Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 2083–2101 | Cite as

Effect of plastic deformation on hydraulic fracturing with extended element method

  • Qingdong Zeng
  • Jun Yao
  • Jianfu ShaoEmail author
Research Paper


The propagation of hydraulic fracture in elastic rocks has widely been investigated. In the paper, we shall focus on numerical modeling of hydraulic fracturing in a class of porous rocks exhibiting plastic deformation. The plastic strain of porous rocks is described by a non-associated plastic model based on Drucker–Prager criterion. The plastic deformation is coupled with fluid pressure evolution described by the lubrication theory. An extended finite element method is used for modeling the propagation of fracture. The fracture propagation criterion is based on the J-integral. The proposed numerical model is validated by comparisons with numerical and analytical results. The influence of plastic deformation on fracture propagation process is investigated.


Ductile rocks Extended finite element method (XFEM) Fracture propagation Hydraulic fracturing Plastic deformation Porous materials 



This study is jointly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51490654, 51774317), National Science and Technology Major Project of China (2016ZX05060-010, 2017ZX05009-001), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 18CX05029A) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M622318).


  1. 1.
    Adachi J, Siebrits E, Peirce A, Desroches J (2007) Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:739–757Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersson H (1973) A finite-element representation of stable crack-growth. J Mech Phys Solids 21:337–356Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beese S, Loehnert S, Wriggers P (2018) 3D ductile crack propagation within a polycrystalline microstructure using XFEM. Comput Mech 61:71–88MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behnia M, Goshtasbi K, Marji MF, Golshani A (2015) Numerical simulation of interaction between hydraulic and natural fractures in discontinuous media. Acta Geotech 10:533–546Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45:601–620zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng W, Jiang G, Jin Y (2017) Numerical simulation of fracture path and nonlinear closure for simultaneous and sequential fracturing in a horizontal well. Comput Geotech 88:242–255Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detournay E (2004) Propagation regimes of fluid-driven fractures in impermeable rocks. Int J Geomech 4:35–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elguedj T, Gravouil A, Combescure A (2006) Appropriate extended functions for X-FEM simulation of plastic fracture mechanics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:501–515zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feng Y, Gray KE (2018) Xfem-based cohesive zone approach for modeling near-wellbore hydraulic fracture complexity. Acta Geotech. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fu P, Johnson SM, Carrigan CR (2013) An explicitly coupled hydro-geomechanical model for simulating hydraulic fracturing in arbitrary discrete fracture networks. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:2278–2300Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao Y, Liu Z, Zeng Q, Wang T, Zhuang Z, Hwang KC (2017) Theoretical and numerical prediction of crack path in the material with anisotropic fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech 180:330–347Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ge X, Fan Y, Li J, Zahid MA (2015) Pore structure characterization and classification using multifractal theory: an application in Santanghu Basin of Western China. J Pet Sci Eng 127:297–304Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geertsma J, De Klerk F et al (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically induced fractures. J Pet Technol 21:1–571Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordeliy E, Peirce A (2013) Coupling schemes for modeling hydraulic fracture propagation using the XFEM. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 253:305–322MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang D, Kwok CY, Wei W, Lu J (2018) Dem modeling of hydraulic fracturing in permeable rock: influence of viscosity, injection rate and in situ states. Acta Geotech 13:1187–1202Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kfouri A, Miller K (1976) Crack separation energy rates in elastic–plastic fracture mechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng 190:571–584Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khristianovic S, Zheltov Y (1955) Formation of vertical fractures by means of highly viscous fluids. In: Proceedings 4th world petroleum congress, Rome, pp 579–586Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobayashi A, Chiu S, Beeuwkes R (1973) A numerical and experimental investigation on the use of J-integral. Eng Fract Mech 5:293–305Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lecampion B (2009) An extended finite element method for hydraulic fracture problems. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 25:121–133MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lecampion B, Bunger A, Zhang X (2017) Numerical methods for hydraulic fracture propagation: a review of recent trends. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 49:66–83Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li L, Meng Q, Wang S, Li G, Tang C (2013) A numerical investigation of the hydraulic fracturing behaviour of conglomerate in glutenite formation. Acta Geotech 8:597–618Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu F, Gordon P, Meier H, Valiveti D (2017a) A stabilized extended finite element framework for hydraulic fracturing simulations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 41:654–681Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu F, Gordon PA, Valiveti DM (2017b) Modeling competing hydraulic fracture propagation with the extended finite element method. Acta Geotech 13:243–265Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newman J Jr, James M, Zerbst U (2003) A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion. Eng Fract Mech 70:371–385Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nordgren R et al (1972) Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. Soc Pet Eng J 12:306–314Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Olson JE, Wu K et al (2012) Sequential vs. simultaneous multizone fracturing in horizontal wells: insights from a non-planar, multifrac numerical model. In: SPE Hydraulic fracturing technology conference, Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Papanastasiou P (1997) The influence of plasticity in hydraulic fracturing. Int J Fract 84:61–79Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Papanastasiou P (1999) The effective fracture toughness in hydraulic fracturing. Int J Fract 96:127Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Papanastasiou P, Papamichos E, Atkinson C (2016) On the risk of hydraulic fracturing in CO\(_2\) geological storage. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 40:1472–1484Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paris P, Tada H, Zahoor A, Ernst H (1979) The theory of instability of the tearing mode for elastic–plastic crack growth. In: Landes JD, Begley JA, Clarke GA (eds) Elastic–plastic fracture, ASTM STP 668, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 5–36Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peirce A, Detournay E (2008) An implicit level set method for modeling hydraulically driven fractures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2858–2885zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perkins T, Kern L et al (1961) Widths of hydraulic fractures. J Pet Technol 13:937–949Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pourmodheji R, Mashayekhi M (2012) Improvement of the extended finite element method for ductile crack growth. Mater Sci Eng A 551:255–271Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sarris E, Papanastasiou P (2013) Numerical modeling of fluid-driven fractures in cohesive poroelastoplastic continuum. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:1822–1846Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seabra MR, Šuštarič P, de Sa JMC, Rodič T (2013) Damage driven crack initiation and propagation in ductile metals using XFEM. Comput Mech 52:161–179MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shih C (1981) Relationships between the J-integral and the crack opening displacement for stationary and extending cracks. J Mech Phys Solids 29:305–326zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simo J, Taylor R (1986) A return mapping algorithm for plane stress elastoplasticity. Int J Numer Methods Eng 22:649–670MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stolarska M, Chopp D, Moës N, Belytschko T (2001) Modelling crack growth by level sets in the extended finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 51:943–960zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Valko P, Economides MJ (1995) Hydraulic fracture mechanics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang H (2015) Numerical modeling of non-planar hydraulic fracture propagation in brittle and ductile rocks using XFEM with cohesive zone method. J Pet Sci Eng 135:127–140Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang H (2016) Poro-elasto-plastic modeling of complex hydraulic racture propagation: simultaneous multi-racturing and producing well intererence. Acta Mech 227:507–525MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang X, Shi F, Liu H, Wu H (2016) Numerical simulation of hydraulic fracturing in orthotropic formation based on the extended finite element method. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 33:56–69Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wasantha P, Konietzky H (2016) Fault reactivation and reservoir modification during hydraulic stimulation of naturally-fractured reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34:908–916Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu K, Olson JE et al (2015) Simultaneous multifracture treatments: fully coupled fluid flow and fracture mechanics for horizontal wells. SPE J 20:337–346Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yan X, Huang Z, Yao J, Li Y, Fan D (2016) An efficient embedded discrete fracture model based on mimetic finite difference method. J Pet Sci Eng 145:11–21Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yao B, Wang L, Patterson T, Kneafsey T, Yin X, Wu Y et al (2017) Experimental study and modeling of cryogenic fracturing treatment of synthetic rock samples using liquid nitrogen under tri-axial stresses. In: SPE unconventional resources conference, Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yao B, Wang L, Yin X, Wu YS (2017) Numerical modeling of cryogenic fracturing process on laboratory-scale Niobrara shale samples. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 48:169–177Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zeng Q, Yao J (2016) Numerical simulation of fracture network generation in naturally fractured reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 30:430–443Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zeng Q, Yao J, Shao J (2019) Study of hydraulic fracturing in an anisotropic poroelastic medium via a hybrid EDFM-XFEM approach. Comput Geotech 105:51–68Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zeng QD, Yao J, Shao J (2018) Numerical study of hydraulic fracture propagation accounting for rock anisotropy. J Pet Sci Eng 160:422–432Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang K, Ma X, Li Y, Wu H, Cui C, Zhang X, Zhang H, Yao J (2018) Parameter prediction of hydraulic fracture for tight reservoir based on micro-seismic and history matching. Fractals 26:1840009Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhou J, Zhang L, Pan Z, Han Z (2017) Numerical studies of interactions between hydraulic and natural fractures by smooth joint model. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 46:592–602Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhu G, Lee G, Mufti A (1993) An experimental and computational investigation of crack initiation and stable crack growth of ductile materials. Finite Elem Anal Des 13:259–269Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zia H, Lecampion B, Zhang W (2018) Impact of the anisotropy of fracture toughness on the propagation of planar 3D hydraulic fracture. Int J Fract 211:103–123Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre of Multiphase Flow in Porous MediaChina University of Petroleum (East China)QingdaoChina
  2. 2.LaMcube, FRE2016, CNRSUniversity of LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations