cooperation Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. 115242KYSB20160024), and the Open Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. Z016003).

References

  1. Alam AKMB, Niioka M, Fujii Y, Fukuda D, Kodama J (2014) Effects of confining pressure on the permeability of three rock types under compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 65:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asahina D, Houseworth JE, Birkholzer JT, Rutqvist J, Bolander JE (2014) Hydro-mechanical model for wetting/drying and fracture development in geomaterials. Comput Geosci 65:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernabe Y (1987) The effective pressure law for permeability during pore pressure and confining pressure cycling of several crystalline rocks. J Geophys Res 92(B1):649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brace WF, Walsh JB, Frangos WT (1968) Permeability of granite under high pressure. J Geophys Res 73(6):2225–2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Candela T, Brodsky EE, Marone C, Elsworth D (2015) Flow rate dictates permeability enhancement during fluid pressure oscillations in laboratory experiments. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120:2037–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappa F, Guglielmi Y, Fénart P, Merrien-Soukatchoff V, Thoraval A (2005) Hydromechanical interactions in a fractured carbonate reservoir inferred from hydraulic and mechanical measurements. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42(2):287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang C, Haimson B (2000) True triaxial strength and deformability of the German Continental Deep Drilling Program (KTB) deep hole amphibolite. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 105(B8):18999–19013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang C, Haimson B (2012) A failure criterion for rocks based on true triaxial testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(6):1007–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornet FH, Li L, Hulin JP, Ippolito I, Kurowski P (2003) The hydromechanical behaviour of a fracture: an in situ experimental case study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(7–8):1257–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuss RJ, Harrington JF (2016) An experimental study of the potential for fault reactivation during changes in gas and pore-water pressure. Int J Greenh Gas Control 53:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derode B, Guglielmi Y, De Barros L, Cappa F (2015) Seismic responses to fluid pressure perturbations in a slipping fault. Geophys Res Lett 42(9):3197–3203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dhakal G, Yoneda T, Kato M, Kaneko K (2002) Slake durability and mineralogical properties of some pyroclastic and sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 65(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elkhoury JE, Niemeijer A, Brodsky EE, Marone C (2011) Laboratory observations of permeability enhancement by fluid pressure oscillation of in situ fractured rock. J Geophys Res 116:B02311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esaki T, Du S, Mitani Y, Ikusada K, Jing L (1999) Development of a shear-flow test apparatus and determination of coupled properties for a single rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36(5):641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng X-T, Zhao J, Zhang X, Kong R (2018) A novel true triaxial apparatus for studying the time-dependent behaviour of hard rocks under high stress. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(9):2653–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao Y-H, Feng X-T, Zhang X-W, Feng G-L, Jiang Q, Qiu S-L (2018) Characteristic stress levels and brittle fracturing of hard rocks subjected to true triaxial compression with low minimum principal stress. Rock Mech Rock Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-00018-01548-00604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haimson BC, Chang C (2002) True triaxial strength of the KTB amphibolite under borehole wall conditions and its use to estimate the maximum horizontal in situ stress. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 107(B10):ETG-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haimson B, Rudnicki JW (2010) The effect of the intermediate principal stress on fault formation and fault angle in siltstone. J Struct Geol 32:11, 1701–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huo D, Benson SM (2015) An experimental investigation of stress-dependent permeability and permeability hysteresis behavior in rock fractures. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 99–114 (Fluid Dyn Complex Fract Porous Syst) Google Scholar
  20. Jung R (1989) Hydraulic in situ investigations of an artificial fracture in the Falkenberg granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 26(3):301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwaśniewski M (2013) Recent advances in studies of the strength of rocks under true triaxial compression conditions. Arch Min Sci 58:4Google Scholar
  22. Li X, Wu Z, Takahashi M, Yasuhara K (2002) Permeability anisotropy of shirahama sandstone under true triaxial stresses. J JSCE 708:1–11Google Scholar
  23. Li B, Jiang Y, Koyama T, Jing L, Tanabashi Y (2008) Experimental study of the hydro-mechanical behavior of rock joints using a parallel-plate model containing contact areas and artificial fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45(3):362–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGarr A, Simpson D, Seeber L, Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (2002) Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity. Int Geophys 81:647–661 (Academic Press) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J Geophys Res 76(5):1255–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morrow CA, Zhang B-C, Byerlee JD (1986) Effective pressure law for permeability of westerly granite under cyclic loading. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 91(B3):3870–3876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nemoto K, Moriya H, Niitsuma H, Tsuchiya N (2008) Mechanical and hydraulic coupling of injection-induced slip along pre-existing fractures. Geothermics 37(2):157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olsen HW (1966) Darcy’s law in saturated kaolinite. Water Resour Res 2(2):287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborne MJ, Swarbrick RE (1997) Mechanisms for generating overpressure in sedimentary basins; a reevaluation. AAPG Bull 81(6):1023–1041Google Scholar
  30. Pan P-Z, Rutqvist J, Feng X-T, Yan F (2014) An approach for modeling rock discontinuous mechanical behavior under multiphase fluid flow conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(2):589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubinstein JL, Mahani AB (2015) Myths and facts on wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery, and induced seismicity. Seismol Res Lett 86(4):1060–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rutqvist J, Stephansson O (2003) The role of hydromechanical coupling in fractured rock engineering. Hydrogeol J 11(1):7–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sato M, Takemura T, Takahashi M (2018) Development of the permeability anisotropy of submarine sedimentary rocks under true triaxial stresses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 108:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schweisinger T, Svenson EJ, Murdoch LC (2009) Introduction to hydromechanical well tests in fractured rock aquifers. Ground Water 47(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scuderi MM, Collettini C (2016) The role of fluid pressure in induced vs. triggered seismicity: insights from rock deformation experiments on carbonates. Sci Rep 6:24852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Takada M, Fujii Y (2009) An experimental study on permeability of kimachi sandstone in deformation and failure process under deviator stress. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop and conference on earth resources technology, Sapporo, Japan, pp 124–131Google Scholar
  37. Takahashi M (2007) Permeability and deformation characteristics of Shirahama sandstone under a general stress state. Arch Min Sci 52(3):355–369Google Scholar
  38. Takahashi M, Kato M, Takahashi N, Fujii Y, Park H, Takemura T (2012) 3 Dimensional microscopical pore distribution of Kimachi sandstone and its permeability and specific storage change by hydrostatic stress and deviatoric stress. J Jpn Soc Eng Geol 53(1):31–42 (in Japanese with English abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valko P, Economides MJ (1995) Hydraulic fracture mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Witherspoon PA, Wang JSY, Iwai K, Gale JE (1980) Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resour Res 16(6):1016–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ye Z, Sesetty V, Ghassemi A (2018) Experimental and numerical investigation of shear stimulation and permeability evolution in shales. Soc Petrol Eng.  https://doi.org/10.2118/189887-MS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ying W-l, Benson PM, Young RP (2009) Laboratory simulation of fluid-driven seismic sequences in shallow crustal conditions. Geophys Res Lett 36:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yoon JS, Zimmermann G, Zang A, Stephansson O (2015) Discrete element modeling of fluid injection-induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault. Can Geotech J 52:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou H, Zuo J, Xue DJ, Xie H, Liu JF (2012) Depth-dependent mechanical parameters of basalt: an experimental study. True Triaxial Test Rocks 4:351–361 (CRC Press) Google Scholar
  45. Zoback MD, Byerlee JD (1975) The effect of microcrack dilatancy on the permeability of westerly granite. J Geophys Res 80(5):752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daisuke Asahina
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Peng-Zhi Pan
    • 2
  • Minoru Sato
    • 1
  • Mikio Takeda
    • 1
  • Manabu Takahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological Survey of JapanIbarakiJapan
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil MechanicsChinese Academy of SciencesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations