Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1129–1142 | Cite as

Influence of geochemistry on toughening behavior of organic-rich shale

  • Ange-Therese AkonoEmail author
  • Pooyan Kabir
Research Paper


Our research objective is to understand the influence of geochemistry on the fracture behavior of organic-rich shale at multiple length-scales. Despite an increasing focus on the fracture behavior of organic-rich shale, the relationships between geochemistry and fracture behavior remain unclear and there is a scarcity of experimental data available. To this end, we carry out 59 mesoscale scratch-based fracture tests on 14 specimens extracted from 7 major gas shale plays both in the USA and in France. Post-scratch testing imaging reveals fractures with a small crack width of about 411–660 nm. The fracture toughness is evaluated using the energetic size effect law, which is extended to generic axisymmetric probes. A nonlinear anisotropic and multiscale fracture behavior is observed. In addition, a positive correlation is found between the fracture toughness and the presence of kerogen, clay and calcite. Moreover, the geochemistry is found to influence the timescale and the regime of propagation of the hydraulic fracture at the macroscopic length-scale. In particular, shale systems rich in total organic content, clay and calcite are more likely to exhibit high values of the fluid lag and a low hydraulic crack width. Our findings highlight the need for advanced constitutive models for organic-rich shale systems and advanced hydraulic fracturing solutions that can fully integrate the complex fracture response of organic-rich shale materials.


Fracture Geochemistry Hydraulic Fracturing Organic-rich shale Scratch test 



This work was supported as part of the Center of Geological Storage of CO2, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. Data for this project were provided, in part, by work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FC26-05NT42588 and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The X-ray diffraction analysis and kerogen content measurements were carried out at the Illinois State Geological Survey XRD Lab. The nanostructural analysis tests were performed in the Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory Central Research Facilities, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Woodford shale specimens were provided by the Poromechanics Institute at the University of Oklahoma. The Antrim and Niobrara specimens were provided by the MIT X-Shale project. The Toarcian specimens were provided by the Total Scientific and Technical Center, Pau, France. The Marcellus specimens were provided by the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Northwestern University.

Supplementary material

11440_2018_715_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (8.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 8506 KB)


  1. 1.
    Abousleiman YN, Tran MH, Hoang S, Bobko CP, Ortega A, Ulm F-J (2007) Geomechanics field and laboratory characterization of Woodford shale: the next gas play. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers SPE 1101120.
  2. 2.
    Abousleiman YN, Tran MH, Hoang S, Bobko CP, Ortega A, Ulm F-J (2009) Geomechanics field characterization of the two prolific U.S. mid-west gas plays with advanced wire-line logging tools. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers SPE.
  3. 3.
    Abousleiman YN, Hull KL, Han Y, Al-Muntasheri G, Hosemann P, Parker S, Howard CB (2016) The granular and polymer composite nature of kerogen-rich shale. Acta Geotech 11(3):573–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akono A-T (2016) Energetic size effect law at the microscopic scale: application to progressive-load scratch testing. J Nanomech Micromech 6(2):04016001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akono A-T (2017) Reply to ’Discussion on the Fracture mechanics interpretation of the scratch test by Akono, et al.’. Eng Fract Mech 178:14–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akono A-T, Kabir P (2016) Microscopic fracture characterization of gas shale via scratch testing. Mech Res Commun 78:86–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akono A-T, Kabir P (2016) Nano-scale characterization of organic-rich shale via indentation methods. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 209–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2014) An improved technique for characterizing the fracture toughness via scratch test experiments. Wear 313(1–2):117–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J, Bažant Z-P (2014) Discussion: strength-to-fracture scaling in scratching. Eng Frac Mech 119:21–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2012) Fracture scaling relations for scratch tests of axisymmetric shape. J Mech Phys Solids 60(3):379–390. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akono A-T, Reis PM, Ulm F-J (2011) Scratching as a fracture process: from butter to steel. Phys Rev Lett 106(20):204302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akono A-T, Randall NX, Ulm F-J (2012) Experimental determination of the fracture toughness via microscratch tests: application to polymers, ceramics, and metals. J Mater Res 27(2):485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bai B, Elgmati M, Zhang H, Wei M (2013) Rock characterization of Fayetteville shale gas plays. Fuel 105:645–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barthelat F, Li CM, Comi C, Espinosa HD (2006) Mechanical properties of nacre constituents and their impact on mechanical performance. J Mater Res 21(8):1977–1986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barthelat F, Espinosa HD (2007) An experimental investigation of deformation and fracture of nacre mother of pearl. Exp Mech 47(3):311–324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brochard L, Hantal G, Laubie H, Ulm F-J, Pellenq RJM (2013) Fracture mechanisms in organic-rich shales: role of kerogen. In: Poromechanics V: proceedings of the fifth Biot conference on poromechanics, pp 2471–2480.
  17. 17.
    Chandler MR, Meredith PG, Brantut N, Crawford BR (2016) Fracture toughness anisotropy in shale. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121(3):1706–1729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dastjerdi AK, Rabiei R, Barthelat F (2013) The weak interfaces within tough natural composites: experiments on three types of nacre. J Mech Behav Biomed 19:50–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Detournay E (2004) Propagation regimes of fluid-driven fractures in impermeable rocks. Int J Geomech 4(1):35–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Detournay E (2016) Mechanics of hydraulic fractures. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48:311–339. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farnoush H, Mohandesi JA, Çimenoğlu H (2015) Micro-scratch and corrosion behavior of functionally graded HA–TiO\(_2\) nanostructured composite coatings fabricated by electrophoretic deposition. J Mech Behv Biomed 46:31–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garagash DI (2006) Propagation of a plane-strain hydraulic fracture with a fluid lag: early-time solution. Int J Solids Struct 43(18–19):5811–5835. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garagash D, Detournay E (2000) The tip region of a fluid-driven fracture in an elastic medium. J Appl Mech 67(1):183–192. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hantal G, Brochard L, Laubie H, Ebrahimi D, Pellenq RJM, Ulm F-J, Coasne B (2014) Atomic-scale modeling of elastic and failure properties of clays. Mol Phys 112(9–10):1294–1305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    He X, Xu C, Peng K, Huang G (2017) Simultaneous identification of rock strength and fracture properties via scratch test. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(8):227–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hillerborg A, Moder M, Petersson PE (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6(6):773–781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hubler MG, Ulm F-J (2016) Size-effect law for scratch tests of axisymmetric shape. J Eng Mech 142(12):04016094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hull KL, Abousleiman YN, Han Y, Al-Muntasheri GA, Hosemann P, Parker SS, Howard CB (2017) Nanomechanical characterization of the tensile modulus of rupture for kerogen-rich shale. SPE J. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jin C, Salviato M, Li W, Cusatis G (2017) Elastic microplane formulation for transversely isotropic materials. J Appl Mech 84(1):011001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kabir P, Ulm F-J, Akono A-T (2017) Rate-Independent fracture toughness of gray and black kerogen-rich shales. Acta Geotech 12(6):1207–1227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kang SM, Fathi E, Ambrose RJ, Akkutlu IY, Sigal RF (2011) Carbon dioxide storage capacity of organic-rich shales. SPE J 16(04):842–855. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    King GE (2012) Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  33. 33.
    Laubie H, Ulm F-J (2014) Plane-strain crack problem in transversely isotropic solids for hydraulic fracturing applications. J Eng Mech 140(12):04014092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee SY, Hyder LK, Alley PD (1991) Microstructural and mineralogical characterization of selected shales in support of nuclear waste repository studies. In: Bennett RH, Bryant WR, Hulbert MH (eds) Microstructure of fine-grained sediments. Springer, New York, pp 545–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lecampion B, Desroches J (2014) Simultaneous initiation of multiple transverse hydraulic fractures from a horizontal well. In: 48th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li C, Caner FC, Chau VT, Baant ZP (2017) Spherocylindrical microplane constitutive model for shale and other anisotropic rocks. J Mech Phys Solids 103:155–178. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li W, Jin Z, Cusatis G (2018) Size effect analysis for the characterization of Marcellus shale quasi-brittle fracture properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng. Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manjunath GL, Nair RR (2015) Implications of the 3D micro scale coal characteristics along with Raman stress mapping of the scratch tracks. Int J Coal Geol 141:13–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matsuki K, Hasibuan S, Takashashi H (1991) Specimen size requirement for determining the inherent fracture toughness of rocks according to the ISRM suggested rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 28(5):365–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miller CK, Waters GA, Rylander EI (2011) Evaluation of production log data from horizontal wells drilled in organic shales. In: North American unconventional gas conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  41. 41.
    Miller M, Bobko C, Vandamme M, Ulm F-J (2008) Surface roughness criteria for cement paste nanoindentation. Cem Concr Res 38(4):467–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mirkhalaf M, Dastjerdi AK, Barthelat F (2014) Overcoming the brittleness of glass through bio-inspiration and micro-architecture. Nat Commun 5:3611. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Misra D, Shariff SM, Mukhopadhyay S, Chatterjee S (2017) Analysis of instrumented scratch hardness and fracture toughness properties of laser surface alloyed tribological coatings. Ceram Int 44(4):4248–4255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Monfared SKS (2015) Microporoelastic modeling of organic-rich shales. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization, series in operations research and financial engineering. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ouchterlony F (1990) Fracture toughness testing of rocks with core-based specimens. Eng Fract Mech 35(1–3):351–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Savitski AA, Detournay E (2002) Propagation of a penny-shaped fluid-driven fracture in an impermeable rock: asymptotic solutions. Int J Solids Struct 39(26):6311–6337. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schepers KC, Nuttall BC, Oudinot AY, Gonzalez RJ (2009) Reservoir modeling and simulation of the Devonian gas shale of eastern Kentucky for enhanced gas recovery and CO\(_2\) storage. In: SPE international conference on CO\(_2\) capture, storage, and utilization. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  49. 49.
    Senseny PE, Pfeifle TW (1984) Fracture toughness of sandstones and shales. In: The 25th US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sierra R, Tran MH, Abousleiman YN, Slatt RM (2010) Woodford shale mechanical properties and the impacts of lithofacies. In: 44th US rock mechanics symposium and 5th US–Canada rock mechanics symposium. American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sneddon IN, Lowengrub M (1969) Crack problems in the classical theory of elasticity. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sola R, Giovanardi R, Parigi G, Veronesi P (2017) A novel methods for fracture toughness evaluation of tool steels with post-tempering cryogenic treatment. Metals 7(3):75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sone H, Zoback MD (2013) Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir rocks—part 2: ductile creep, brittle strength, and their relation to the elastic modulus. Geophysics 78(5):D393–D402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schmidt RA (1976) Fracture-toughness testing of limestone. Exp Mech 16(5):161–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmidt RA (1977) Fracture mechanics Of oil shale-unconfined fracture toughness, stress corrosion cracking, and tension test results. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sun Z, Espinoza DN, Balhoff MT, Dewers TA (2017) Discrete element modeling of micro-scratch tests: investigation of mechanisms of CO\(_2\) alteration in reservoir rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(12):3337–3348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Torsaeter M, Vullum PE, Nes OM (2012) Nanostructure vs. macroscopic properties of mancos shale. In: SPE Canadian unconventional resources conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  58. 58.
    Wang ZQ, Detournay E (2018) The tip region of a near-surface hydraulic fracture. J Appl Mech 85(4):041010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    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 211:1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations