Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 597–618 | Cite as

A numerical investigation of the hydraulic fracturing behaviour of conglomerate in Glutenite formation

  • Lianchong Li
  • Qingmin Meng
  • Shanyong Wang
  • Gen Li
  • Chunan Tang
Research Paper

Abstract

Rock formations in Glutenite reservoirs typically display highly variable lithology and permeability, low and complex porosity, and significant heterogeneity. It is difficult to predict the pathway of hydraulic fractures in such rock formations. To capture the complex hydraulic fractures in rock masses, a numerical code called Rock Failure Process Analysis (RFPA2D) is introduced. Based on the characteristics of a typical Glutenite reservoir in China, a series of 2D numerical simulations on the hydraulic fractures in a small-scale model are conducted. The initiation, propagation and associated stress evolution of the hydraulic fracture during the failure process, which cannot be observed in experimental tests, are numerically simulated. Based on the numerical results, the hydraulic fracturing path and features are illustrated and discussed in detail. The influence of the confining stress ratio, gravel sizes (indicated by the diameter variation), and gravel volume content (VC) on the hydraulic fracturing pattern in a conglomerate specimen are numerically investigated, and the breakdown pressure is quantified as a function of these variables. Five hydraulic fracturing modes are identified: termination, deflection, branching (bifurcation), penetration, and attraction. The propagation trajectory of the primary hydraulic fractures is determined by the maximum and minimum stress ratios, although the fracturing path on local scales is clearly influenced by the presence of gravels in the conglomerate, particularly when the gravels are relatively large. As the stress ratio increases, the fractures typically penetrate through the gravels completely rather than propagating around the gravels, and the breakdown pressure decreases with increasing stress ratio. Furthermore, the breakdown pressure is affected by the size and volume content of the gravel in the conglomerate: as the gravel size and volume content increase, the breakdown pressure increases.

Keywords

Conglomerate Fracture propagation Glutenite reservoir Heterogeneity Hydraulic fracture Numerical simulation 

List of symbols

m

Shape parameter in Weibull’s distribution, defined as homogeneity index

σij

Total stress

\( \sigma_{ij}^{\prime } \)

Effective stress

εij

Strain

uij

Displacement

Fi

Components of the net body force

λ

Lame coefficient

G

Shear deformation modulus

α

Coefficient of the pore water pressure

p

Pore water pressure

k,k0

Permeability of element under stress and damage, initial permeability of intact element

Q

Biot’s constant

ξ

Permeability increase factor

β

Coupling parameter that reflects the influence of stress on the coefficient of permeability

D

Damage parameters, D = 0–1 depends on the loading history of the element

E0,E

Initial Young’s Modulus and Young’s modulus for damaged element

ft

Tensile strength of element

ft0

The peak tensile strength of element

ftr

Residual tensile strength of damaged element

\( \varepsilon_{t0} \)

Strain at the elastic limit, which is the so-called threshold strain for tensile damage

\( \varepsilon_{tu} \)

Ultimate tensile strain

ϕ

Internal friction angle

fc

Uniaxial compressive strength of element

fc0

The peak uniaxial compressive strength of element

fcr

Residual compressive strength of damaged element

\( \varepsilon_{c0} \)

Strain at the elastic limit, which is the so-called threshold strain for shear damage

References

  1. 1.
    Abou-Sayed AS, Clifton RJ, Doughery RL, Morales RH (1984) Evaluation of the influence of in situ reservoir condition on the geometry of hydraulic fractures using a 3-D simulator: part i: technical approach. SPE/DOE/GRI 12877Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adachi J, Siebrits E, Peirce A, Desroches J (2007) Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:739–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Advani SH, Lee TS, Lee JK (1990) Three-dimensional modeling of hydraulic fractures in layered media: part I: finite element formulations. J Energy Resour Technol 112:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreev G (1995) Brittle failure of rock materials test results and constitutive models. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barree RD (1983) A practical numerical simulator for three-dimensional fracture propagation in heterogeneous media. SPE, pp 469–478Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bush MB (1997) The interaction between a crack and a particle cluster. Int J Fract 88:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buyukozturk O, Hearing B (1998) Crack propagation in concrete composites influenced by interface fracture parameters. Int J Solid Struct 35:4055–4066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carter BJ, Desroches J, Ingraffea AR, Wawrzynek PA (2000) Simulating fully 3D hydraulic fracturing. In: Zaman M, Booker J, Gioda G (eds) Modeling in Geomechanics. Wiley Publishers, New York, pp 525–557Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deng JG (2008) A laboratory test on the hydraulic fracturing law in conglomerate. Research report of Oil Production Technology Research Institute, Shengli Oilfield Branch Company, DongyingGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deng JG (2010) Research on the breakdown pressure of petrophysical facies in conglomerate core. Research report of Geological Science Research Institutes, Shengli Oilfield Branch Company, DongyingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Detournay E, Carbonell R (1994) Fracture mechanics analysis of breakdown process in minifrac or leak-off tests. Proceedings of Europe Rock 94. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp 399–407Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Economides MJ, Nolte KG (2000) Reservoir stimulation. John Willey, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fairhurst C (1964) On the validity of the Brazilian test for brittle materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1:535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fu PC, Johnson SM, Carrigan CR (2012) An explicitly coupled hydro-geomechanical model for simulating hydraulic fracturing in arbitrary discrete fracture networks. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech. doi:10.1002/nag.2135 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garagash D, Detournay E (1997) An analysis of the influence of the pressurization rate on the borehole breakdown pressure. Int J Solid Struct 34(24):3099–3118CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garcia JG, Teufel LW (2005) Numerical simulation of fully coupled fluid-flow/geomechanical deformation in hydraulically fractured reservoirs. SPE Paper 94062, SPE production and operations symposium, Oklahoma, USA, 17-19 AprilGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geertsma J, De Klerk F (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically induced fractures. J Pet Technol 21:1571–1581Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grassl P, Jirásek M (2010) Meso-scale approach to modelling the fracture process zone of concrete subjected to uniaxial tension. Int J Solid Struct 47:957–968CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haimson BC, Fairhurst C (1967) Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rock. Soc Pet Eng J 7:310–318Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hossain MM, Rahman MK (2008) Numerical simulation of complex fracture growth during tight reservoir stimulation by hydraulic fracturing. J Pet Sci Eng 60:86–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hubbert MK, Willis DG (1957) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Trans AIME 210:153–166Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu FT (1997) Development mode of Glutenite reservoir. Petroleum Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunsweck MJ, Shen YX, Lew AJ (2012) A finite element approach to the simulation of hydraulic fractures with lag. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech. doi:10.1002/nag.1131 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ito T, Hayashi K (1991) Physical background to the breakdown pressure in hydraulic fracturing tectonic stress measurements. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 28(4):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li LC, Tang CA, Tham LG, Yang TH, Wang SH (2005) Simulation of multiple hydraulic fracturing in non-uniform pore pressure field. Adv Mater Res 9:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li SP, Wu DX (1997) Effect of confining pressure, pore pressure and specimen dimension on permeability of Yinzhuang sandstone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3/4):435–441Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu HY, Roquete M, Kou SQ, Lindqvist PA (2004) Characterization of rock heterogeneity and numerical verification. Eng Geol 72:89–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu HY, Lindqvist PA, Åkesson U, Kou SQ, Lindqvist JE (2012) Characterization of rock aggregate breakage properties using realistic texture-based modelling. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 36:1280–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu XL (2008) Theoreticaland application research on the fluid-rock coupling process and associated multi-scale behaviour. Doctoral thesis, Tshinghua University, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lv CB (2006) Investigation on the theory and applicable techniques of formation simulation in the sand-gravel reservoir of Wuliyastai Depression. Doctoral thesis, Xinan University of Petroleum, ChengduGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mack MG, Warpinski NR (2000) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. In: Economides MJ, Nolte KG (eds) Reservoir stimulation, 3rd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ma GW, Wang XJ, Ren F (2011) Numerical simulation of compressive failure of heterogeneous rock-like materials using SPH method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malvar LJ, Fourney ME (1990) A three dimensional application of the smeared crack approach. Eng Fract Mech 35(1–3):251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Medlin WL, Fitch JL (1983) Abnormal treating pressures in MHF treatments. SPE 12108, 58th SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5-8, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meng QM, Zhang SC, Guo XM, Chen XH, Zhang Y (2010) A primary investigation on propagation mechanism for hydraulic fractures in Glutenite formation. J Oil Gas Technol 32:119–123Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meyer BR (1989) Three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulation on personal computers: theory and comparison studies. SPE 19329 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, Oct. 24–27Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Minkoff SE, Stone CM, Bryant S, Peszynska M, Wheeler MF (2003) Coupled fluid flow and geomechanical deformation modeling. J Pet Sci Eng 38:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nasseri MHB, Mohanty B, Young PR (2006) Fracture toughness measurements and acoustic emission activity in brittle rocks. Pure Appl Geophys 163:917–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nasseri MHB, Rezanezhad F, Young PR (2011) Analysis of fracture damage zone in anisotropic granitic rock using 3D X-ray CT scanning techniques. Int J Fract 168:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Noghabai K (2000) Discrete versus smeared versus element embedded crack models on ring problem. J Eng Mech 125(6):307–314Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nordren RP (1972) Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. SPE J 12(8):306–314Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pearce CJ, Thavalingam A, Liao Z, Bicanic N (2000) Computational aspects of the discontinuous deformation analysis framework for modeling concrete fracture. Eng Fract Mech 65:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Peirce AP, Siebrits E (2001) Uniform asymptotic approximations for accurate modelling of fractures in layered elastic media. Int J Fract 110:205–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Perkins TK, Kern LR (1961) Widths of hydraulic fractures. J Pet Technol 13(9):937–949Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Peters RR, Klavetter EA (1988) A continuum model for water movement in an unsaturated fractured rock mass. Water Resour Res 24(3):416–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pietruszczak S, Xu G (1995) Brittle response of concrete as a localization problem. Int J Solid Struct 32:1517–1533CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Potyondy DO (1993) A software framework for simulating curvilinear crack growth in pressurized thin shells. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rutqvist J, Wu YS, Tsang CF, Bodvarsson G (2002) A modelling approach of coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer, and deformation in fractured porous rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Siebrits E, Peirce AP (2002) An efficient multi-layer planar 3D fracture growth algorithm using a fixed mesh approach. Int J Numer Meth Eng 53:691–717CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Su GW, Geller JT, Pruess K, Hunt J (2000) Overview of preferential flow in unsaturated fractures. In: Faybishenko B, Witherspoon PA, Benson SM (eds) Dynamics of fluids in fractured rock. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thallak S, Rothenbury L, Dusseault M (1991) Simulation of multiple hydraulic fractures in a discrete element system. In: Roegiers JC (ed) Rock mechanics as a multidisciplinary science, Proceedings of the 32nd US Symposium. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 271–280Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tang CA, Liu H, Lee PKK, Tsui Y, Tham LG (2000) Numerical studies of the influence of microstructure on rock failure in uniaxial compression. Part I: effect of heterogeneity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tang CA, Tham LG, Lee PKK, Yang TH, Li LC (2002) Coupled analysis of flow, stress and damage (FSD) in rock failure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tu C-H, Chen C-S, Yu T–T (2011) Fracture mechanics analysis of multiple cracks in anisotropic media. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 35(11):1226–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vandamme L, Curran JH (1989) A three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator. Int J Numer Meth Eng 28:909–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vervuurt A (1997) Interface fracture in concrete, Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang RQ, Kemeny JM (1994) A study of the coupling between mechanical loading and flow properties in tuffaceous rock. In: Nelson PP, Laubach SE (eds) Rock mechanics: models and measurements challenges from industry. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 749–756Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang WH, Sadeghipour K, Baran G (2008) Finite element analysis of the effect of an interphase on toughening of a particle-reinforced polymer composite. Compos Part A 39:956–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Warpinski NR, Moschovidis ZA, Parker CD, Abou-Sajed IS (1994) Comparison study of hydraulic fracturing models: test case GRI-staged field experiment Experiment No. 3. SPE 9:7–16Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Weibull WA (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech 18:293–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wong TF, Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA (2006) Microcrack statistics, Weibull distribution and micromechanical modeling of compressive failure in rock. Mech Mater 38:664–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yale DP, Lyons SL, Qin G (2000) Coupled geomechanics-fluid flow modeling in petroleum reservoirs: coupled versus uncoupled response. In: Girard J, Liebman M, Breed C, Doe T (eds) Pacific rocks 2000. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yang TH, Tang CA, Zhu WC, Feng QY (2001) Coupling analysis of seepage and stress in rock failure process. Chin J Geotech Eng 23(4):489–493Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yang TH, Tham LG, Tang CA, Liang ZZ, Tsui Y (2004) Influence of heterogeneity of mechanical properties on hydraulic fracturing in permeable rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37(4):251–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yuan SC, Harrison JP (2005) Development of a hydro-mechanical local degradation approach and its application to modelling fluid flow during progressive fracturing of heterogeneous rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:961–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yu GQ, Wang MX, Yang B (2003) Characteristics of Glutenite reservoir in Sha 3 formation of block Cheng 913 in Chengdong oil field. Spec Oil Gas Reserv 10:6–10Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zeng LB, Gao CY, Qi JF, Wang YK (2008) The distribution rule and seepage effect of the fractures in the ultra-low permeability sandstone reservoir in east Gansu Province, Ordos Basin. Sci China Ser D Earth Sci 51:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhang X, Jeffrey RG, Thiercelin M (2008) Escape of fluid-driven fractures from frictional bedding interfaces: a numerical study. J Struct Geol 30:478–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhang ZN, Gao HJ (2012) Simulating fracture propagation in rock and concrete by an augmented virtual internal bond method. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 36(4):459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zhao Z, Kim H, Haimson B (1996) Hydraulic fracturing initiation in granite. Rock Mechanics, BalkemaGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zhu WC, Tang CA (2004) Micromechanical model for simulating the fracture process of rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37:25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zhu WC, Tang CA, Wang SY (2005) Numerical study on the influence of mesomechanical properties on macroscopic fracture of concrete. Struct Eng Mech 19:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zhu WL, Wong TF (1999) Network modeling of the evolution of permeability and dilatancy in compact rock. J Geophys Res 104(B2):2963–2971CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lianchong Li
    • 1
  • Qingmin Meng
    • 2
  • Shanyong Wang
    • 3
  • Gen Li
    • 1
  • Chunan Tang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.Oil Production Technology Research InstituteShengli Oilfield Branch CompanyDongyingChina
  3. 3.Centre for Geotechnical and Materials Modelling, Civil, Surveying and Environmental EngineeringThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations