Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

m :

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

σ ij :

Total stress

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

Effective stress

ε ij :

Strain

u ij :

Displacement

F i :

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,k 0 :

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

E 0,E :

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

f t :

Tensile strength of element

f t0 :

The peak tensile strength of element

f tr :

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

f c :

Uniaxial compressive strength of element

f c0 :

The peak uniaxial compressive strength of element

f cr :

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. 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 12877

  2. Adachi J, Siebrits E, Peirce A, Desroches J (2007) Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:739–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 112:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreev G (1995) Brittle failure of rock materials test results and constitutive models. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barree RD (1983) A practical numerical simulator for three-dimensional fracture propagation in heterogeneous media. SPE, pp 469–478

  6. Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bush MB (1997) The interaction between a crack and a particle cluster. Int J Fract 88:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buyukozturk O, Hearing B (1998) Crack propagation in concrete composites influenced by interface fracture parameters. Int J Solid Struct 35:4055–4066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 525–557

    Google Scholar 

  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, Dongying

    Google Scholar 

  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, Dongying

    Google Scholar 

  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 399–407

  13. Economides MJ, Nolte KG (2000) Reservoir stimulation. John Willey, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fairhurst C (1964) On the validity of the Brazilian test for brittle materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1:535–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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):3099–3118

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 April

  18. Geertsma J, De Klerk F (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically induced fractures. J Pet Technol 21:1571–1581

    Google Scholar 

  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 47:957–968

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Haimson BC, Fairhurst C (1967) Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rock. Soc Pet Eng J 7:310–318

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hossain MM, Rahman MK (2008) Numerical simulation of complex fracture growth during tight reservoir stimulation by hydraulic fracturing. J Pet Sci Eng 60:86–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hubbert MK, Willis DG (1957) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Trans AIME 210:153–166

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hu FT (1997) Development mode of Glutenite reservoir. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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):285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 9:163–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):435–441

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liu HY, Roquete M, Kou SQ, Lindqvist PA (2004) Characterization of rock heterogeneity and numerical verification. Eng Geol 72:89–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 36:1280–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu XL (2008) Theoreticaland application research on the fluid-rock coupling process and associated multi-scale behaviour. Doctoral thesis, Tshinghua University, Beijing

  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, Chengdu

  32. Mack MG, Warpinski NR (2000) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. In: Economides MJ, Nolte KG (eds) Reservoir stimulation, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  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 48:353–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Malvar LJ, Fourney ME (1990) A three dimensional application of the smeared crack approach. Eng Fract Mech 35(1–3):251–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, October

  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 32:119–123

    Google Scholar 

  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. 24–27

  38. Minkoff SE, Stone CM, Bryant S, Peszynska M, Wheeler MF (2003) Coupled fluid flow and geomechanical deformation modeling. J Pet Sci Eng 38:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nasseri MHB, Mohanty B, Young PR (2006) Fracture toughness measurements and acoustic emission activity in brittle rocks. Pure Appl Geophys 163:917–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 168:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Noghabai K (2000) Discrete versus smeared versus element embedded crack models on ring problem. J Eng Mech 125(6):307–314

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nordren RP (1972) Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. SPE J 12(8):306–314

    Google Scholar 

  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 65:283–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peirce AP, Siebrits E (2001) Uniform asymptotic approximations for accurate modelling of fractures in layered elastic media. Int J Fract 110:205–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Perkins TK, Kern LR (1961) Widths of hydraulic fractures. J Pet Technol 13(9):937–949

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peters RR, Klavetter EA (1988) A continuum model for water movement in an unsaturated fractured rock mass. Water Resour Res 24(3):416–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pietruszczak S, Xu G (1995) Brittle response of concrete as a localization problem. Int J Solid Struct 32:1517–1533

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Potyondy DO (1993) A software framework for simulating curvilinear crack growth in pressurized thin shells. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

  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 39:429–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 53:691–717

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 147–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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 271–280

    Google Scholar 

  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 37:555–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 39:477–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1226–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vandamme L, Curran JH (1989) A three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator. Int J Numer Meth Eng 28:909–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vervuurt A (1997) Interface fracture in concrete, Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

  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 749–756

    Google Scholar 

  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 39:956–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 9:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  61. Weibull WA (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech 18:293–297

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Wong TF, Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA (2006) Microcrack statistics, Weibull distribution and micromechanical modeling of compressive failure in rock. Mech Mater 38:664–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  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):489–493

    Google Scholar 

  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):251–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 42:961–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 10:6–10

    Google Scholar 

  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 51:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhang X, Jeffrey RG, Thiercelin M (2008) Escape of fluid-driven fractures from frictional bedding interfaces: a numerical study. J Struct Geol 30:478–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):459–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhao Z, Kim H, Haimson B (1996) Hydraulic fracturing initiation in granite. Rock Mechanics, Balkema

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zhu WC, Tang CA (2004) Micromechanical model for simulating the fracture process of rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37:25–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhu WC, Tang CA, Wang SY (2005) Numerical study on the influence of mesomechanical properties on macroscopic fracture of concrete. Struct Eng Mech 19:519–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhu WL, Wong TF (1999) Network modeling of the evolution of permeability and dilatancy in compact rock. J Geophys Res 104(B2):2963–2971

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study presented in this paper was jointly supported by grants from the National Basic Research Programme of China (Grant No. 2011CB013503), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51279024), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(DUT12ZD102). The work was also partially supported by the ARC Australian Laureate Fellowship grant FL0992039. The authors are grateful for these supports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

    Lianchong Li, Gen Li & Chunan Tang

  2. Oil Production Technology Research Institute, Shengli Oilfield Branch Company, Dongying, 257000, China

    Qingmin Meng

  3. Centre for Geotechnical and Materials Modelling, Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

    Shanyong Wang

Authors
  1. Lianchong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qingmin Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shanyong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gen Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chunan Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lianchong Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, L., Meng, Q., Wang, S. et al. A numerical investigation of the hydraulic fracturing behaviour of conglomerate in Glutenite formation. Acta Geotech. 8, 597–618 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0209-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0209-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation