Laboratory simulations of fluid-induced seismicity, hydraulic fracture, and fluid flow

Benson, Philip; Austria, David Carlo; Gehne, Stephan; Butcher, Emily Jane; Harnett, Claire E.; Fazio, Marco; Rowley, Pete; Tomás, Ricardo

doi:10.1016/j.gete.2019.100169

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These pressure changes imply that this fracture propagates in a series of small events of varying magnitude—the first propagation leads to the greatest change in strain and largest fluid pressure drop while subsequent propagation events produce further small strain changes. This interpretation is corroborated by the strain data and is similar to that presented in recent studies, for example, Benson et al (2020) and Gehne et al (2019). The strain data are collected sufficient frequency (8 Hz) to capture the mechanical response on the exterior of the sample during these fluctuating fluid pressure stages, but not during the rapid fracture propagation events that are inferred to occur from the pressure transients.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This interpretation is corroborated by the strain data and is similar to that presented in recent studies e.g. Benson et al, (2020) and Gehne et al, (2019). The strain data are collected sufficient frequency (8 Hz) to capture the mechanical response on the exterior of the sample during these fluctuating fluid pressure stages, but not during the rapid fracture propagation events that are inferred to occur from the pressure transients.…”

Section: Uniform Resin Samplesupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Fracture propagation is monitored better through using AEs to reconstruct time series 3‐D location maps (Hu et al (2020) and Stanchits et al (2015) are recent examples of this); however, this is an incredibly time and labor intensive process. Potential for induced seismicity is often assessed through AE event rates and magnitude‐frequency distributions (Benson et al, 2020; Gehne et al, 2019; Meng & De Pater, 2011). The majority of hydraulic fracture propagation investigations focus on the propagation mechanisms, using these methods to better understand the fracture geometries and networks produced, as well as the likely fracture extent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing and Stress Sensitivity of Fracture Permeability Under Changing Polyaxial Stress Conditions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Uniform Resin Samplesupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing and Stress Sensitivity of Fracture Permeability Under Changing Polyaxial Stress Conditions

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For samples deformed at 5 and 10 MPa, an approximate exponential trend is seen in the counts of located AE after this point; however, for samples deformed at higher confining pressure (20 and 40 MPa), the increase in AE count is more linear, increasing to 100 and 200 counts respectively at peak stress. In all experiments the maximum AE output is seen to occur 0.1%–0.2% before failure, signifying a high number of microcracks during the yield stage of deformation, consistent with the timing of maximum AE observed in earlier work (Benson et al., 2019).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Source Mechanisms of Laboratory Earthquakes During Fault Nucleation and Formation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic data provides key information on the physics of the fracture process ranging from fracture nucleation, crack growth, and damage accumulation, to crack coalescence and strain localization. Several micromechanical models have been developed over the years which seek to describe failure modes (e.g., Ashby & Hallam, 1986;Kemeny & Cook, 1991), taking into account pore-emanant fracturing (Baud et al., 2014), sliding wing cracks (Baud et al., 2014), friction effects (McClintock, 1962), and pore collapse (Zhu et al., 2010). To link these models to geophysical signatures recorded at the field scale, controlled laboratory rock deformation experiments equipped with dense microseismic arrays have become a routinely used tool (e.g., Benson et al., 2007;Fazio et al., 2017;Lockner et al., 1992). Here, fault growth may be considered analogous to the field scale development of earthquake rupture generating acoustic emission (AE), which is a wellused analog to tectonic earthquakes due to the scale invariance of these processes (Hanks, 1992;Hatton et al., 1994;Hudson & Kennett, 1981). The inclusion of AE sensors is now a routine laboratory rock physics method in the investigation of fault zone structure with the added benefit of a controlled environment.There is an extensive literature reporting the evolution of fracture mechanisms inferred from the analysis of AE (e.g., tensile, shear, or compaction) that occur as damage propagates (e.g., Stanchits et al., 2006;Zang et al., 1998). Triaxial rock deformation experiments on fine-grained granites suggest that this process is tensile dominated (Cox & Scholz, 1988), whereas a higher proportion of shear-components are found in coarser-grained materials (Lei et al., 1992). This hypothesis is further supported by new observations linking macroscopic shear fracture to microcrack development prior to the yield point (Lei et al., 2000), highlighting the occurrence of tensile fracturing at the front of a shear process zone. These scenarios can

show abstract

“…Therefore, reliance on seismicity alone is likely to severely underestimate the total accumulated damage and, hence, the proximity to failure. Like mechanically induced damage (Benson et al, 2020), thermally induced damage is also known to alter rock properties such as strength and stiffness (Heap et al, 2013; Kendrick et al, 2013; Siratovich et al, 2015). Hence, thermal cracking is also likely to influence both the amount of deformation in volcanic settings and the eventual onset of failure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microstructural Controls on Thermal Crack Damage and the Presence of a Temperature‐Memory Effect During Cyclic Thermal Stressing of Rocks

Daoud

Browning

Meredith

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present results from a series of thermal stressing experiments that used three igneous rocks of different composition, grain size, and origin and contemporaneously recorded acoustic emissions (AEs) with changing temperature. Samples were subjected to both a single heating and cooling cycle and multiple heating/cooling cycles to different peak temperatures. The vast majority of thermal crack damage is generated during heating in the coarser-grained (quartz rich) rock but during cooling in the two finer-grained (quartz poor) rocks. Our AE results also demonstrate the presence of a temperature-memory effect, analogous to the Kaiser stress-memory effect observed during cyclic mechanical loading, but only in the coarser-grained rock. We suggest that the total amount of crack damage induced during either heating or cooling is dependent on the mineral composition and, most importantly, the grain size and arrangement, as well as the maximum temperature to which the rock was exposed. We use our laboratory-scale results to suggest ways in which crustal-scale geophysical data may need to be reinterpreted to provide more accurate estimates of total, accumulated damage and the approach to macroscopic failure in crustal segments hosting magma chambers and geothermal reservoirs. Plain Language Summary We present results from a series of laboratory thermal stressing experiments using three igneous rocks of different composition, grain size, and origin: a Granophyre (SGP) from the Slaufrudalur pluton in Iceland, an Andesite from Santorini, Greece (SA), and a Basalt from the Seljadalur region of Iceland (SB), in which acoustic emissions (AEs) were recorded at the same time as the temperature of the samples was experimentally increased or decreased. Samples were subjected to both a single heating and cooling cycle and multiple heating and cooling cycles to different peak temperatures. The vast majority of thermal crack damage was generated during heating in the larger-grained SGP but during cooling in the smaller-grained SA and SB. Our AE results demonstrate the presence of a temperature-memory effect in SGP, analogous to the Kaiser stress-memory effect observed during cyclic mechanical loading, but no similar effect is observed in either SA or SB. We suggest that the total amount of crack damage is dependent on the mineral composition and, most importantly, the grain size and arrangement, as well as the maximum temperature to which the rock was exposed. The results should be considered in models that consider the distribution of damage in cyclically thermally stressed regions such as crustal segments hosting geothermal reservoirs and/or magmatic intrusions.

show abstract

Laboratory simulations of fluid-induced seismicity, hydraulic fracture, and fluid flow

Cited by 35 publications

References 95 publications

Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing and Stress Sensitivity of Fracture Permeability Under Changing Polyaxial Stress Conditions

Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing and Stress Sensitivity of Fracture Permeability Under Changing Polyaxial Stress Conditions

Source Mechanisms of Laboratory Earthquakes During Fault Nucleation and Formation

Microstructural Controls on Thermal Crack Damage and the Presence of a Temperature‐Memory Effect During Cyclic Thermal Stressing of Rocks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About