Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Mineralogical brittleness index as a function of weighting brittle

minerals—from laboratory tests to case study
Yongshang Kang, Ph.D.,Professor a, b, *, Chunjiang Shang c, Hao Zhou d, Yi Huang e, Qun Zhao f,
Ze Deng f, Hongyan Wang f, Yuan Zee Ma g
a
College of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing, 102249, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing, 102249, China
c
Guangzhou Marine Geological Survey, Guangzhou, 510075, China
d
Sichuan Changning Gas Development Co. Ltd., Chengdu, 610000, China
e
Southwest Branch of China Petroleum Logging Co., Ltd., Chongqing, 400021, China
f
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina, Beijing, 100083, China
g
Schlumberger, Denver, CO, 80202, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Shale brittleness is one of the essential parameters for shale gas reservoir evaluation. Based on correlation
Triaxial test analysis between triaxial test and XRD results of shale samples from Wufeng-Longmaxi formations in Shuanghe
XRD analysis outcrop area in Sichuan Basin, south western China, we propose a new mineralogical brittleness index from
Mechanical brittleness index
brittle minerals.
Mineralogical brittleness index
Brittle minerals
This study shows three important results: (1) The simple sum of brittle minerals is not significantly correlated
Bulk modulus to the mechanical brittleness index, indicating the former may be a questionable estimator of shale brittleness.
(2) Considering the bulk modulus of the different brittle minerals, a new mineralogical brittleness index, as a
function of brittle minerals with respective weighting coefficients, is proposed, and this new index is significantly
correlated to the mechanical brittleness index. (3) The new mineralogical brittleness index is used in a case study
for its effectiveness, in characterizing shale brittleness. With a large amount of XRD data available from labo­
ratory for calibrating the logging interpretation of mineralogical compositions, the new mineralogical brittleness
index has a good reliability and its application has proved to be valuable.

1. Introduction
Rock brittleness is a term commonly used in rock engineering ap­
plications to identify the possible failure characteristics of the rock mass
(Zhang et al., 2016a). Brittle rock is characterized by fracture failure at
or slightly beyond the yield stress (Obert and Duvall, 1967). Brittleness
index, as a term used to quantify the brittleness of rock mass, was
defined by various methods or models from rock-mechanics experiments
(Hucka and Das, 1974; Goktan, 1991; Altindag, 2002; Gong and Zhao,
2007; Rybacki et al., 2016).
Shale gas has become a new bright spot in the global unconventional
oil and gas exploration and development in the recent years. Shale gas
reservoirs need to be hydraulically fractured to create an effective
fracture network for recovering an economically viable quantity of gas.
The possibility of creating an effective fracture network is dependent on
many factors, among which the shale formation’s brittleness plays a
major role (Zhang et al., 2016a). Shale brittleness index has been used as
an important tool to screen hydraulic fracturing candidates (Jarvie et al.,
2007; Rickman et al., 2008; Wang and Gale, 2009; Chong et al., 2010; Li
et al., 2013).
In shale gas development practice, the mechanical brittleness index
defined by Rickman et al. (2008), consisting of normalized dynamic
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio obtained through logging inter­
pretation, was considered as a practical model to quantify the me­
chanical brittleness of shales. The normalizations of Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio in Rickman et al. (2008) were not general expres­
sions and were redefined as (Jin et al., 2015):
BImer¼(En þ vn)/2 (1)
where the brittleness index is noted as BImer, with the subscript “mer”

* Corresponding author. China University of Petroleum (Beijing), No.18, Fuxue Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102249, China.
E-mail address: kangysh@sina.com (Y. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103278
Received 19 October 2019; Received in revised form 28 December 2019; Accepted 22 March 2020
Available online 27 March 2020
1875-5100/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Kang et al.
referring to mechanical brittleness index calculated according to the
equation originally proposed by Rickman et al. (2008); En and vn are
normalized Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively, and are
defined as
En¼(E-Emin)/(Emax-Emin) (2)
vn¼(vmax-v)/(vmax-vmin) (3)
where Emin and Emax are the minimum and maximum dynamic Young’s
modulus for the investigated formation; vmin and vmax are dynamic
minimum and maximum Poisson’s ratio for the investigated formation,
respectively. equation (1) indicates that formation with higher Young’s
modulus (E) and lower Poisson’s ratio (ν) is of a higher brittleness.
By defining a mineralogical brittleness index, brittle minerals in
shales are also used to screen hydraulic fracturing candidates (Jarvie
et al., 2007; Wang and Gale, 2009; Slatt and Abousleiman, 2011; Jin
et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016a). Discrepancy exists in selection of
brittle minerals for the mineralogical brittleness indexation. For
example, the weight fraction of quartz was used as a mineralogical
brittleness index by Jarvie et al. (2007), while the weight fraction of
quartz, feldspar, mica and carbonate minerals was used as a mineral­
ogical brittleness index by Jin et al. (2015).
Shale generally contains a variety of minerals, including brittle
minerals and clay minerals. Quartz, feldspar, calcite and dolomite are
generally considered as brittle minerals. Although other minerals such
as mica and pyrite may also be more brittle than clay (Jin et al., 2015;
Xiang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016b), they are not generally consid­
ered for mineralogical brittleness indexation because they are minor
minerals in shales. In Chinese shale gas industry, four brittle minerals,
including quartz, feldspar, calcite, and dolomite, are generally taken for
calculating the mineralogical brittleness index (GB/T 31484, 2015), and
this index is called as BRMC4:
BRMC4 ¼ (WQ þ WF þ WC þ WD)/WT (4)
where WQ, WF, WC and WD are the weights of quartz, feldspar, calcite,
and dolomite, respectively; and, WT is the total mineral weight.
The objective of this study is to check the traditionally used
Fig. 1. Stratigraphic column of Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Formations of well YJ1 (a) and location map of Shuanghe outcrop area and wells YJ1 and A (b).
2
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278
mineralogical brittleness index (BRMC4) defined in equation (4), and to
develop a new mineralogical brittleness index, expressed as a function of
weighting brittle minerals. For this objective, twenty blocky shale
samples were taken from Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Formations in the
Shuanghe outcrop area, Sichuan Basin, southwestern China, and pre­
pared to cylindrical specimens. The cylindrical specimens were tested by
using an improved triaxial apparatus. The Young’s modulus, Poisson’s
ratio and compressive strength of the cylindrical specimens under
confining pressure of 5 MPa were determined. The mineral compositions
of the shale samples were tested through the X-ray diffraction (XRD).
Beginning from correlation analysis between different variables
(Young’s modulus, compressive strength, mechanical brittleness index
and BRMC4), a new mineralogical brittleness index, as a function of
weighting brittle minerals, is proposed. This new index is verified by
actual detected hydraulic fracture interval in a case study, demon­
strating its effectiveness in evaluating shale brittleness.
2. Specimen preparation and test procedure
2.1. Specimen preparation
The black shales in Wufeng (Upper Ordovician)-Lower Longmaxi
(Lower Silurian) formations, in the Sichuan Basin, south-western China,
are presently one of the main shale gas development targets in China
(Zou et al., 2016). The Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi formations in Sichuan
Basin can be subdivided into biozones by graptolite (Chen et al., 2015),
as shown by the stratigraphic column of well YJ1 (Liang et al., 2017,
Fig. 1a). Twenty black shale samples were taken from Wufeng-Longmaxi
formations in Shuanghe outcrop area, Sichuan Basin, south-western
China (Fig. 1b). After removing the weathered surface layer, fresh
shale samples were taken in a size larger than 200 mm � 200 mm � 200
mm. The descriptions of the shale samples are given in Table 1.
The blocky shale samples were cored in laboratory to get cylindrical
specimens with length of 50 mm and diameter of 25 mm. All the samples
were cored perpendicularly to the bedding planes. The two ends of each
specimen were then polished to keep them smooth, parallel to each
other, and perpendicular to the cylinder’s axis. Twenty specimens were
Y. Kang et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278

Table 1
Descriptions of shale samples taken from Wufeng-Longmaxi formations, in Shuanghe outcrop area, Sichuan Basin, southwestern China.
Sample Sample ID Sample Position Sample Description

1 CNSH11-1 LM7 Gray-black shale with dense structure containing natural cracks (2.5 mm thick pyrite filling)
2 CNSH-HTT-15 LM7 Gray-black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
3 CNSH9-1 LM4 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
4 CNSH8-1 LM3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
5 CNSH10-1 LM2, 4.5 m above Guanyinqiao Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
6 CNSH7-4 LM1, 0.4 m above Guanyinqiao Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
7 CNSH6-3 WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
8 CNSH5-2 WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
9 CNSH4-2 WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
10 CNSH3-1 WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
11 CHSH-SZS-9 WF3, 5.75 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
12 CHSH-SZS-8 WF3, 4.45 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
13 CHSH-SZS-7 WF3, 4.1 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
14 CHSH-SZS-6 WF3, 3.55 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
15 CHSH-SZS-5 WF3, 3.1 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
16 CHSH-SZS-4 WF3, 2.3 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
17 CHSH-SZS-3 WF3, 1.8 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks
18 CHSH-SZS-2 WF3, 0.8 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure containing natural cracks (mineral filling)
19 CNSH2-2 WF3, 0.8 m above the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure containing natural cracks (mineral filling)
20 CNSH1-4 WF3, the bottom of WF3 Black shale with dense structure and no natural cracks

obtained for mechanical-permeability test and each was given the same
ID as its original shale sample. Parallel specimens were obtained for XRD
tests. By using X-ray diffraction apparatus, the intensity of the charac­
teristic peak for each specific mineral can be measured and transferred
to weight percentage of the minerals contained in a shale sample. Small
segments from the blocky shale samples were taken for porosity test by
helium-injection method with confining pressure of 1000psi and pore
pressure of 200psi.
2.2. Apparatus and test procedure
LFLab-I Triaxial Stress Strain Experimental System (Fig. 2a), from
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Petro­
China, was used to conduct the tests on the cylindrical specimens. The
test procedure is the same for all the twenty specimens, including test
preparation and test process.
The test preparation includes: (1) place the specimen wrapped with
heat shrinkable tubing on the bottom plate; (2) install the axial
displacement transducer and radial displacement transducer on the
specimen (Fig. 2b); (3) seal the confining pressure barrel with sealing
ring tightly; (4) increase the confining pressure and the axial pressure
with loading velocity of 0.05 MPa/s to 5 MPa and 8 MPa, respectively.
The test process consists of: (1) increasing axial pressure at a step of
10 MPa with an axial loading velocity of 0.05 MPa/s while the confining
pressure is kept constant at 5 MPa; (2) stable flow rate of helium gas is
measured with a flowmeter, at each step, with confining and axial
pressures being kept constant for 0.2–0.5 h; (3) the test terminates until
the specimen is failed; (4) during the whole test process, the axial
pressure, the axial and lateral strains are recorded automatically
through data acquisition and control system (Fig. 2a). At the beginning
of the test process, either axial strain or lateral strain records are put to
zero, if any induced by the test preparation as described above.
Among the twenty tested specimens, three specimens (CNSH2-3,
CNSH11-1 and CNSH-SZS-2) contain natural cracks. The diameter of
another three specimens (CNSH-SZS-4, CNSH-SZS-8 and CNSH-HTT-15)
is less than 23 mm, and the radial sensor could not tighten the specimen,
resulting in incorrect measurement of lateral strain. The test on other
three specimens (CNSH6-3, CNSH-SZS-5 and CNSH-SZS-6) was not
successful due to an operational problem. The test results of the
remaining eleven specimens are thus available for the following
analysis.
3. Test results and correlation analysis
3.1. Triaxial test and XRD results
Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b are axial pressure-axial strain and lateral strain-
axial strain curves respectively for the eleven tested specimens. The
Young’s modulus is determined as the slope of the linear segment in the
axial pressure-axial strain curve (Fig. 4a). The Poisson’s ratio is deter­
mined as the slope of the segment picked in the lateral strain-axial strain
curve (Fig. 4b) with the same axial strain interval for determination of

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental sys­

tem LFLab-I (a), and the assembled specimen with
sensors (b). (1. Helium gas bottle; 2. valve; 3. lique­
fied gas booster; 4. upstream temperature sensor; 5.
upstream pressure sensor; 6. incubator 7. bottom
plate; 8. top plate; 9. confining pressure barrel; 10.
assembled specimen with sensors; 11. downstream
temperature sensor; 12. downstream pressure sensor;
13. gas outlet device; 14. axial pressure controller; 15.
confining pressure controller; 16. data acquisition
and control system; 17. the specimen wrapped with
heat shrinkable tubing; 18. radial displacement
transducer; 19. axial displacement transducer; 20. gas
outlet (the gas inlet is invisible behind the bottom
plate).

3
 Y. Kang et al.

Fig. 3. Axial pressure-axial strain (a), and lateral strain-axial strain (b) curves for the eleven tested specimens.

4
Fig. 4. Schematic demonstration for determination of Young’s modulus and compressive strength (a), and Poisson’s ratio (b) (the specimen CNSH7-4 is taken, as an example).
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278
Y. Kang et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278

Table 2
Porosity, mechanical parameters, and calculated mechanical brittleness index (BImer).
Specimen Specimen ID Sample Position Porosity (%) Young’s modulus(GPa) Poisson’s ratio Compressive strength (MPa) BImer

1 CNSH9-1 LM4 1.62 15.81 0.133 175 0.63

2 CNSH8-1 LM3 3.57 11.99 0.120 115 0.54
3 CNSH10-1 LM2 3.84 16.06 0.128 205 0.64
4 CNSH7-4 LM1 2.39 26.32 0.323 185 0.65
5 CNSH5-2 WF3 3.40 15.27 0.160 135 0.57
6 CNSH4-2 WF3 / 22.61 0.113 235 0.86
7 CNSH3-1 WF3 3.29 21.92 0.149 215 0.79
8 CHSH-SZS-9 WF3 2.39 21.62 0.120 175 0.82
9 CHSH-SZS-7 WF3 / 13.18 0.108 153 0.59
10 CHSH-SZS-3 WF3 3.68 9.49 0.153 85 0.41
11 CNSH1-4 WF3 1.47 18.64 0.422 121 0.27

Note: WF3 represents Upper Ordovician Wufeng Formation 3rd layer; LM1, LM2 and LM3, LM4 represent Silurian Lower-Longmaxi Formation 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
biozones respectively;/indicates no test data; BImer is the mechanical brittleness of Rickman et al. (2008) defined in equation (1); Confining pressure is kept constant at
5 MPa.

Table 3
Mineral compositions (XRD) (wt.%) and BRMC4 of the eleven tested specimens.
Specimen Specimen ID Sample Position WQ WF WC WD WP WCL WT BRMC4

1 CNSH9-1 LM4 56 2 21 5 3 13 100 0.84

2 CNSH8-1 LM3 51 3 18 6 2 19 100 0.78
3 CNSH10-1 LM2 41 3 31 7 2 15 100 0.82
4 CNSH7-4 LM1 72 2 8 5 1 12 100 0.87
5 CNSH5-2 WF3 18 2 27 41 2 10 100 0.88
6 CNSH4-2 WF3 42 0 34 5 2 17 100 0.81
7 CNSH3-1 WF3 60 0 13 11 3 14 100 0.84
8 CHSH-SZS-9 WF3 64 1 16 8 0 11 100 0.89
9 CHSH-SZS-7 WF3 38 1 23 25 2 12 100 0.87
10 CHSH-SZS-3 WF3 28 1 17 31 2 22 100 0.77
11 CNSH1-4 WF3 25 4 37 10 3 22 100 0.76

Note: WF3, LM1, LM2 and LM3, LM4 have the same meanings as in Table 2; WQ, WF, WC, WD, WP and WCL are the weight, in percentage, of quartz, feldspar, calcite,
dolomite, pyrite and clay (including mainly illite, illite/smectite, chlorite and kaolinite) respectively; WT is the total mineral weight in percentage (¼100%); BRMC4 is
calculated by using equation (4).

Fig. 5. Correlations between Young’s modulus and compressive strength (a), and between mechanical brittleness index (BImer) and compressive strength (b). (r ¼
correlation coefficient; t ¼ computed t-value; tc ¼ tabulated tc value; C.L. ¼ confidence level).

Young’s modulus. The compressive strength is determined as the
maximum axial pressure when the specimen is on failure (Fig. 4a).
Shale porosity and mechanical parameters (including Young’
modulus, Poisson’s ratio and compressive strength) of the eleven tested
specimens are set forth in Table 2. The mechanical brittleness index
(BImer), calculated by using Rickman’s equation (1) for the eleven tested
specimens, is also set forth in Table 2 (Column 7). XRD mineral com­
positions and BRMC4 calculated by using equation (4), of the eleven
specimens, are set forth in Table 3.
3.2. Correlation analysis
Based on data in Tables 2 and 3, correlations between different
variables are analyzed and the significance of r-value (correlation co­
efficient) between any two variables is determined by t-test (Neter et al.,
1988). The test compares computed t-value with tabulated tc by using
the null hypothesis. If the computed t-value is greater than tabulated tc,
the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that r is significant. If the
computed t-value is less than tabulated tc, the null hypothesis is not
rejected, and the correlation is not significant. In this study, a 95%

5
Y. Kang et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278

Fig. 6. Correlation between (WQ þ WF þ WC þ WD)/WT (BRMC4, last column Fig. 7. Correlation between the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm, last
in Table 3) and mechanical brittleness index (BImer, last column in Table 2), and column in Table 6) and the mechanical brittleness index (BImer, last column in
t-test on the correlation (r ¼ correlation coefficient; t ¼ computed t-value; tc ¼ Table 2), and t-test on the correlation. (r ¼ correlation coefficient; t ¼ computed
tabulated tc value; C.L. ¼ confidence level). t-value; tc ¼ tabulated tc value; C.L. ¼ confidence level).

defined in equation (4)) and mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is

Table 4
Bulk modulus of different brittle minerals (According to Fjaer et al., 2008). shown in Fig. 6. The correlation between (WQ þ WF þ WC þ WD)/WT and
the mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is not statistically significant
Brittle mineral Quartz Feldspar Calcite Dolomite
(the computed t-value of 2.20, is less than tabulated tc value of 2.26).
Bulk modulus (GPa) 37.5 76 74 76–95 This implies that the use of BRMC4 as a mineralogical brittleness index is
questionable. A new mineralogical brittleness index, expressed as a
function of brittle minerals with respective weighting coefficients
Table 5 determined by the bulk modulus of the different brittle minerals will be
Weighting coefficients of different brittle minerals in respect to shale brittleness, proposed in the following.
when quartz is assigned arbitrarily a value of 1.
Brittle mineral Quartz Feldspar Calcite Dolomite 4. New mineralogical brittleness index and case study
Weighting coefficient 1 0.49 0.51 0.39–0.49/0.44
4.1. New mineralogical brittleness index

confidence level (C.L.) is chosen for the t-test. The statistical correlations
are discussed below.
The correlation between Young’s modulus and compressive strength
is shown in Fig. 5a. Young’s modulus is positively correlated to
compressive strength with a correlation coefficient of 0.71. This positive
relationship may be stable with different confining pressures (Rybacki
et al., 2015). The correlation between mechanical brittleness index
(BImer) and compressive stress is shown in Fig. 5b. The mechanical
brittleness index (BImer) is highly correlated to compressive strength
with a correlation coefficient of 0.83, implying that stronger rocks are
more brittle. Note that the mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is a
composite parameter of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The cor­
relations shown in Fig. 5 are consistent with the relationships between
mechanical parameters found by previous studies (for example, Rybacki
et al., 2015), demonstrating that our mechanical test results are reliable.
The correlation between (WQ þ WF þ WC þ WD)/WT (i.e., BRMC4
As shown above, the simple sum of brittle minerals, i.e., (WQ þ WF þ
WC þ WD)/WT, is not significantly correlated to the mechanical brit­
tleness index (BImer) (Fig. 6). It may be necessary to differentiate the unit
weight contribution of different brittle minerals, to the brittleness of the
whole rock. In fact, different brittle minerals have their proper me­
chanical properties, such as bulk modulus and shear modulus (Fjaer
et al., 2008), resulting in different mineral brittleness. The bulk modulus
is selected as the most representative parameter in this respect, since
deformation and fractures take place in 3D space either in laboratory
tests or in hydraulic fracturing practice. The bulk modulus of the four
brittle minerals (quartz, feldspar, calcite and dolomite) mostly found in
shales are set forth in Table 4. The data in Table 4 are taken from Fjaer
et al. (2008, their Table A3).
As can be seen, in Table 4, quartz has the smallest bulk modulus in
comparison with other three brittle minerals. The bulk modulus of
quartz is about half of the bulk modulus of the other three brittle

Table 6
New mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) calculated by using equation (6) for the eleven tested specimens.
Specimen Specimen ID Sample Position WQ/WT WF/WT WC/WT WD/WT BIbm

1 CNSH9-1 LM4 0.56 0.02 0.21 0.05 0.70

2 CNSH8-1 LM3 0.51 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.64
3 CNSH10-1 LM2 0.41 0.03 0.31 0.07 0.61
4 CNSH7-4 LM1 0.72 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.79
5 CNSH5-2 WF3 0.18 0.02 0.27 0.41 0.51
6 CNSH4-2 WF3 0.42 0.00 0.34 0.05 0.62
7 CNSH3-1 WF3 0.60 0.00 0.13 0.11 0.71
8 CHSH-SZS-9 WF3 0.64 0.01 0.16 0.08 0.76
9 CHSH-SZS-7 WF3 0.38 0.01 0.23 0.25 0.61
10 CHSH-SZS-3 WF3 0.28 0.01 0.17 0.31 0.51
11 CNSH1-4 WF3 0.25 0.04 0.37 0.10 0.50

Note:BIbm is the new mineralogical brittleness index calculated by using equation (6); all other terms have the same meanings as in Table 3.

6
Y. Kang et al.
minerals. Quartz is thus the most brittle mineral. In comparison, the
other three brittle minerals are much less brittle than quartz. A new
mineralogical brittleness index expressed as a function of weighting
brittle minerals, can be written as:
BIbm ¼ (CQ � WQ þ CF � WF þ CC � WC þ CD � WD)/WT
where the new mineralogical brittleness index is noted as BIbm, with the
subscript “bm” referring to brittle minerals; CQ, CF, CC and CD are the
weighting coefficient, in respect to shale brittleness, of quartz, feldspar,
calcite and dolomite, respectively; WQ, WF, WC and WD are the weights
of quartz, feldspar, calcite, and dolomite, respectively; and, WT is the
total mineral weight.
The weighting coefficients CQ, CF, CC and CD in equation (5) can be
assigned based on the observation that feldspar, calcite and dolomite
have higher bulk modulus in comparison with quartz (Table 4), resulting
in lower mineral brittleness. If a weighting coefficient 1 is arbitrarily
assigned to quartz, then the weighting coefficients of other brittle
minerals can be determined as the ratio of bulk modulus of quartz versus
that of these three brittle minerals (Table 5).
Equation (5) is thus rewritten, with weighting coefficients given in
Table 5, as:
BIbm ¼ (WQþ0.49 � WFþ0.51 � WCþ0.44 � WD)/WT
where all variables have the same meanings as in equation (5).
In equation (6), an average weighting coefficient of 0.44 in Table 5
for dolomite is taken. One can take a specified weighting coefficient for
dolomite according to the bulk modulus of this brittle mineral measured
in a special application case. By using equation (6), the new mineral­
ogical brittleness index (BIbm) of the tested specimens is calculated
(Table 6). Fig. 7 shows the correlation between the new mineralogical
Fig. 8. Correlation between different brittleness indexes (BImer, BRMC4, and BIbm), and hydraulic fracture interval detected through RST logging surveillance in
vertical well A (well location see Fig. 1).
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278
brittleness index (BIbm) and the mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is
statistically significant (the computed t-value of 2.79, is greater than
tabulated tc value of 2.26). It means that the new mineralogical brit­
tleness index (BIbm) defined in equation (6) can be a useful tool in
quantifying shale brittleness.
(5)
Note that the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) defined in
equation (6) is a relative index since the weighting coefficient of quartz
is arbitrarily assigned to be 1 (Table 5). However, it can be verified that
no matter what value is assigned to the weighting coefficient of quartz as
a starting point, the correlation between the new mineralogical brittle­
ness index (BIbm) and the mechanical brittleness index (BImer), shown in
Fig. 7, keeps exactly the same. The new mineralogical brittleness index
(BIbm) has determinant weighting coefficients for different brittle min­
erals once an arbitrary coefficient is assigned to quartz, thus facilitating
its practical use. A weighting coefficient of 1 is preferential to be
assigned to quartz, because it assures the new mineralogical brittleness
index (BIbm) falling in the range of (0, 1), which is a common character
of this kind of indexes. The new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) is
thus robust to characterize shale brittleness.
5. Discussion
(6) In laboratory tests, shale mechanical parameters are influenced by
shale porosity, mineral compositions, confining pressure, temperature,
strain rate and water content and bedding orientation (Rybacki et al.,
2015.
). A consistent specimen preparation and test procedure for all
specimens were designed in our study: (1) all the shale samples were
taken from the same Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi formations in the same
outcrop area; (2) the shale porosity has a limited range from 1.47% to
3.84% (Table 2), with an average of 2.85%, limiting its influence on
7
Y. Kang et al.
mechanical brittleness index; (3) all shale samples were cored perpen­
dicularly to the bedding planes for specimen preparation; (4) all the
specimens were tested under air-dry conditions at ambient temperature.
(5) the confining pressure was kept axisymmetric constant at 5 MPa with
an axial loading velocity of 0.05 MPa/s. In doing so, the influence of the
brittle minerals on mechanical brittleness index can be revealed
specifically.
In underground conditions the stress is generally under true-triaxial
states (σ1 >σ2 >σ3). True-triaxial experiments on three different shale
rocks from the North American continent, namely the Mancos, Barnett,
and Eagleford, revealed that the intermediate principal stress (σ2)
influences both rock strength as well as failure characteristics (brittle/
ductile). Elevating σ2 above σ3 is found to increase rock strength
(Vachaparampil and Ghassemi, 2017) and thus the mechanical brittle­
ness (referring to Fig. 5b). Shale mechanical brittleness obtained under
axisymmetric confining pressure of 5 MPa in our laboratory tests, may
not be representative of subsurface behavior. However, the mechanical
brittleness index defined in equation (1) is a relative index that com­
pares the more brittle specimens with the less brittle ones, instead of
presenting an absolute brittleness value in subsurface conditions for
each specimen. This relative index is ready for correlation analysis with
BRMC4 and the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm).
The correlation between the new mineralogical brittleness index
(BIbm) and the mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is of 0.68 in Fig. 7.
The correlation is not very strong but statistically significant, implying
BIbm and BImer can be both a brittleness index. The medium correlation
in Fig. 7 may be caused by two reasons: (1) Although a consistent
specimen preparation and test procedure for all specimens were
designed and conducted, the influence of other factors (such as porosity)
on mechanical properties may have not been excluded completely; (2)
Only main brittle minerals including quartz, feldspar, calcite and dolo­
mite are included in equation (6) for calculation of BIbm, the minor
brittle minerals such as mica and pyrite are not taken into account.
However, the medium but statistically significant correlation (0.68)
between BIbm and BImer in Fig. 7 supports the relevant conclusion.
The new mineralogical brittleness index in equation (6), approved by
correlation with the mechanical brittleness index (BImer), can be used
directly to subsurface conditions as a shale brittleness index, because the
mineralogical compositions, specifically, the brittle mineral contents are
not influenced by in-situ stress conditions and/or formation
temperature.
It is well known that limestone has a higher fracture threshold than
shale and serves as a barrier to stimulation (Jarvie et al., 2007; Bruner
and Smosna, 2011). From shale to limestone, the contents of carbonate
minerals (calcite and dolomite) increase and the new mineralogical
brittleness index (BIbm) decreases, because smaller weighting co­
efficients are assigned to carbonate minerals in comparison with
weighting coefficient of quartz in equation (6). The new mineralogical
brittleness index (BIbm) can be thus used to identify limestone barrier, as
will be demonstrated in the following case study.
The weight content of the main brittle minerals (i.e., quartz, feldspar,
calcite and dolomite) in shales can be acquired through logging inter­
pretation with great certainty, due to the latter can be calibrated by large
amount of XRD data available from laboratory. The new mineralogical
brittleness index (BIbm) as a function of weighting brittle minerals pro­
posed in this study has thus large application prospective for quantifying
shale brittleness. With higher mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm), the
shale is more brittle and more complex fracture network can be created
through hydraulic stimulation. The complex fracture network provides
pathway for shale gas flow.
5.1. A case study
Well A in Sichuan Basin, south-western China (well location see
Fig. 1) is a vertical well. The mechanical brittleness index (BImer) is
shown in the left of column 5 (red curve, Fig. 8). The fracture pressure is
8
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278
shown in the right of column 5 (black curve, Fig. 8). The weight of brittle
minerals from logging interpretation is shown in column 6. The BRMC4
(simple sum weight of brittle minerals including quartz, feldspar, calcite
and dolomite), is shown in column 7 (blue curve) in Fig. 8. The new
mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) proposed in this study, is shown in
column 7 (red curve) in Fig. 8.
Two perforation intervals are 4119–4120.5m and 4124.5–4,126 m
(column 9, Fig. 8).
The two perforation intervals were hydraulically fractured together.
Before and after the hydraulic fracturing operation, RST logging was run
in the interval of 3825–4,143 m to detect the hydraulic fracture interval
(column 8, Fig. 8). The SIGM recording contrast before the hydraulic
fracturing (blue curve in column 8, Fig. 8) and after the hydraulic
fracturing (red curve in column 8, Fig. 8), shows that the detected hy­
draulic fracture interval is 4115.5–4,126 m with a height of 10.5 m. The
relative high value interval of mechanical brittleness index (BImer), of
BRMC4 and of the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm), and the
relative low value of fracture pressure, all correspond to the actual
detected hydraulic fracture interval. However, the relative high value
interval of the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) is the most
outstanding and most discernible.
More importantly, at depths below about 4,127 m where no hy­
draulic fracture is detected, the mechanical brittleness index (BImer) and
BRMC4 show, however, relatively high values (high brittleness),
whereas the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) shows relatively
low values (less brittle) indicating rightly limestone barrier. The fracture
pressure (black curve in the right of column 5, Fig. 8) at depths below
about 4,127 m shows relatively high values indicating also limestone
barrier. Note that from 4,127 m to deeper, shale lithofacies change
gradually to limestone lithofacies. The new mineralogical brittleness
index (BIbm) shows low values and indicates limestone barrier.
6. Conclusion
Shale brittleness is an important parameter for evaluating shale
reservoirs. We have performed the correlation analysis between triaxial
test and XRD results of shale samples from Wufeng-Longmaxi Forma­
tions in Sichuan Basin. From this study, we draw the following
conclusions.
(1) The correlation analysis of the test data indicates that the simple
sum of brittle minerals (BRMC4) is not statistically correlated to
the mechanical brittleness index (BImer). BRMC4 may be a ques­
tionable estimator of shale brittleness.
(2) Considering the bulk modulus of different brittle minerals, a new
mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm), expressed as a function of
weighting brittle minerals with different weighting coefficients,
is developed. The new index is statistically correlated to the
mechanical brittleness index (BImer).
(3) The new mineralogical brittleness index in equation (6), can be
used directly to subsurface conditions as a shale brittleness index,
because the mineralogical compositions, specifically, the brittle
mineral contents are not influenced by in-situ stress conditions
and/or formation temperature.
(4) The new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) was applied to a
case study for its effectiveness in characterizing shale brittleness.
Because of a large amount of XRD data available from laboratory
for calibrating the logging interpretation of mineralogical com­
positions, the new mineralogical brittleness index (BIbm) has
large application prospective and its application has proved to be
valuable for developing the studied shale gas reservoirs.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Y. Kang et al.
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yongshang Kang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding
acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Valida­
tion, Writing - review & editing. Chunjiang Shang: Data curation,
Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Hao Zhou: Data
curation, Resources, Methodology, Formal analysis. Yi Huang: Data
curation, Resources, Methodology, Software. Qun Zhao: Formal anal­
ysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources. Ze Deng: Formal
analysis, Methodology, Investigation. Hongyan Wang: Funding acqui­
sition, Methodology. Yuan Zee Ma: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgement
This work was financially sponsored by Chinese National Science
and Technology Major Project (2017ZX05035004-
003,2017ZX05035003-003 and 2016ZX05041001). The authors would
like to thank all of the group members for providing valuable advice to
accomplish this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103278.
References
Altindag, R., 2002. The evaluation of rock brittleness concept on rotary blast hole drills.
J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall 102 (1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02822606.
Bruner, K.R., Smosna, R., 2011. A comparative study of the Mississippian Barnett shale,
fort worth basin, and Devonian Marcellus shale, Appalachian basin. Natl. Energy
Technol. Labo. Rep. DOE/NETL-2011/1478.
Chen, X., Fan, J.X., Zhang, Y.D., Wang, H.Y., Chen, Q., Wang, W.H., Liang, F., Guo, W.,
Zhao, Q., Nie, H.K., Wen, Z.D., Sun, Z.Y., 2015. Subdivision and delineation of the
Wufeng and Longmaxi black shales in the subsurface areas of the Yangtze platform.
J. Stratigr. 39 (4), 351–358. CNKI:SUN:DCXZ.0.2015-04-001.
Chong, K.K., Grieser, W., Passman, A., Tamayo, H.C., Modeland, N., Burke, B.E., 2010.
A completions guide book to shale-play development: a review of successful
approaches toward shale-play stimulation in the last two decades. In: SPE-133874,
Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum
Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/133874-MS. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21
October.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, R., 2008. Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics. In: second ed. Petroleum Science 53. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Developments.
GB/T 31484, 2015. Geological Evaluation Methods for Shale Gas. China National
Standard Press, Beijing. http://www.csres.com/detail/268697.html.
Goktan, R., 1991. Brittleness and micro-scale rock cutting efficiency. Mining Sci. &
Technol. 13 (3), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9031(9)90339-E.
Gong, Q.M., Zhao, J., 2007. Influence of rock brittleness on TBM penetration rate in
Singapore granite. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (3), 317–324. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2006.07.004.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 77 (2020) 103278
Hucka, V., Das, B., 1974. Brittleness determination of rocks by different methods. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 11 (10), 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0148-9062(74)91109-7.
Jarvie, D.M., Hill, R.J., Ruble, T.E., Pollastro, R.M., 2007. Unconventional shale-gas
systems: the Mississippian Barnett shale of north-central Texas as one model for
thermogenic shale-gas assessment. AAPG Bull. 91 (4), 475–499. https://doi.org/
10.1306/12190606068.
Jin, X.C., Shah, S.N., Roegiers, J.C., Zhang, B., 2015. An integrated petrophysics and
geomechanics approach for fracability evaluation in shale reservoirs. SPE J.
518–526. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266671044.
Li, Q.H., Chen, M., Zhou, Y., Jin, Y., Wang, F.P., Zhang, R.X., 2013. Rock mechanical
properties of shale gas reservoir and their influences on hydraulic fracture. March.
In: IPTC-16580, Presented at the 6th International Petroleum Technology
Conference, pp. 26–28. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-16580-MS. Beijing, China.
Liang, F., Wang, H.Y., Bai, W.H., Guo, W., Zhao, Q., Sun, S.S., Zhang, Q., Wu, J., Ma, C.,
Lei, Z.A., 2017. Graptolite correlation and sedimentary characteristics of
Wufeng–Longmaxi shale in southern Sichuan Basin. Nat. Gas. Ind. 37 (7), 20–26.
https://doi.org/10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2017.07.003 (in Chinese with English
abstract).
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Whitmore, G.A., 1988. Applied Statistics, third ed. Allyn and
Bacon Inc., London.
Obert, L., Duvall, W., 1967. Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock. Wiley,
New York.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, J., Grieser, B., Kundert, D., 2008. A practical use of shale
petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale plays are not clones of the
Barnett shale. Denver, Colorado. In: Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, pp. 21–24. September. SPE-115258-MS. DOI：10.2118/
115258-MS.
Rybacki, E., Reinicke, A., Meier, T., Makasi, M., Dresen, G., 2015. What controls the
mechanical properties of shale rocks? – Part I: strength and Young’s modulus.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 135, 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.10.028.
Rybacki, E., Meier, T., Dresen, G., 2016. What controls the mechanical properties of shale
rocks? – part II: Brittleness. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 144, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2016.02.022.
Slatt, R.M., Abousleiman, Y., 2011. Multiscale, brittle-ductile couplets in unconventional
gas shales: merging sequence stratigraphy and geomechanics. Article 80181.
Houston, Texas. In: Presented at the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition,
pp. 10–13. April. http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2011
/annual/abstracts/Slatt2.html.
Vachaparampil, A., Ghassemi, A., 2017. Failure characteristics of three shales under true-
triaxial compression. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 100, 151–159. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2017.10.018.
Wang, F., Gale, J., 2009. Screening criteria for shale-gas systems. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol.
Soc. Trans. 59, 779–793. http://archives.datapages.com/data/gcags_pd
f/2009/WangGale.pdf.
Xiang, K., Yan, L.J., Hu, H., Hu, W.B., Tang, X.G., Liu, X.J., 2016. Relationship analysis
between brittleness index and electrical properties of marine shale in South China.
Geophys. Prospect. Pet. 55 (6), 894–903. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-
1441.2016.06.015 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Zhang, D.C., Ranjith, P.G., Perera, M.S.A., 2016a. The brittleness indices used in rock
mechanics and their application in shale hydraulic fracturing: a review. J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. 143, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.02.011.
Zhang, C.C., Wang, Y.M., Dong, D.Z., Li, X.J., Guan, Q.Z., 2016b. Evaluation of the
Wufeng-Longmaxi shale brittleness and prediction of "sweet spot layers" in the
Sichuan Basin. Nat. Gas. Ind. 36 (9), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.3787/j.issn.1000-
0976.2016.09.006 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Zou, C.N., Dong, D.Z., Wang, Y.M., Li, X.J., Huang, J.L., Wang, S.F., Guan, Q.Z.,
Zhang, C.C., Wang, H.Y., Liu, H.L., Bai, W.H., Liang, F., Lin, W., Zhao, Q., Liu, D.X.,
Yang, Z., Liang, P.P., Sun, S.S., Qiu, Z., 2016. Shale gas in China: characteristics,
challenges and prospects (II). Petrol. Explor. Dev. 43 (2), 166–178. https://doi.org/
10.11698/PED.2016.0202 (in Chinese with English abstract).