2013
DOI: 10.1002/nag.2216
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anisotropic porothermoelastic solution and hydro‐thermal effects on fracture width in hydraulic fracturing

Abstract: SUMMARYIn this study, the effects of the temperature difference between hydraulic fracturing fluid and rock formation on the time-dependent evolution of fracture width were investigated using a newly derived one-dimensional anisotropic porothermoelastic analytical solution. The solution is shown to correctly reproduce existing solutions for special cases and corrections for an earlier publication are provided. An analysis of time-dependent fracture width evolution using Woodford Shale data was also presented. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The response of a cylindrical dual‐porosity dual‐permeability shale sample with dimensions of R 0 = 2.54 cm (1 inch) and H = 10.16 cm (4 inches) will be simulated in this section. The poroelastic parameters of matrix is selected from a Woodford Shale with some modification and listed as follows: k I = 50 nD, ϕ I = 0.18, v I = 0.25, E1I = 7.2 GPa, E3I = 5.2 GPa. For the natural fractures system, a number of methods to estimate the poroelastic parameters were proposed by Cook, on the basis of the individual fracture characteristics, spacing, and orientation.…”
Section: Numerical Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The response of a cylindrical dual‐porosity dual‐permeability shale sample with dimensions of R 0 = 2.54 cm (1 inch) and H = 10.16 cm (4 inches) will be simulated in this section. The poroelastic parameters of matrix is selected from a Woodford Shale with some modification and listed as follows: k I = 50 nD, ϕ I = 0.18, v I = 0.25, E1I = 7.2 GPa, E3I = 5.2 GPa. For the natural fractures system, a number of methods to estimate the poroelastic parameters were proposed by Cook, on the basis of the individual fracture characteristics, spacing, and orientation.…”
Section: Numerical Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The response of a cylindrical dual-porosity dual-permeability shale sample with dimensions of R 0 = 2.54 cm (1 inch) and H = 10.16 cm (4 inches) will be simulated in this section. The poroelastic parameters of matrix is selected from a Woodford Shale 86 Furthermore, open natural fractures should be softer than the matrix and also have higher porosity, which might be close to 1, because most of the fractures might be the porous flow channels. Therefore, the poroelastic parameters of fractures system is assumed as follows: k II = 5 mD, ϕ II = 0.95, v II = 0.25, E II 1 = 0.5 GPa, E II 3 = 0.4 GPa, where the difference of Poisson's ratio is neglected.…”
Section: Numerical Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also common in engineered geotechnical structures such as compacted soils and landfills (Feda 1998;Li and Zhang 2009;Najser et al 2010Najser et al , 2012Romero et al 2011;Della Vecchia and Romero 2013;Musso et al 2013;Burton et al 2014). It is well recognized that all natural reservoir rocks possess fissures to some extent (Barenblatt et al 1960;Warren and Root 1963;Kazemi et al 1976;Moench 1984;Lewandowska and Auriault 2013;Katsuki et al 2014;Vu et al 2014;Bennett et al 2015), and additional fissures may be induced by engineering activities (Abousleiman et al 2014;Carneiro 2009;Weng et al 2011;Foster and Mohammad Nejad 2013;Lamb et al 2013;Li et al 2013;Rahman and Rahman 2013a, b;Mohammadnejad and Khoei 2013;Zhang et al 2015;Yin 2013;White et al 2014;Tjioe and Borja 2015). Fissures have been observed in a variety of natural soils as well (Hu et al 2013;Vitone et al 2013a, b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many natural geomaterials such as aggregated soils and fissured rocks exhibit pore size distributions with two dominant values of porosity [1,2,26,28,31,55]. In fissured rocks the two scales of porosity are those of the rock matrix and fractures [11,61,64,68,74,77,79,83], whereas in aggregated soils, © 2016.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%