energies

Article
Experimental Study of Fracture Propagation:
The Application in Energy Mining
Yuxiang Cheng and Yanjun Zhang *
Construction Engineering College, Jilin University, Ximinzhu Street, Changchun 130000, China;
chengyx16@mails.jlu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: zhangyanj@jlu.edu.cn; Tel.: + 86-1894-314-2020




Received: 14 January 2020; Accepted: 14 March 2020; Published: 18 March 2020


Abstract: Hydraulic fracturing has been widely used in recent years as a key technology to improve
energy mining efficiency in petroleum and geothermal industries. Laboratory hydraulic fracturing
experiments recently were completed in six large-scale 300 × 300 × 300 mm rock specimens to better
understand this complex process of hydraulic fracturing. When injection flow rate increases from 5 to
30 mL/min. The fracture initiation pressures and breakdown pressures increase, the propagation times
and post-fracturing pressures decrease. The fracture geometries are observed and analyzed, mean
injection power is proposed and results show that it could be used to roughly estimate the fracture
total lengths. Moreover, the fracture permeabilities based on the pressure data are calculated and
linearly ascend with the increase of injection flow rates. These results can provide some reasonable
advice for implementing hydraulic fracturing reservoir simulations and improving energy production
efficiency on application to field-scale operation.

Keywords: hydraulic fracturing; injection flow rate; rock; pressure

1. Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has been widely used in recent years as a key technology to improve energy
mining efficiency in petroleum and geothermal industries [1–4]. The environmental impact of hydraulic
fracturing has also gained considerable attention with scientific community and policy makers [5–8].
The hydraulic fracturing process involves drilling a hole deep into a layer of rock [9]. The fluid is
pumped under high pressure into rocks to fracture and enhance the reservoir connectivity [10]. When
conducting hydraulic fracturing stimulation in a field scale reservoir, the fracturing injection flow rate
is an important element to consider [9,11,12]. The injection flow rate and injection pressure are also the
critical operating parameter for the effective design of hydraulic fracturing process [13–15]. At the
same time, reservoirs are deeply buried, making it difficult to carry out in situ hydraulic fracturing
experiments. Thus, it is necessary to use laboratory experiment consequences for aided analysis and
evaluations. The laboratorial hydraulic fracturing experiment usually involves drilling a borehole in a
rock sample, an injection tube is sealed in the hole, and then fluid is injected to induce fractures.
In order to optimize reservoir stimulation, several researchers have conducted studies about the
mechanism of hydraulic fracturing. They have shown that, in the fracture initiation and propagation
process, the flow rate and fluid pressure play important roles [15–27]. Hubbert and Willis [16] first
studied the hydraulic fracturing mechanism, and proposed a stress formula for hydraulic induced
fracture initiation, and they found that fracture and breakdown pressures are affected by the pre-existing
regional stresses. A similar hydraulic fracture initiation criterion was also proposed by Haimson and
Fairhurst [17], they found that the fracture volume was a function of the injection rate. These researchers
also [16–18] found that the fractures propagation direction should be approximately perpendicular to
the direction of least principle stress. Zoback et al. [15] first conducted hydraulic fracturing on cubic

Energies 2020, 13, 1411; doi:10.3390/en13061411 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 1411 2 of 31

intact and pre-fractured rock, and showed that the breakdown process was influenced by the rate
of borehole pressurization. Solberg et al. [19,20] first conducted low-permeability granite hydraulic
fracturing experiment under high temperature with small cylindrical samples, they showed that the
injection flow rate could influence fracture’s patterns, both shear and tension fractures could be initiated
when hydraulic injection pressure was changed. Luke et al. [21] first performed an experimental study
on an intact granite rock reservoir and demonstrate reservoir environment can be created in laboratory,
an intact rock could be hydraulic fractured in an appropriate injection flow rate, acoustic emission
sensors can be used to analyze hydraulic induced fracture propagation, and the reservoir permeability
is obviously increased. Guo et al. [11] showed that breakdown pressure could be used to calculate
the horizontal stresses, and the breakdown pressure was influenced by injection flow rate, in situ
stresses, reservoir size, fracturing fluid, etc. Similar results also were found by other researchers [22–25],
the injection flow rate could influence the hydraulic fracturing pump pressure and fracture patterns.
Fallahzadeh et al. [25] performed hydraulic fracturing tests in 150 mm synthetic cubic samples and
show that with the increasing of flow rate, the initiation angle of fracture increased and resulted
in a more curved plane. Nagel et al. [26] found that a higher injection flow rate trended to create
tensile failure, whereas a lower injection flow rate would create shear fracture. Zhang and Jeffrey [27]
simulated the hydraulic fracturing process through different injection rates and found that constant
injection rate is more possible to create a fracture network than constant injection pressure. These
studies show that the injection flow rate affects the inject pump pressure and fracture propagation of
hydraulic fracturing, it is necessary to conduct large-scale granite laboratorial experiments to study the
hydraulic fracturing characteristics.
Additionally, several numerical simulation studies have also been conducted to numerical
simulation and analyze the fracture creation and propagation mechanism. Al-Busaidi et al. [28]
established hydraulic fracturing numerical models on the basis of a multi-dimensional Particle
Flow Code Model, they simulated the variety of propagation and interactions different kind of
fractures. Weng et al. [29] numerically simulated a pre-existing discrete fracture network with
variable injection-rate methods, their numerical modeling results showed that the combination
of different injection-rate methods is a good technology to form a complex fracturing network.
Rothert and Shapiro [30] proposed a numerical modeling method based on a diffusive process of
pore-pressure relaxation in subcritically stressed rocks and presented the spatio-temporal distributions
of micro-fracture events. Rahman et al. [31] simulated the coupling process of fluid and rock during
hydraulic fracturing through the finite element method. Guo et al. [32] simulated radial hydraulic
propagation and its factors on the propagation of hydraulic fracturing, established a single radial
borehole model. Pakzad et al. [33] proposed a numerical model and predict the behavior of a block
with different permeabilities under different confining stress conditions and pressurization rates.
Although a large number of works have been carried out to analyze the hydraulic fracturing
influencing factors, the results were still inconsistent. Previous studies on large scale hydraulic
fracturing were mostly conducted on artificial cement samples with artificial materials such as cement
mortar, concrete and Perspex [34,35]. Even though some studies used real natural rocks, most of the
experiments used small cylindrical rock samples with 50–60 mm in diameter and 100–120 mm in height
for hydraulic fracturing under a pseudo triaxial confining stress state [36–38]. The tensile and shear
strengths of cement samples were much lower than that of granites. Smaller pressure could trigger the
fracture and form a fracture network. Therefore, even large-sized cement samples were easily fractured
under laboratory conditions. The fracturing results obtained by replacing granite with cement were
probably not consistent with the actual fracturing condition of granite. For small cylindrical or cubic
granite samples, because of the small sample size, the required fracturing pressure was small, and the
formation of the fracture network was also limited. Because of the small size of the specimen, it is
usually difficult to determine the morphology of the fracture changes and the fracturing results are not
in good agreement with the field site fracturing consequences. As a result, these conclusions were
often difficult to apply in field-scale hydraulic fracturing to guide the field scale project.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 3 of 31

Hydraulic fracturing usually relates complicated solid–fluid coupling processes. Due to the
compactness and the low permeability of the granite, an intact large-size granite sample requires a
high fracturing pressure to trigger the fracture. To better understand the characteristics of hydraulic
fracturing process and fracture network after hydraulic fracturing. In this work, we carried out
laboratorial hydraulic fracturing experiments with a true triaxial fracturing apparatus designed by Jilin
University. Its cubic specimen fracturing capsule size is 300 × 300 × 300 mm. The granite samples were
collected from the Songliao Basin petroleum reservoir field in the northeastern part of China. In order
to investigate the injection flow rate on hydraulic fracturing chrematistics, we conducted hydraulic
fracturing tests at different injection flow rates for six rocks. The initiation pressure, breakdown pressure,
post-fracturing pressure, and propagation time were analyzed based on the fracturing pressure curves.
The rock specimens were cut in half after test and the fracture geometry was observed. Based on
recorded pressure data and curves, the fracture permeabilities of all specimens were calculated. Results
in this study could provide some reasonable advice for implementing hydraulic fracturing reservoir
simulations and improving energy production efficiency on application to field-scale operation.

2. Laboratorial Tests

2.1. Background
The granite samples used in this study are taken from a place nearby YS-2 well (Figure 1) in
the Songliao Basin [39]. The YS-2 well (127.25 ◦ E, 52.36 ◦ N) is in the Daqing Oilfield about 78 km
from Daqing City, The YS-2 well is a geothermal energy exploration well, and exploration data shows
that the geothermal resources here are abundant. As large size intact rock samples cannot be gotten
from a wellbore. We use the outcrop rock samples as substitutes (Figure 2a). Three independent
triaxial principal stresses are applied on cube-shaped samples to simulate the real field in-situ stress
conditions, the rocks are cut into 300 × 300 × 300 mm cubes. The outcrops were cut into 300 × 300
× 300 mm cubes (Figure 2b). The mineral composition and basic physical properties of the rock
specimens were measured (Tables 1 and 2). A total of ten small granite samples were used for mineral
composition and rock properties testing. All of these ten samples were rock debris from cutting
outcrops into cube-shaped samples. It meant that the properties and mineral compositions of these ten
samples were the same with the aforementioned six large cubic samples. All of the physical property
and mineral composition tests were conducted in the Environment and Groundwater Resources
Education Ministry Key Laboratory of Jilin University. The rock property testing results were shown
in Table 1, the property range indicated the minimum and maximum in each property test, average
value represented the average property value in each test. Each mineral had a specific X-ray diffraction
spectrum, the characteristic peak intensity in the spectrum was related to the content of minerals,
then the mineral qualitative and quantitative composition could be obtained, the rock debris was
processed into rock powder, and the X-ray diffraction test analysis was conducted to obtain the mineral
compositions which were shown in Table 2.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 4 of 31
Energies 2020,2020,
Energies 13, x 13,
FOR PEERPEER
x FOR REVIEW
REVIEW 4 of 431of 31

FigureFigure
Figure 1.1.
1. The The
The Songliao
Songliao Basin
Songliao Basin
map
Basin map
with
map with
the
with the location
location
the ofof
of the
location the
Daqing
the Daqing Oilfield
Oilfield
Daqing andYS-2
and and
Oilfield YS-2 YS-2well.
well. well.

(a) (a) (b) (b)

Figure
Figure 2. (a)
Figure
2. (a)2.A complete
A(a) outcrop
A complete
complete rockrock
outcrop
outcrop rock sample and (b)
sample
sample and (b) the
and the outcrop
(b)outcrop rockrock
the outcrop
rock sample werewere
sample
sample were cutinto
cut into 300××300
cut 300
into 300× 300
300
× 300 mm
× 300× mm cubes.
300 mm
cubes.cubes.

Table
Table 1. Physical
1.
TablePhysical properties
properties
1. Physical of
of rock
rock
properties samples.
samples.
of rock samples.
Property
Property Property Range
RangeRange Average
Average
AverageValue
Value
Value
Density
Density 1 , ,ρρ(g/cm
Density1 (g/cm
1 3 ))
, ρ (g/cm 3 3 ) 2.4–2.7
2.4–2.7
2.4–2.7 2.5
2.5 2.5
Porosity
Porosity 1 ,1φ
Porosity , ϕ(%)(%)1, ϕ(%) 2.49–4.59
2.49–4.59
2.49–4.59 3.22
3.223.22
Permeability
Permeability
Permeability 1 , ,KK(mD)
1 (mD)
1, K (mD) 0.27–0.52
0.27–0.52
0.27–0.52 0.34
0.340.34
Thermal
Thermal conductivity
conductivity 1 (W·m
1 (W· 1m−1−1·K·K−1
−1
))·K−1) 1.75–3.00
1.75–3.00 2.48
2.482.48
Thermal conductivity (W· m −1 1.75–3.00
Specific
Specific heatheat
Specific 1 (J·kg
1 (J·
heat 1−1
kg −1·
·Kkg
(J· K−1
−1
))·K−1)
−1 709–800
709–800
709–800 736
736736
Poisson's
Poisson’s ratio
ratio 1 ,1,νν 1 0.14–0.35
0.14–0.35 0.280.28
0.28
Poisson's ratio , ν 0.14–0.35
Elastic modulus 1 ,1 E (GPa) 28.11–56.04 39.99
Elastic modulus
Elastic modulus , E (GPa)
1, E (GPa) 28.11–56.04
28.11–56.04 39.99 39.99
shear modulus 1 ,G
1,G(GPa) 10.54–21.84 15.86
shear modulus
shear modulus (GPa)
1,G (GPa) 10.54–21.84
10.54–21.84 15.86 15.86
Shear wave velocity 1 , V (mm/µs) 2.02–2.89 2.47
Shear wave velocity 1, V
Shear wave velocity , Vs (mm/μs) s s 1(mm/μs) 2.02–2.89
2.02–2.89 2.47 2.47
Compression wave velocity 1 ,1 Vp 1(mm/µs) 3.57–5.25 4.45
Compression
Compressionwave wave velocity velocity Vp (mm/μs) 3.57–5.25
, Vp ,(mm/μs) 3.57–5.25 4.45 4.45
Unconfined compression strength, UCS (MPa) N/A 152
Unconfined compression
Unconfined compression strength, UCSUCS (MPa) N/AN/A 152
Brazilian tensile strength 1 , strength, BTS (MPa) (MPa)11.05–24.08 17.14152
Brazilian 11.05–24.08
Sheartensile strength 1, BTS (MPa) 17.14
Brazilian tensile
strength 1 ,strength
SS(MPa)
1, BTS 11.05–24.08
(MPa) 20.00–27.00 22.6017.14
Shear strength
Shear 1
strength
Cohesive force , C0 (MPa)
1 , SS(MPa)
1, SS(MPa) 20.00–27.00
20.00–27.00
10.19–13.75 22.60
11.7122.60
Cohesive force 1, C 1(MPa) 1 ◦ 10.19–13.75 11.71
The angle ofCohesive
internalforce friction 0 , C0 ,(MPa) ϕ( ) 10.19–13.75
48.3–49.4 48.911.71
The The
angle of1 internal friction tests, φ (°) 48.3–49.4 48.9 48.9
1 1, φ (°)
angle of internal
Data includes friction performed by the 48.3–49.4
authors.
1Data includes tests tests
performed by the
1 Data includes performed byauthors
the authors
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 5 of 31

Table 2. Mineral composition of rock samples.

Mineral Composition Value

Quartz 0.35
Potash Feldspar 0.23
Plagioclase 0.30
Others 0.12

2.2. Rock Sample Preparation

The following procedures used for the preparation of rock sample were shown in Figure 3: (1) The
rocks were cut into 300 × 300 × 300 mm cubes with a perpendicularity of ±1◦ , surface tolerance of
±1 mm, the ones with higher homogeneity and more intact ones are preferred; (2) A borehole was
drilled in the center of the rock’s surface, with the depth of 150 mm, and the wellbore bottom was in
the center of the rock sample; (3) the wellbore was drilled at 700 rpm using a 15 mm masonry drill
bit, to prevent drilling caused micro cracks around the wellbore, drilling was began as soon as the
sample was removed from the water bath; (4) After the drilling, distilled water was used to flush
the borehole until cleaning up all the rock debris in the borehole; (5) After the distilled water in the
wellbore completely evaporated and the wellbore wall was dry, the epoxy grout resin adhesive was
injected into the wellbore; (6) The water injection tube (Figure 3c) was a hollow stainless steel tube
with a 10 mm outside diameter, a 160mm length, the tube was slightly roughened to provide a better
bond between the tube, adhesive and rock and the maximum internal pressure that the tube could
withstand is 60 MPa; (7) The injection tube was design to have two side holes for fluid to flow through
to fracture the rock near the bottom; (8) A transparent plastic was sealed on the side holes to prevent
the adhesive flowing into the injection tube, then the tube was pressed into the wellbore to be glued,
150 mm of the tube was stuck into the rock sample, the transparent plastic prevented adhesive flowing
into the tube; (9) 10 mm of the tube, as a water injection hole, was exposed outside the rock sample,
then water flowed into the rock through the exposed part, when the water was pressured into the tube,
the plastic fails, and water flowed into the rock; (10) After the injection tube and rock were glued,
they were placed at room temperature for more than 48 hours, so that the tube and the rock were
completely bonded.
Due to the compactness and the low permeability of the granite, an intact large-size granite
sample requires a high fracturing pressure to trigger the fracture. The main difficulty in the experiment
is how to seal the well tube and the rock. We need ensure the adhesive has sufficient resistance to
high injection pressure. The adhesive strength should be much higher than the maximum fracturing
pressure, and the glue needs to completely wrap the injection tube, there is no adhesive weak point
around the injection tube, the colloidal properties are stable at high temperature, and all the injected
water will be forced into the rock during the fracturing process.
In order to make the epoxy grout resin adhesive better glue the tube and withstand higher water
pressure. After many experiments, we find a gluing process, which can guarantee sufficient adhesive
strength between the wellbore and tube. Some matters for attention are put forward: (1) After the well
is drilled, the rock debris may be left in the well, to prevent the adhesive weak point because of the rock
debris, the inside wall of the wellbore must be washed by distilled water, the tube can be glued after the
water in the wellbore is completely dry; (2) The wellbore diameter is slightly larger than the injection
tube outside diameter, a narrow annulus (about 2 mm) between the wellbore and tube is considered for
the placement of adhesive, there will be enough space for the adhesive filling the annulus, the tube can
be completely wrapped by the adhesive, the narrow annulus also could not only minimize the effect of
adhesive on stress distribution in tube and wellbore, but also provide enough bond stress to prevent
water leakage from the annulus during hydraulic fracturing under triaxial stresses; and (3) The usual
method to glue the tube is to apply the adhesive around the tube, then the tube is inserted into the
wellbore, during the whole process, the adhesive around the tube is easy to touch the inside wall of
the wellbore, forming weak bond points. As a result, the adhesive cannot withstand high pressure,
 bond between the tube, adhesive and rock and the maximum internal pressure that the tube could
withstand is 60 MPa; (7) The injection tube was design to have two side holes for fluid to flow through
to fracture the rock near the bottom; (8) A transparent plastic was sealed on the side holes to prevent
the adhesive flowing into the injection tube, then the tube was pressed into the wellbore to be glued,
150 mm2020,
Energies of 13,
the1411
tube was stuck into the rock sample, the transparent plastic prevented adhesive 6 of 31
flowing into the tube; (9) 10 mm of the tube, as a water injection hole, was exposed outside the rock
sample, then water flowed into the rock through the exposed part, when the water was pressured
the water
into maythe
the tube, flow out along
plastic annulus,
fails, and waterand no fractured
flowed into the is induced.
rock; Hence
(10) After thewe propose
injection an improved
tube and rock
were glued, they were placed at room temperature for more than 48 hours, so that the tube between
adhesive method. The adhesive has high viscosity and is not easy to fill and seal the annulus and the
the tube
rock wereand wellbore.bonded.
completely To resolve this problem, initially the adhesive is put into a syringe with a long
needle.
DueThe needle
to the should be longer
compactness and the than
lowthe depth of theof
permeability wellbore. The adhesive
the granite, an intact islarge-size
carefully granite
injected
from the wellbore bottom, as the adhesive rises, the syringe is gradually
sample requires a high fracturing pressure to trigger the fracture. The main difficulty in the lifted until there is enough
adhesive inisthe
experiment how wellbore.
to seal Then
the wellthe tube
tube and
is slowly inserted
the rock. into the
We need wellbore,
ensure firmly pushed
the adhesive against
has sufficient
resistance to high injection pressure. The adhesive strength should be much higher than from
the bottom of the wellbore for bonding, the adhesive flowed upward and out of the wellbore the
the annulus, filling the whole space between tube and wellbore and the excess
maximum fracturing pressure, and the glue needs to completely wrap the injection tube, there is no adhesive is wiped off.
The upward flow adhesive ensures that there is no air bubble left in the narrow annulus
adhesive weak point around the injection tube, the colloidal properties are stable at high temperature, and the sealing
of the
and alldried adhesive
the injected is consequently
water will be forced guaranteed.
into the rock during the fracturing process.

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) (b) 6 of 31

(c) (d)
FigureFigure
3. Rock 3. sample preparation:
Rock sample (a) Drilling
preparation: the borehole;
(a) Drilling (b) a rock
the borehole; (b) asample after drilling
rock sample the the
after drilling
borehole; (c) the(c)
borehole; water injection
the water tube; and
injection tube;(d) a prepared
and rock sample.
(d) a prepared rock sample.

2.3.
In Hydraulic
order to make Fractruing
the epoxy Experimential Equipmentbetter glue the tube and withstand higher water
grout resin adhesive
pressure. After many
The tests experiments,
were conductedwe onfind a gluing process,
a true-triaxial which
hydraulic can guarantee
fracturing apparatus sufficient
that wasadhesive
developed by
strength between
Jiangsu the wellbore
Nantong Petroleum andInstrument
tube. Some matters
Co. forthe
Ltd and attention are putand
Environment forward: (1) AfterResources
Groundwater the
well isEducation
drilled, the rock debris may be left in the well, to prevent the adhesive weak point because
Ministry Key Laboratory in Jilin University. The fracturing apparatus has two advantages, of
the rock
onedebris,
that itthe
hasinside wall of
a heating the wellbore
device to providemust be washed high
temperature by distilled
enoughwater, the tubethe
to simulate canenhanced
be
gluedgeothermal
after the water in the wellbore is completely dry; (2) The wellbore diameter is slightly
system (EGS) temperature environment, the other one is that it could provide triaxial larger
than the injection
principal tube outside
to simulate in situdiameter,
stresses. Thea narrow annulus
apparatus main(about 2mm) between
components are shownthe in wellbore
Figure 4. Itand
consists
tube isofconsidered for the placement
four sub-systems: of adhesive,
a water injection there
system, a will be enough
heating system,space forframework
a steel the adhesiveand filling
confining
the annulus,
pressurethe tube can
system, andbeacompletely wrapped
computer monitor by the adhesive, the narrow annulus also could not
system.
only minimize the effect of adhesive on stress distribution in tube and wellbore, but also provide
enough bond stress to prevent water leakage from the annulus during hydraulic fracturing under
triaxial stresses; and (3) The usual method to glue the tube is to apply the adhesive around the tube,
then the tube is inserted into the wellbore, during the whole process, the adhesive around the tube is
easy to touch the inside wall of the wellbore, forming weak bond points. As a result, the adhesive
cannot withstand high pressure, the water may flow out along annulus, and no fractured is induced.
Hence we propose an improved adhesive method. The adhesive has high viscosity and is not easy to
fill and seal the annulus between the tube and wellbore. To resolve this problem, initially the adhesive
 installed on the frame body can give approximately 2400 W heating capacity. Two additional 1000 W
heating element is installed on two side of framework. The heating system allows different
temperature set-points for the insulation can and fracturing capsule. The insulation can enclose the
whole framework during heated, it will improve safety and reduce thermal losses. The computer
Energies
monitor 13, 1411 could monitor the hydraulic fracturing pressure, rock sample temperature
2020,system 7 ofand
31

control the injection flow rate.

(a)

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW (b) 8 of 31

(c)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. The
The true-triaxial
true-triaxial hydraulic
hydraulic fracturing
fracturing apparatus:
apparatus: (a)
(a) the
the water
water injection
injection system;
system; (b)
(b) the
the steel
steel
framework, confining pressure system, and the heating system; (c) the fracturing capsule.
framework, confining pressure system, and the heating system; (c) the fracturing capsule.

The water injection

2.4. Experimental Set-Up system consists of four syringe pumps, they can provide a maximum injection
flow rate of 30 mL/min, and a maximum pressure up to 80 MPa. The steel framework and confining
This study aims to investigate the influence of the fracturing fluid flow rate on the fracture
pressure system consists of a steel framework with minimum yield of 60 MPa, three square flat jacks
initiation, propagation geometry and permeability. Therefore, to ensure the stress regime will not
and a control panel. The steel framework contains a fracturing capsule that could support a cubical
influence the tests’ results, the same principal stress was applied on all specimens. Consequently, a
rock sample no larger than 300 × 300 × 300 mm. The three square flat jacks are placed in the three
maximum principal stress (σ1) of 12 MPa, an intermediate principal stress (σ2) of 8 MPa, and a
minimum principal stress (σ3) of 4 MPa were exerted on all samples. Such stresses will represent the
in-situ stress regime of σ1 > σ2 > σ3.
When hydraulic fracturing, the water fracturing pressure is usually between 10 and 40 MPa. The
key to the success of this experiment is to ensure the sealing of the water outlet hole (Figure 5a) on
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 8 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 31

directions of the fracturing capsule and could provide three independent stresses, the independent
orthogonal stresses applied on the three directions are used to simulate the underground in-situ stresses
when a rock sample is buried underground. The flat jacks directly load and contact with sample
faces, the framework is used as the opposing reaction faces, and hence flat jack and framework are the
active and passive face, respectively. Each flat jack is pressurized and load through an independent oil
syringe pump, the pressure data is recorded by the computer system. The face of square flat jack is
5 mm smaller than the sample face on each side. This will ensure that the adjacent square flat jacks
will not come into contact to prevent jamming in loading stage. The heating system can heat the
sample to a maximum temperature of 150 ◦ C. The heating system is provided by three electrical heated
elements. Two are installed on the top of the internal surface of the frame, and one is installed on
the bottom of the fracturing capsule. Two 1200 W heating elements installed on the frame body can
give approximately 2400 W heating capacity. Two additional 1000 W heating element is installed on
two side of framework. The heating system allows different temperature set-points for the insulation
can and fracturing capsule. The insulation can enclose (c) the whole framework during heated, it will
improve safety and reduce thermal losses. The computer monitor system could monitor the hydraulic
Figure 4. The true-triaxial hydraulic fracturing apparatus: (a) the water injection system; (b) the steel
fracturing pressure, rock sample temperature and control the injection flow rate.
framework, confining pressure system, and the heating system; (c) the fracturing capsule.

2.4. Experimental Set-Up

2.4. Experimental Set-Up
This study aims to investigate the influence of the fracturing fluid flow rate on the fracture
This study aims to investigate the influence of the fracturing fluid flow rate on the fracture
initiation, propagation geometry and permeability. Therefore, to ensure the stress regime will not
initiation, propagation geometry and permeability. Therefore, to ensure the stress regime will not
influence the tests’ results, the same principal stress was applied on all specimens. Consequently,
influence the tests’ results, the same principal stress was applied on all specimens. Consequently, a
a maximum principal stress (σ1 ) of 12 MPa, an intermediate principal stress (σ2 ) of 8 MPa, and a
maximum principal stress (σ1) of 12 MPa, an intermediate principal stress (σ2) of 8 MPa, and a
minimum principal stress (σ3 ) of 4 MPa were exerted on all samples. Such stresses will represent the
minimum principal stress (σ3) of 4 MPa were exerted on all samples. Such stresses will represent the
in-situ stress regime of σ1 > σ2 > σ3 .
in-situ stress regime of σ1 > σ2 > σ3.
When hydraulic fracturing, the water fracturing pressure is usually between 10 and 40 MPa.
When hydraulic fracturing, the water fracturing pressure is usually between 10 and 40 MPa. The
The key to the success of this experiment is to ensure the sealing of the water outlet hole (Figure 5a)
key to the success of this experiment is to ensure the sealing of the water outlet hole (Figure 5a) on
on the flat jack and the water inlet of the injection tube. Otherwise, the water will flow out from the
the flat jack and the water inlet of the injection tube. Otherwise, the water will flow out from the
connection of the flat jack and the injection tube without fracturing the rock sample. As the water
connection of the flat jack and the injection tube without fracturing the rock sample. As the water
outlet on the flat jack is slightly larger than the water inlet of the injection tube, to prevent fluid leakage,
outlet on the flat jack is slightly larger than the water inlet of the injection tube, to prevent fluid
a rubber ring (Figure 5b) is sleeved on the injection tube head and the Poly Tetra Fluoroethylene (PTFE)
leakage, a rubber ring (Figure 5b) is sleeved on the injection tube head and the Poly Tetra
sealing tape (Figure 5b) was wrapped on the outside of the rubber ring.
Fluoroethylene (PTFE) sealing tape (Figure 5b) was wrapped on the outside of the rubber ring.

(a) (b)
Figure 5.
5. (a) The water
water outlet
outlet hole
holein
inthe
theflat
flatjack;
jack;(b)
(b)the
thewater
waterinlet
inletononthe
the rock,
rock, thethe black
black color
color ring
ring is
is the
the rubber
rubber ring,
ring, andand
thethe white
white color
color wrapped
wrapped thethe black
black color
color is the
is the PTFEPTFE sealing
sealing tape.
tape.

In an
an ideal
ideal circumstance,
circumstance, hydraulic
hydraulic fracture should
should propagate
propagate perpendicular
perpendicular to the
the minimum
minimum
principle
principle stress which
which is
is the
the preferred
preferred fracture
fracture direction
direction (PFD)
(PFD) [40].
[40]. Hence,
Hence, each
each testing
testing sample was
placed
placed in
in the
the fracturing capsule in a way that the wellbore axis was along the intermediate principal
stress direction, and, the maximum and the minimum principal stress were set perpendicular to the
wellbore
wellbore axis.
axis. This method makes it easy to observe relationship among the fractures, the maximum
and the minimum principal stress when the sample is cut in half perpendicular to the wellbore axis,
Figure 6 shows the sample was installed in the fracturing capsule.
 It should be noteworthy that the triaxial principal stresses were applied in four steps. Firstly, the
intermediate principal stress was increased to the minimum principal stress. This procedure would
ensure the exposed part of the injection tube is insert into the water outlet hole on the flat jack. Then
the other two stresses were applied to the minimum principal stress magnitude. At this time, the
Energies
minimum 13, 1411syringe pump was set on a constant value. Next, the intermediate and the maximum
2020, stress 9 of 31
stress were applied to the intermediate principal stress regime, and their corresponding pumps were
set as the intermediate stress. At last stage, the maximum principal stress was applied to maximum
and the minimum principal stress when the sample is cut in half perpendicular to the wellbore axis,
stress and then the maximum stress syringe pump was set as constant. This stress load method was
Figure 6 shows the sample was installed in the fracturing capsule.
applied to all experiments.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. A rock sample is put into the fracturing capsule: (a) The rock sample is not put into the
Figure 6.
capsule; (b)AArock
rocksample
sample is
wasput into the
putting fracturing
in to capsule:
the fracturing (a) The
capsule; rockrock
(c) The sample is not
sample put into the
is push the
capsule; (b)
fracturing A rockand
capsule; sample was putting
(d) Three in to
directions the fracturing
confining capsule;
stresses (c) The rock sample is push into
are applied.
the fracturing capsule; and (d) Three directions confining stresses are applied.
It should be noteworthy that the triaxial principal stresses were applied in four steps. Firstly,
the
2.5.intermediate
Experimentalprincipal
Process stress was increased to the minimum principal stress. This procedure would
ensure the exposed part of the injection tube is insert into the water outlet hole on the flat jack. Then the
Samples were put into a cubic capsule and the triaxial confining stresses were applied. The
other two stresses were applied to the minimum principal stress magnitude. At this time, the minimum
triaxial confining pressure represents the in-situ stress. It is important to wrap the water in the
stress syringe pump was set on a constant value. Next, the intermediate and the maximum stress were
wellbore after drilling and install the sample properly for the experiment success. Distilled water as
applied to the intermediate principal stress regime, and their corresponding pumps were set as the
the fracturing fluid was used to examine the effects of fracturing fluid flow rate on the fracturing
intermediate stress. At last stage, the maximum principal stress was applied to maximum stress and
pressures and propagation geometry. Six granite samples were test under 150 °C, and for each test
then the maximum stress syringe pump was set as constant. This stress load method was applied to
the fluid is injected under a constant flow rate, the flow rate in different experiment ranges from 5 to
all experiments.
30 mL/min. During the testing, fracturing pressures were recorded.
Experimental
2.5. Experimental procedures: (1) The apparatus was checked; (2) The rock sample was placed into
Process
the fracturing capsule; (3) Oil was pumped into syringe pump, triaxial stresses were applied to the
rockSamples
sample atwere putofinto
a rate a cubic capsule
0.3 MPa/s, and the
and to ensure thetriaxial confining
rock was stresses before
not damaged were applied. The triaxial
the fracturing fluid
confining pressure
was injected, represents
the three the pressure
principle in-situ stress.
data It
wasis important
displayed to onwrap the watermonitor
the computer in the wellbore after
in real-time;
drilling and install
(4) The heating the sample
system properly
was turned on tofor thethe
heat experiment
rock sample, success. Distilled
the rock samplewater
was as the fracturing
heated to 150 °C
fluid was used to examine the effects of fracturing fluid flow rate on the fracturing
and the temperature is maintained for 5 hours to ensure that the whole rock has reached the target pressures and
propagation ◦
temperature;geometry.
(5) AfterSix granite
the rock samples were was
temperature test under 150 C,
stabilized, and for the
through eachwater
test the fluid is injected
injection syringe
under a constant flow rate, the flow rate in different experiment ranges from 5 to
pumps, water was injected via the tube for fracturing, the injection flow rate was set as constant 30 mL/min. Duringin
the testing, fracturing pressures were recorded.
each test, six injection flow rate were chosen (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mL/min); (6) When a large
Experimental procedures: (1) The apparatus was checked; (2) The rock sample was placed into
the fracturing capsule; (3) Oil was pumped into syringe pump, triaxial stresses were applied to the rock
sample at a rate of 0.3 MPa/s, and to ensure the rock was not damaged before the fracturing fluid was
injected, the three principle pressure data was displayed on the computer monitor in real-time; (4) The
heating system was turned on to heat the rock sample, the rock sample was heated to 150 ◦ C and the
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 10 of 31

temperature is maintained for 5 hours to ensure that the whole rock has reached the target temperature;
(5) After the rock temperature was stabilized, through the water injection syringe pumps, water was
injected via the tube for fracturing, the injection flow rate was set as constant in each test, six injection
flow rate were chosen (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mL/min); (6) When a large amount of water flowed
out of the fracturing capsule, the fracturing pressure was not change and reached an equilibrium
state, we considered hydraulic fracturing was completed, water injecting syringe pump was turn
off; (7) The triaxial stresses were released, the stress release process was the same as the applying
process, the maximum principal pressure was decreased to the intermediate principal pressure, next the
intermediate and the maximum pressure were decreased to the minimum principal pressure, last the
three principal pressures were released to zero; (8) The rock sample was taken out from the fracturing
capsule, the fractures were observed and recorded immediately, the condition of water flowing out
from the fractures could be clearly seen, water flowed out of rock sample along the fractures; (9) The
rock specimens were cut in half to observe fractures; (10) Fractures were marked by a marker pen,
and photographs were taken for recording; and (11) The experiment data is analyzed.

2.6. Experimental Uncertainty

The uncertainties were mainly caused by measuring accuracy of hydraulic pressure, injection flow
rate and fracture size. The fracture length was measured by Vernier calipers with accuracy of ±0.02 mm.
The hydraulic pressure is measured with ±0.1 % accuracy in a range of 80 MPa. The injection flow
rates is measured with ±1 % accuracy in a range of 30 mL/min.

3. Results
Hydraulic fracturing experiments were conducted on six 300 × 300 × 300 mm cubic granite
samples. These experiments involved the injection flow rates from 5 to 30 mL/min with heated
temperature of 150 ◦ C (The 150 ◦ C is the maximum temperature the heating system could provide).
A confining pressure regime was maintained in the whole testing process on all six samples, where
σ1 = 12 MPa, σ2 = 8 MPa, and σ3 = 4 MPa. The wellbore, adhesive and perforation were processed
with repeatability to make sure that each sample would be near identical when the fracturing stress
applied by the high-pressure fracturing fluid. The triaxial confining stresses were applied slowly with
significant level of care and caution to prevent stressing fractures in the loading process. This makes
it possible to control most of the variables present in the experiment and to accurately monitor and
study the effect of changing the flow rate of fracturing fluid injection Table 3 presents the fracturing
parameters of the experiments.

Table 3. Fracturing experimental parameters and results.

Test Injection Flow Initiation Breakdown (Maximum) Post-Fracturing Propagation

No. Rate (mL/min) Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa) Time (s)
1 5 21.06 22.12 11.20 613
2 10 22.95 24.68 12.69 498
3 15 25.61 27.65 11.27 447
4 20 27.91 30.06 9.97 343
5 25 28.71 34.10 7.68 220
6 30 32.52 36.01 3.11 88

At the end of each test, the sample was then taken out from the fracturing capsule after the
triaxial confining stresses were released to atmospheric pressure. The fractures on the sample were
photographed and marked (Figure 7a). Then the samples were carefully cut in half (Figure 7b).
The fractures on each half were then photographed to analyze the fracture geometries.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 11 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 31

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) The photo of the fractured rock sample, the black lines indicate fractures, red water flows
out of the rock
Figure 7. (a)from
The these
photofractures and (b) rock
of the fractured the cut sample.
sample, the black lines indicate fractures, red water flows
out of the rock from these fractures and (b) the cut sample.
Figure 8a–f shows the fracturing pressure curves and pressurization rate of tests 1–6, where the
hydraulic fracturing
Figure injection
8a–f shows flow rates pressure
the fracturing were 5, 10, 15, 20,
curves and25, and 30 mL/min.
pressurization rate ofThe testsblack
1–6, curves
where the
represent the fracturing pressures. As Figure 8a–f show, all the pressure
hydraulic fracturing injection flow rates were 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mL/min. The black curves curves have similar shapes,
a particular
representpressure–time
the fracturingcurve could As
pressures. be divided into show,
Figure 8a–f four main stages:
all the pressureinitial pressure
curves havedevelopment
similar shapes,
stage, wellbore pressurization
a particular pressure–time stage, curve fracturing stage, and
could be divided intopostfourfailure stage. During
main stages: the initialdevelopment
initial pressure pressure
development
stage, wellbore pressurization stage, fracturing stage, and post failure stage. Duringpipeline.
stage, the fracturing fluid syringe pumped the water into the wellbore through the initial
As the injection
pressure pump wasstage,
development the next room, the water
the fracturing injection
fluid syringe pipeline
pumped thewaswatersomewhat long, andthrough
into the wellbore this
timepipeline.
interval As lasted
the injection pump was the next room, the water injection pipeline was somewhat of
about 130–400 s and ended up when the wellbore was filled of water. At the end long,
thisand
stage, the water
this time interval was just
lasted filling
about the130–400
pipelines andand injection
ended uptube. whenVery the small
wellbore pressure development
was filled of water. At
wasthe
identified,
end of thisand stage,
the pressure
the water curve was keptjustclose to zero
filling (almost horizontal)
the pipeline and injection andtube.unchanged.
Very small After the
pressure
wellbore was completely filled, during the well-bore pressurization
development was identified, and the pressure curve kept close to zero (almost horizontal) and stage, continuously injecting water
intounchanged.
the wellboreAfter resultedthe in the rock was
wellbore around the wellbore
completely bottom
filled, duringto be thepressurized
well-bore and the fracturing
pressurization stage,
pressures started to
continuously quicklywater
injecting build into up with an almostresulted
the wellbore constantin increase
the rock rate. Thenthe
around in the fracturing
wellbore stage,
bottom to be
the pressurized
fractures areand initiated and propagated, new volume is created, the pressure
the fracturing pressures started to quickly build up with an almost constant increase reaches the maximum,
which
rate.isThen
also called breakdown
in the fracturing pressure,
stage, and then
the fractures arehas a largeand
initiated drop. In this stage,
propagated, fracturesiswere
new volume created,
continuously induced by the high fracturing pressure, and new fluid
the pressure reaches the maximum, which is also called breakdown pressure, and then has a large is pressurized in to compensate
the drop.
new fractured
In this stage,volume.
fracturesEvenwere though continuinginduced
continuously to injectionby the water,
high afracturing
large pressure dropand
pressure, wasnew
observed
fluid isbecause of the in
pressurized large amount of new
to compensate thecreated volume volume.
new fractured which was notthough
Even be absolutely
continuingcompensated
to injection
by the new injected water. The maximum pressure is 22.12, 24.68,
water, a large pressure drop was observed because of the large amount of new created volume 27.65, 30.06, 34.10, and 36.01 MPa which
whenwasthenot
injection flow rates
be absolutely were 5, 10,by
compensated 15,the20,new
25, and 30 mL/min,
injected water. The respectively.
maximum It pressure
was shown that the
is 22.12, 24.68,
breakdown pressure
27.65, 30.06, 34.10,increases
and 36.01 with
MPa thewhen
increasethe of injection
injection flowflow rate.were
rates The5,fracturing
10, 15, 20,stage lasted
25, and 30 amL/min,
few
seconds, when the
respectively. fracture
It was shown tip that
reached the sample pressure
the breakdown boundary, the fracturing
increases with the stage reaches
increase to the lastflow
of injection
stage, theThe
rate. post-failure
fracturing stage,
stageand the afluid
lasted fewflows out of
seconds, whenthe sample.
the fracture Eventip though
reached water
the is continuously
sample boundary,
injected into rock sample, the pump pressure did not change. This means
the fracturing stage reaches to the last stage, the post-failure stage, and the fluid flows out of the that the injection pressure
wassample.
now equal Even to though
the water waterflowing frictional pressure
is continuously injectedloss intoalong
rock the created
sample, thefractures,
pump pressureeven if newdid not
injected
change.water
This entered
meansinto thatrockthe body
injectionandpressure
no fracturewaswould
now equalbe created.
to the Thewater injection
flowingpressures
frictionaldo not
pressure
change with time and the wellbore pressures are stable, water flowed
loss along the created fractures, even if new injected water entered into rock body and no fracture out of the rock sample along the
fractures
wouldinto be the fracturing
created. capsule. pressures do not change with time and the wellbore pressures are
The injection
The red
stable, curve
water represents
flowed out ofthe thepressurization
rock sample along rate.theIt could
fractureshelpintoto analyze different
the fracturing stage during
capsule.
the fracture propagation. As shown in Figure 8a–f, a typical pressurization
The red curve represents the pressurization rate. It could help to analyze different stage rate curve could obviousduring
reflect
thedifferent phase duringAs
fracture propagation. fracture
shownpropagation.
in Figure 8a–f, In the initialpressurization
a typical pressure development rate curve phase,
couldasobvious
the
reflect different phase during fracture propagation. In the initial pressure development phase, as the
water only filled the injection tube and the pressure was almost keep at zero, the pressure did not
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 12 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 31

water
changeonly filled
at this the injection
phase tube and the pressure
and the pressurization rate waswas keptalmost
at zero.keepIn at
thezero, the pressure
well-bore did not
pressurization
change at this phase and the pressurization rate was kept at zero. In the
phase, fracturing fluid filled full of the well-bore and the pressure was applied to the rock mass well-bore pressurization
phase,
aroundfracturing
the wellbore fluid bottom.
filled fullAs
of the well-bore and the
injection flow ratepressure was applied
was constant, to the rock mass
the pressurization around
rate rose
the wellbore bottom. As the injection flow rate was constant, the pressurization
rapidly and then fluctuates near a constant value, this represents the pressure curve ascended rate rose rapidly and
then fluctuates near a constant value, this represents the pressure curve ascended
approximately in a straight line at this phase. When entering the fracturing phase, the pressurization approximately in
arate
straight line at
decreased this phase.
rapidly until itWhen
became entering
negative,thewhich
fracturing phase,
indicated the
that thepressurization rate decreased
injection pressure
rapidly until it became negative, which indicated that the injection pressure
dramatically in a non-linear form. It showed that the fractures propagated very fast, and the new decreased dramatically in
apumped
non-linear form. Itfluid
fracturing showed that
could notthe
fillfractures propagated
full of the rapidly new very fast, and
formed the newInpumped
fractures. fracturing
the last phase, the
fluid could
fracture tip not fill full
hit the rockofboundary,
the rapidly nonew newformed
fracturefractures.
was created,In thethelast phase, the
fracturing fracture
fluid tip hit out
just flowed the
rock boundary,
of the rock along no new fracturefractures,
the formed was created, the the fracturing
pressure did fluid just flowed
not change, andout
theofpressurization
the rock alongrate
the
formed
graduallyfractures,
becamethe pressure did not change, and the pressurization rate gradually became zero.
zero.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Cont.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 13 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 31

(c)

(d)

(e)
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 14 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 31

(f)
Figure 8.8. The
Figure The fracturing
fracturing pressure–time
pressure–time curves
curves and
and pressuring
pressuring rate–time
rate–time curves:
curves: (a)–(f)
(a)–(f) are
are the
the
hydraulicpressure
hydraulic pressurecurves
curvesand
and pressure
pressure rate
rate curves
curves when
when thethe injection
injection flowflow
raterate
is 5, is
10,5,15,
10,20,
15,25,
20,and
25,
and 30 mL/min, respectively.
30 mL/min, respectively.

Figure8a
Figure 8aillustrates
illustratesthe
thehydraulic
hydraulicpressure
pressureandandpressure
pressure rate
rate evolution
evolution with
with time
time of of experiment
experiment 1,
1, and
and the injection
the injection flowis rate
flow rate is 5 mL/min,
5 mL/min, stages 1–4stages 1–4 are respectively:
are respectively: (1) the initial(1) the initial
pressure pressure
development
development
stage, stage, (2)pressurization
(2) the well-bore the well-bore stage,
pressurization stage,
(3) fracturing (3) fracturing
stage, stage, andstage.
and (4) post-failure (4) post-failure
Figure 8b
stage. the
shows Figure
curves8b of
shows the curves
the injection flowofrate
theofinjection
10 mL/min.flowFigure
rate of
8c10 mL/min.the
illustrates Figure
curves8cofillustrates the
the injection
curves
flow rateofofthe injection Figure
15 mL/min. flow rate of 15 mL/min.
8d illustrates Figure
the curves of 8d
theillustrates
injection flowthe rate
curves ofmL/min.
of 20 the injection flow
Figure 8e
rate of 20 the
illustrates mL/min.
curves Figure
of the8einjection
illustrates
flowtherate
curves
of 25ofmL/min.
the injection
Figureflow8f rate of 25 mL/min.
illustrates the curves Figure 8f
of the
illustrates the curves of the injection flow rate of 30 mL/min. As shown in Figure
injection flow rate of 30 mL/min. As shown in Figure 8 a–f, the shape of the pressure–time curves and 8 a–f, the shape of
the pressure–time
pressure rate–time curves are andwith
pressure rate–time curves are with four stages.
four stages.

4.4. Discussion
Discussion

4.1.
4.1. The
The Effect
effect of
of Flow
Flow Rate
Rate on
on the
the Fracture
Fracture Initiation
Initiation Pressure
Pressure
Usually
Usuallywe wecall thethe
call maximum
maximum pressure
pressure as the
as breakdown
the breakdown pressure and it and
pressure seems it that
seemsthethat
rockthe
sample
rock
issample
fractured and fails when the pressure reaches the maximum. However,
is fractured and fails when the pressure reaches the maximum. However, the rock around the the rock around the wellbore
bottom
wellbore already
bottom begins
already to be fractured
begins before thebefore
to be fractured maximum pressure [41].
the maximum To properly
pressure make suremake
[41]. To properly the
fracturing initiationinitiation
sure the fracturing pressure pressure
is helpfulisto analyze
helpful to the rock the
analyze properties, such as failure
rock properties, such asstress,
failuretensile
stress,
stress, and shear stress in real field hydraulic fracturing. Accurate estimation
tensile stress, and shear stress in real field hydraulic fracturing. Accurate estimation of fracturing of fracturing initiation
pressure
initiationis pressure
also importantis alsofor the effective
important for and
the efficient
effectivedesigning
and efficientof hydraulic
designing fracture schemes.fracture
of hydraulic It will
directly
schemes.influence hydraulic
It will directly fracturing
influence hydraulicmethod and difficulty
fracturing method and in field-scale
difficulty in operations
field-scale[42].
operations [42].
To
To find out the time of fracturing initiation, we firstly analyze the hydraulic fracturing
find out the time of fracturing initiation, we firstly analyze the hydraulic fracturing process.
process.
When
Whenthe thewellbore
wellboreisisfull fullofofwater,
water,the thepressure
pressurewillwillrise
risequickly.
quickly.WhenWhen enough
enough fluidfluid is
is pressurized,
pressurized,
aafracture
fractureinitiates
initiatesfrom fromthe bottom
the bottom of theof wellbore, and some
the wellbore, andnew volume
some newis induced.
volume is The pressurized
induced. The
fracturing
pressurized fracturing water near the wellbore bottom expands to fill the new initiated flawand
water near the wellbore bottom expands to fill the new initiated flaw volume, thus
volume,
reducing
and thus the wellbore
reducing the pressure. At the same
wellbore pressure. time,
At the the time,
same pressurized water will
the pressurized naturally,
water via syringe,
will naturally, via
quickly flow into the wellbore to compensate this pressure drops.
syringe, quickly flow into the wellbore to compensate this pressure drops. As the new pressurized As the new pressurized water
volume is largeristhan
water volume largerthethan
newthe inducenewcrack
induce volume. This mayThis
crack volume. inducemayhigher
induce pressure
higher in the wellbore,
pressure in the
but wellbore pressure would not increase obviously. As a result, we
wellbore, but wellbore pressure would not increase obviously. As a result, we can find that the can find that the highest fracturing
pressure always lasts
highest fracturing for a while
pressure always fromlaststhefor
fracturing
a while frompressure
the recording
fracturing curve.
pressure This phenomenon
recording curve.
will
Thisdefinitely
phenomenon cause willthe decrease
definitely of cause
the pressurization
the decreaserate. Then
of the the initiated rate.
pressurization fracture willthe
Then propagate
initiated
towards
fracture the
willboundary
propagateoftowards the sample and moreofvolume
the boundary is developed.
the sample and more When volume theis pressurized
developed. When fluid
the pressurized fluid cannot compensate the new volume. The pressure curve declines. When the
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 15 of 31

cannot
Energiescompensate
2020, 13, x FOR the
PEERnew REVIEWvolume. The pressure curve declines. When the fractures 15 reach
of 31the
sample’s boundary and the fluid flows out of the sample, the pressure becomes stable. The pressure
does not fluctuate
fractures reach the and the pressurization
sample’s boundary and ratethebecome zero.out of the sample, the pressure becomes
fluid flows
stable.
Based Theon pressure does not
the analysis fluctuate and
of fracturing the pressurization
process, we find that the ratepressurization
become zero. rate could be used to
indicate Based on the analysis
the fracturing of fracturing
initiation, fracturingprocess, we find that
termination, and the pressurization
propagation time.rate could be
In Figure used
8a–f, thetored
indicate the fracturing initiation, fracturing termination, and propagation
curves are the pressurization rate curves. When the wellbore is not full of fracturing fluid, the pressure time. In Figure 8a–f, the
red curves
keeps at zeroare andthe thepressurization
pressurizationrate ratecurves.
is alsoWhen
kept atthe wellbore
zero. Then theis not full of fracturing
pressurization fluid, the
rate rapidly rises
pressure keeps at zero and the pressurization rate is also kept at zero.
and usually fluctuates in a constant vale for a while at the top of the curve. In this period, fluid is Then the pressurization rate
rapidly
full of therises and usually
wellbore and still fluctuates
pressurizedin a constant
into thevale for a while
wellbore, at the top
no fracture is of the curve.
initiated. AsInthe
thisflow
period,
rate is
fluid is full of the wellbore and still pressurized into the wellbore, no fracture is initiated. As the flow
constant, the pressure rises approximately linearly with time, and the pressurization rate is almost
rate is constant, the pressure rises approximately linearly with time, and the pressurization rate is
constant with little fluctuations. The beginning of a quick decline in the pressurization rate curve could
almost constant with little fluctuations. The beginning of a quick decline in the pressurization rate
be considered as evidence of the fracture initiation point. As the rock in the wellbore bottom could
curve could be considered as evidence of the fracture initiation point. As the rock in the wellbore
not withstand the high pressure, the fracture initiates, micro cracks are induced, thus, the wellbore
bottom could not withstand the high pressure, the fracture initiates, micro cracks are induced, thus,
pressure increase rate reduces. This is the reason that the new pressurized water expands from the
the wellbore pressure increase rate reduces. This is the reason that the new pressurized water
wellbore
expandstofrom fill the
the new induced
wellbore to fillfracture
the newvolume
inducedand the new
fracture volumepressurized
and the new fluidpressurized
cannot absolutelyfluid
compensate the pressure reduction, consequently the pressurization rate
cannot absolutely compensate the pressure reduction, consequently the pressurization rate decreases. decreases. When the fracture
tipWhen
is going
the to hit thetip
fracture sample
is going boundary,
to hit the the pressure
sample is almost
boundary, equal to is
the pressure fluid
almost friction
equalloss pressure
to fluid along
friction
the pathway, the pressurization rate rises and gradually becomes
loss pressure along the pathway, the pressurization rate rises and gradually becomes zero. zero.
Based
Basedon onthetheabove
aboveanalysis,
analysis, thethe fracture initiationpressure
fracture initiation pressurecould
couldbebe regarded
regarded as as
thethe
time timewhenwhen
thethepressurization
pressurization rate
ratebegins
begins to rapidly
to rapidly decrease, at which
decrease, at whichthe fracturing
the fracturing pressure has not
pressure hasyet notreached
yet
thereached
maximum value (see value
the maximum Figure(see 8a–f). We can
Figure find
8a–f). Wethat,
can from Figure
find that, from8a–f and Table
Figure 3, with
8a–f and Tablethe3,flow
withrate
the flowthe
increase, rate increase,pressure
initiation the initiation
also pressure
increases.also increases.
Hence, Hence, the
the injection flowinjection flow rate the
rate influences influences
initiation
the initiation
pressure pressure
in hydraulic in hydraulic fracturing.
fracturing.
Figure 9 shows the initiation
Figure 9 shows the initiationpressure
pressure under
underdifferent
differentinjection flow flow
injection rates rates
in different tests, the
in different tests,
the initiation pressure is approximately positive linearly increasing with the injectionrate.
initiation pressure is approximately positive linearly increasing with the injection flow flow Forrate.
Forinstance,
instance, the the
initiation pressure
initiation ascends
pressure from 21.06
ascends fromto21.06
32.52 toMPa as the
32.52 injection
MPa as theflow rate is increased
injection flow rate is
from 5 to 30 mL/min, the initiation pressure increases 54.42%. And
increased from 5 to 30 mL/min, the initiation pressure increases 54.42%. And the coefficient of the coefficient of determination
was 0.9808. was 0.9808.
determination

Figure
Figure 9. 9. Influence
Influence of injection
of injection flow
flow raterate on initiation
on the the initiation pressure.
pressure.

4.2. The Effect of Flow Rate on the Fracture Propagation Time

4.2. The Effect of Flow Rate on the Fracture Propagation Time
The measurement accuracy of hydraulic fracturing pressure depends on the accurate interpretation
The measurement accuracy of hydraulic fracturing pressure depends on the accurate
ofinterpretation
the fluid pressure–time curves [43]. The fracture propagation time is a crucial parameter to estimate
of the fluid pressure–time curves [43]. The fracture propagation time is a crucial
fracture extension
parameter range
to estimate in field
fracture scale hydraulic
extension fracturing
range in field [44]. In fracturing
scale hydraulic development[44].process of oil, gas,
In development
and
process of oil, gas, and geothermal fields, the time of hydraulic fracturing will also directly influenceand
geothermal fields, the time of hydraulic fracturing will also directly influence the number
magnitude
the number of and
the induced
magnitude earthquakes [45].earthquakes [45].
of the induced
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 16 of 31

In laboratorial hydraulic fracturing tests, the fracture propagation time is usually the time
interval that it takeshydraulic
In laboratorial from thefracturing
fracture initiation until it propagation
tests, the fracture grows all thetime way is to the boundary
usually of the
the time interval
experimental sample
that it takes from the from
fracturethe initiation
wellbore bottom. After aallfracture
until it grows the way is to
triggered,
the boundarythe fracture
of the grows, more
experimental
and more new volume will be induced, and the wellbore pressure decline
sample from the wellbore bottom. After a fracture is triggered, the fracture grows, more and more rate will accelerate. This is
shown in Figure
new volume will8,bewhere
induced,wellbore
and thepressurization rated (red
wellbore pressure curves)
decline rateare
willdecreasing
accelerate.after Thisthe fracture
is shown in
initiation
Figure 8, points. It could be
where wellbore considered to
pressurization be the
rated (redbeginning
curves) areofdecreasing
the fracture propagation.
after the fractureWhen the
initiation
fracture
points. reaches
It couldthe be sample
considered boundaries,
to be thethe fluid begins
beginning to flow
of the out propagation.
fracture into fracturingWhen capsule thefrom the
fracture
fractures.
reaches the The pressure
sample in the wellbore
boundaries, the fluidisbegins
now equal
to flow toout
frictional pressurecapsule
into fracturing that thefrom fracturing fluid
the fractures.
loses along the fracture pathway. As the fracturing pressure is stable and
The pressure in the wellbore is now equal to frictional pressure that the fracturing fluid loses alongdoes not change with time
and the pressurization rate becomes zero without fluctuation. This
the fracture pathway. As the fracturing pressure is stable and does not change with time and theis the time point (see Figure 8)
that could be practically
pressurization rate becomes considered
zero without as fluctuation.
the fractureThis propagation
is the timeending,
point (see and the remaining
Figure 8) that couldthe be
pressure–time data represent the new injected water flowing via the fracture
practically considered as the fracture propagation ending, and the remaining the pressure–time data pathway. Through the
pressurization
represent the new rate injected
curve, we watercan flowing
easily determine the propagation
via the fracture time. Thethe
pathway. Through fracture propagation
pressurization rate
time (see
curve, weFigure 8) could
can easily be considered
determine as the time
the propagation interval
time. betweenpropagation
The fracture the fracture time initiation and the8)
(see Figure
fracture
could beend.
considered as the time interval between the fracture initiation and the fracture end.
The
Thepropagation
propagation time time ofof aa granite
granite specimen
specimenwith withdifferent
differentinjection
injectionflowflowrates
ratesisis shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 10.
10. As shown in Figure 10, with the increase of injection flow rate, the
As shown in Figure 10, with the increase of injection flow rate, the propagation time has a linear propagation time has a linear
decrease
decreasetrend.
trend.The Thepropagation
propagationtime timedecreases
decreasesfrom from613613toto88
88sswhen
whenthe theinjection
injectionflowflowraterateincreases
increases
from
from55to to30
30mL/min,
mL/min,the thepropagation
propagationtime timedecreases
decreases85.64%.
85.64%.At Atthethesame
sametime,
time,thethepropagation
propagationtimes times
are linearly fitted with the determination coefficient of 0.9851. This relationship
are linearly fitted with the determination coefficient of 0.9851. This relationship represents that with represents that with
the
theincreasing
increasingof ofinjection
injectionflowflowrate,rate,more
morefluid
fluidisispumped
pumpedinto intothethewellbore
wellboreininthe thesame
sametimetimeinterval,
interval,
more new volume is created, the fracture propagation rate also increases,
more new volume is created, the fracture propagation rate also increases, and the fracture propagation and the fracture
propagation
time decreases. time decreases.

Figure10.
Figure Influenceofofinjection
10.Influence injectionflow
flowrate
rateon
onthe
thepropagation
propagationtime.
time.

Usually, induced
Usually, induced earthquakes
earthquakesare areaccompanied
accompanied with a whole
with a wholehydraulic fracturing
hydraulic process,
fracturing a longer
process, a
fracture propagation time always means that more earthquakes are triggered
longer fracture propagation time always means that more earthquakes are triggered [45]. In an in- [45]. In an in-situ project,
a traditional
situ project, aview is that view
traditional the maximum
is that theinduced
maximum earthquake
inducedmagnitudes
earthquakeare only related
magnitudes aretoonly
the related
volume
ofthe
to injected
volume fluid [46]. Therefore,
of injected fluid [46].toTherefore,
get a goodtofracture network
get a good fractureandnetwork
avoid a and
dangerous
avoid a earthquake,
dangerous
a small injection
earthquake, a small flow rate with
injection flowa long
ratepropagation
with a longispropagation
always adopted in field-scale
is always adoptedoperation over
in field-scale
recent years
operation over[47,48].
recentWhereas, this method
years [47,48]. alsothis
Whereas, could cause aalso
method large earthquake,
could cause a for
largeexample, hydraulic
earthquake, for
fracturing of the Pohang hydraulic fracturing project almost lasted several
example, hydraulic fracturing of the Pohang hydraulic fracturing project almost lasted several months over two years,
a Mw 5.5
months overearthquake
two years, was
aM caused, this earthquake
w 5.5 earthquake injuredthis
was caused, about 70 people
earthquake and induced
injured about 70 extensive
people
damage
and inducedto the Pohangdamage
extensive city [49].to Since the seismographs
the Pohang were
city [49]. Since thefirstly installed were
seismographs in 1905, thisinstalled
firstly induced
earthquake
in 1905, this was the most
induced damaging,
earthquake wasand the the
mostmagnitude
damaging, is and
second-largest
the magnitudein South Korea [50]. Asina
is second-largest
result,Korea
South it is necessary
[50]. As afor hydraulic
result, fracturing
it is necessary forto choose afracturing
hydraulic reasonabletofracturing propagation
choose a reasonable time.
fracturing
propagation time.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 17 of 31

4.3. The Effect of Flow Rate on the Post-Fracturing Pressure

The post-fracturing pressure is the almost constant pressure with time after the fracture reaches the
rock boundary, when the fracture length does not increase. This time point is illustrated in Figure 8a,
after this time point, the pressure–time data recorded is just showing the process that water flows via
the created fracture to rock boundary. The pressure in the wellbore remains almost constant. It is
noteworthy that the post-fracturing pressure behavior is very similar to the fluid injection pressure
during the heating extraction stage or petroleum extraction stage after hydraulic fracture in the field
for an in-situ project. This injection pressure (post-fracturing pressure) is based on the concept that
when constant viscous fluid in isothermal reservoir condition flows through a constant length fracture
pathway, the frictional pressure loss along the pathway does not change with time. In an in-situ
project, the requirement for hydraulic fracturing technology is very high. If the fractures are too
developed (indicating a low post-fracturing pressure), the water flows too fast in the fractures, the heat
exchange time between the rock mass and water is short, the heat transfer is insufficient, and the
water temperature at the water outlet well is low. The thermal energy cannot be well exploited. If few
fractures propagate insufficiently or the fracture channel is narrow (indicating a high post-fracturing
pressure), the water cannot flow through the inlet wellbore to the outlet wellbore well, it may result
in serious water loss or less water could flow out of the outlet wellhead. We will not yet achieve
the purpose of thermal energy exploitation. Therefore, in hydraulic fracturing, we need properly
propagated fractures, water not only can flow well in the fracture, but also can have a good heat transfer
with rock thermal reservoir along fractures. However, the fractures cannot be directly observed after
hydraulic fracturing in field-scale operation, and we need to find other methodologies to interpret the
fracturing pressures.
In laboratorial hydraulic fracturing experiments, the post-fracturing pressure is the frictional
pressure loss when fluid flows through the whole fracture system. It is in accordance with the injection
pressure during the in-field heat extraction phase and could directly reflect the fracture condition and
it is an important parameter to determine the heat extraction efficiency and to evaluate the hydraulic
fracturing results.
As the injection flow rates are different in tests, the post-fracturing pressures could not be used for
analysis directly. To test the fracture network and contrast the post-fracturing pressures in different
tests, the flow rate is change to 5 mL/min at the end of each test. If injection flow rate was greater than
the least flow rate, new fractures might be triggered for the samples whose flow rate (the flow rate in
Table 3) was lower during hydraulic fracturing experiment stage. So, we choose the lowest flow rate
when revising the post-fracturing pressures. Table 4 presents the post-fracturing pressures when the
flow rates are changed to 5 mL/min, they are called the revised post-fracturing pressures. We can see
that a higher injection flow rate during the experimental (hydraulic fracturing) phase, a lower revised
post-fracturing pressure is caused.

Table 4. The revised post-fracturing pressures.

Injection Flow Rate during Post-Fracturing Revised Post-Fracturing

Test No.
Hydraulic Fracturing (mL/min) Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa)
1 5 11.20 11.20
2 10 12.69 11.13
3 15 11.27 9.52
4 20 9.97 6.37
5 25 7.68 4.59
6 30 3.11 1.43

As shown in Figure 11, the revised post-fracturing pressure is linearly decreasing with the injection
flow rate increasing. The revised post-fracturing pressure decreases from 11.2 to 1.43 MPa (a gradient
of 87.23%) when flow rate increases from 5 to 30 mL/min. And after linearly fitted the revised
post-fracturing pressure data, a coefficient of determination 0.9926 is achieved. We can see that a lower
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 18 of 31

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 31

revised post-fracturing pressure corresponds to a lower injection flow rate after hydraulic fracturing,
hydraulic
a higher fracturing,
revised a higher revised
post-fracturing post-fracturing
pressure corresponds pressure corresponds
to a higher to a higher
injection flow rate. Itinjection
means aflow
lower
rate. It means a lower injection flow rate may cause a fracture network with less fractures
injection flow rate may cause a fracture network with less fractures and narrow channels for water and narrow
channels
flowing for water
through, flowing
whereas through,
a higher whereas
injection a higher
flow rate mayinjection
lead aflow rate may
developed lead a network
fracture developed that
fracture network that water
water could easily flow through. could easily flow through.

Figure11.
Figure Influence
11.Influence of of injection
injection flow
flow raterate
on on
the the revised
revised post-fracturing
post-fracturing pressure.
pressure.

The
Thepost-fracturing
post-fracturing pressure
pressure isisan
aneffective
effective parameter
parameter to estimate
to estimate the fracture
the fracture opening opening
and leakand
leak off during hydraulic fracturing [43]. It also could help to analyze the fracture geometry,
off during hydraulic fracturing [43]. It also could help to analyze the fracture geometry, length, and length,
and smoothness,
smoothness, a lower
a lower post-fracturing
post-fracturing pressure
pressure usually
usually corresponds
corresponds to to a better-connected
a better-connected fracture
fracture
network
network with longer and smoother fracture branches [51]. The post-fracturing pressure is is
with longer and smoother fracture branches [51]. The post-fracturing pressure an an
indispensable
indispensableparameter
parameterwhenwhen predicting
predicting thethe productivity
productivityofofwells
wellsafter
afterhydraulic
hydraulic fracturing
fracturing [52].
[52].
Therefore, it it
Therefore, is is
necessary
necessarytotocorrectly
correctlyidentify the post-fracturing
identify the post-fracturingpressure
pressure
andand find
find out
out itsits changing
changing laws.
laws.

4.4.4.4.
The Effect
The EffectofofFlow
FlowRate
Rateon
onthe
theFracture
Fracture Breakdown Pressure
Breakdown Pressure
Usually,
Usually,thethe
fracture
fracturebreakdown
breakdown is defined as the
is defined as time pointpoint
the time when the pressure
when in wellbore
the pressure reaches
in wellbore
thereaches
maximum, this means that
the maximum, this fracture
means that breakdown
fracture typically
breakdown occurs after the
typically pointafter
occurs of initiation
the point [53–55].
of
The fracture-initiation
initiation [53–55]. Thepressure is the timepressure
fracture-initiation point whenis the a tiny
time defect near borehole
point when begins
a tiny defect neartoborehole
propagate
and begins to propagate
the breakdown and the
pressure breakdown
is usually largerpressure
than theisfracture-initiation
usually larger than the fracture-initiation
pressure [41,56]. In general,
wepressure
need to [41,56]. In general,
distinguish we need
the initiation to distinguish
pressure the initiation
and breakdown pressure
pressure when andconsidering
breakdownthe pressure
problem
of when
fractureconsidering
propagation.the problem of fracture propagation.
TheThe breakdownpressure
breakdown pressure always
always occurs
occurs after
after the
the initiation
initiationpressure
pressurewhenwhen thethefracture
fracture is just
is just
initiated and the new created volume cannot compensate the injected fluid.
initiated and the new created volume cannot compensate the injected fluid. The breakdown process The breakdown process
represents
represents a situationthat
a situation thatthe
thewater
watersupply
supply (the
(the amount
amountof ofwater
waterinjected
injectedinto
intothe wellbore)
the wellbore) is greater
is greater
than the water demand (the water volume needed to propagate the fracture), the wellbore bottom
than the water demand (the water volume needed to propagate the fracture), the wellbore bottom
pressure continues to rise. A higher pressure (breakdown pressure) will be caused.
pressure continues to rise. A higher pressure (breakdown pressure) will be caused.
The initiation pressure represents the pressure when the fracture begins being initiated. It is a
The initiation pressure represents the pressure when the fracture begins being initiated. It is
parameter that could reflect the properties of the rock sample. The breakdown pressure is the
a parameter that could reflect the properties of the rock sample. The breakdown pressure is the
maximum pressure value in the pressure curve and it could be used to help to design the fracturing
maximum pressure value in the pressure curve and it could be used to help to design the fracturing
scheme, select a fracturing pump, and estimate the fracture range in field operation [57]. Therefore,
scheme, select ato
it is necessary fracturing
separatelypump,
analyze andtheestimate
initiationthe fracture
pressure andrange in field operation
the breakdown pressure,[57]. Therefore,
whether for
it is necessary to separately analyze the
laboratory research or field scale engineering. initiation pressure and the breakdown pressure, whether for
laboratory research
Figure 12 showsor field scale engineering.
the change trend of the breakdown pressure under influence injection flow rate
Figure 12 shows the change trend
increase. The breakdown pressure is almost of thepositive
breakdown pressure
linearly under
increasing influence
with injection
the increase flow rate
of injection
increase. The breakdown pressure is almost positive linearly increasing with
flow rate. The coefficient of determination is 0.9943 after linearly fit. The breakdown pressure the increase of injection
flow rate. The coefficient of determination is 0.9943 after linearly fit. The breakdown pressure increases
 Energies 2020,
Energies2020, 13,
13,x1411
2020,13, xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 19 of 31
Energies 1919ofof3131

increasesfrom
increases from22.12
22.12toto36.01
36.01MPa
MPa whenthe theinjection
injectionflow
flowrate
rateincreases
increasesfrom
from5 5toto3030mL/min,
mL/min,the
the
from 22.12 to 36.01 MPa when the when
injection flow rate increases from 5 to 30 mL/min, the breakdown
breakdownpressure
breakdown pressureincreases
increases62.79%.
62.79%.
pressure increases 62.79%.

Figure
Figure 12. Influence
12.Influence
Influence of injection flow rate on
thethe breakdown pressure.
Figure 12. ofofinjection
injection flow
flow rate
rate ononthe breakdown
breakdown pressure.
pressure.
The breakdown
Thebreakdown pressure
pressureis
breakdownpressure a very important parameter during the hydraulic fracturing process [11].
The isisa avery
very important
important parameter
parameter during
during thehydraulic
the hydraulic fracturing
fracturing process
process
A previous
[11].AAprevious study
previousstudy also showed
studyalso that
alsoshowed it
showedthat could influence
thatititcould the
couldinfluencefracture
influencethe propagation
thefracture patterns
fracturepropagation and
propagationpatterns fracture
patternsand
and
[11].
morphology
fracturemorphology [43,55,58].
morphology[43,55,58]. The fracture
[43,55,58].The Thefractureapproach
fractureapproach mechanics
approachmechanics of hydraulic
mechanicsofofhydraulic fracturing
hydraulicfracturing was
fracturingwas mainly
wasmainly
mainly
fracture
determined
determined by
by the
the breakdown
breakdown pressure
pressure yet
yet [59].
[59]. This
This parameter
parameter is
is widely
widely used
used when
when analyzing
analyzing the
the
determined by the breakdown pressure yet [59]. This parameter is widely used when analyzing the
fracture behavior in a laboratorial test, numerical simulation, and in-situ project [15,43,56,60]. As a
fracture behavior in a laboratorial test, numerical simulation, and in-situ project [15,43,56,60]. As a a
fracture behavior in a laboratorial test, numerical simulation, and in-situ project [15,43,56,60]. As
result,
result,itititisis crucial
crucialtoto
iscrucial correctly
tocorrectly determine
correctlydetermine
determinethe the breakdown
thebreakdown pressure
breakdownpressure
pressureandand analyze
andanalyze its
analyzeits changing
itschanging trend
changingtrend with
trendwith
with
result,
the
the injection
injection flow
flow rate.
rate.
the injection flow rate.
4.5. The Effect of Flow Rate on the Fracture Geometry
4.5.The
4.5. TheEffect
EffectofofFlow
FlowRate
Rateononthe
theFracture
FractureGeometry
Geometry
The fracture geometry is of vital importance for the evaluation of hydraulic fracturing effect.
Thefracture
fracturegeometry
geometry isofofvital
vitalimportance
importancefor forthe
theevaluation
evaluationofofhydraulic
hydraulic fracturingeffect.
effect.The
The
The The
fracture length, height is and morphology are important indexes to access thefracturing
hydraulic fracturing
fracturelength,
fracture length,height
height andmorphology
morphology areimportant
importantindexes
indexestotoaccess
accessthe
thehydraulic
hydraulic fracturing
results and investigate andfracture extensionare patterns. To clearly observe these indexes of thefracturing
fractures,
results
results and investigate
and investigate fracture extension patterns. To clearly observe these indexes of thefractures,
fractures,
the samples are cut in fracture
half at the extension
wellbore patterns.
bottom.ToFigure
clearly13a–f
observe
show these
the indexes
fracturesofofthe
test No. 1–6
thesamples
the samplesare are cutininhalf
halfatatthe
thewellbore
wellborebottom.
bottom. Figure 13a–f show the fractures of test No. 1–6
samples. Table 5cut presents the fracture total lengths. Figure 13a–f show the fractures of test No. 1–6
samples. Table 5 presents the fracture total
samples. Table 5 presents the fracture total lengths. lengths.

(a)
(a)
Figure 13. Cont.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 20 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 31

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 13. Cont.

Energies 2020, 13, 1411 21 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 31

(e)

(f)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. The
The fracture
fracture geometries
geometries of
of Tests 1–6: (a)–(f)
Tests 1–6: (a)–(f) are
are the
the fracture
fracture geometry
geometry photos
photos after
after the
the rock
rock
samples were cut in half when the injection flow rate was respectively 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30
samples were cut in half when the injection flow rate was respectively 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mL/min,mL/min,
all the
all the fractures
fractures were
were marked,
marked, the
the blue
blue rectangles
rectangles are
are enlarged
enlarged byby five
five times
times and
and displayed
displayed inin the
the
middle, the red rectangles are enlarged by five times, and displayed on the right
middle, the red rectangles are enlarged by five times, and displayed on the right side. side.

Table 5. The Fracture Total Length.

Table 5. The Fracture Total Length.
Test
TestNo.
No. Injection Flow
Injection Flow Rate
Rate (mL/min)
(mL/min) The
The Total
Total Length
Length ofof Fractures
Fractures (mm)
(mm)
11 55 319
319
22 10
10 342
342
33 15
15 467
467
44 20
20 388
388
55 25
25 1089
1089
66 30
30 1386
1386

In Figure 13a, only a two-wing fracture is induced in the Preferred Fracture Direction (PFD), that
is the maximum principle pressure axis direction, the direction of the fracture is almost perpendicular
to the
thedirection
directionofofthethe
minimum
minimum stress. In Figure
stress. 13b, only
In Figure 13b, aonly
two-wing fracturefracture
a two-wing is induced. The upward
is induced. The
fracture
upward and downward
fracture fracture have
and downward angles
fracture of about
have of ◦about
angles15.4 and 19.2
15.4°◦ with the PFD respectively,
and 19.2° with the PFD
the propagation
respectively, theangles are small,
propagation and the
angles arefractures arethe
small, and considered
fracturesalong the PFD. In along
are considered Figurethe 13c,PFD.
a three
In
wing
Figurefracture is induced.
13c, a three The upward
wing fracture fracture
is induced. Thepropagation
upward fracture is 30.0◦ , which
anglepropagation is larger
angle than
is 30.0°, the
which
two downward ◦ and 19.44◦ ). As the angles are less than 45◦ , the angles are closer to the
is larger than theones
two(14.8
downward ones (14.8° and 19.44°). As the angles are less than 45°, the angles
maximum
are closer tostress axis, and the
the maximum downward
stress axis, andfracture in left propagates
the downward a short
fracture in path then turns
left propagates a shorttowards the
path then
turns towards the PFD. As a result their propagation directions could be considered to be along the
maximum principle pressure direction. In Figure 13d, only a two-wing fracture is propagated. The
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 22 of 31

PFD. As a result their propagation directions could be considered to be along the maximum principle
pressure direction. In Figure 13d, only a two-wing fracture is propagated. The fracture propagates
downwards and upwards both in a curved way, and the upward fracture turns towards PFD in a
distance away from the wellbore. The downward fracture could not be obviously observed towards to
PFD. In Figure 13e, three wings are initiated from the wellbore. The wing that propagates to the upper
left has an angle of 34.3◦ with respect to PFD. The two wings that propagate to right almost against the
PFD near the wellbore. Then the upper right one changed its direction towards the PFD. The lower left
one propagates into three branches away from the wellbore, and two of them develop towards the
PFD and merge upward into one fracture. The downward branch propagates along the PFD at first,
and then develops against the maximum stress at the lower edge of sample. In Figure 13f, this test
exhibited a multiple fracturing distribution, a fracture system with three wings are initiated from the
wellbore. The upward wing propagates almost along the PFD. The upward one is the widest fracture
and could be considered as the main hydraulic fracture. However, its three branches are almost against
the PFD. The left downward wing is initiated along the PDF and then grows in a curved path to the
lower left, its only branch propagates against the PFD. The right downward wing is initiated against
the PFD at first and then its branch propagates along the PFD.
It was expected that a fracture propagation direction would be vertical along the PFD, perpendicular
to the minimum principle stress. However, only the fracture in Test 1 (Figure 13a) propagated almost
along the PFD, and most of the others were initiated in an angle respect to the PFD. As it still can be
seen from Figure 13, fracture propagation in hydraulic fracturing is influenced by triaxial principal
stresses (crustal stress in field). Although, sometimes the fractures are not initiated along the PFD near
the wellbore, the fractures will gradually turn to PFD in curved paths as the fractures grow towards
the boundaries of the samples. At last, the fracture propagate direction is the PFD. The reason is that
the actual stress state near the wellbore zone is very complex. The initiation of hydraulic fracture is
controlled by the in-situ stress, the wellbore, the wellbore internal pressure, the pore pressure, the rock
stress condition, the rock anisotropy, and other mechanisms [54]. As a result, the fractures may be
initiated not along the PFD at first. Once the fracture has some length, fracture propagation rate is
stable, the fracture tip moves far away from the wellbore and stress complex area, the fracture goes into
a less-stressed region, and then the fracture propagation will be controlled by the triaxial stresses and
along the PFD, as the injection pressure is less than the breakdown pressure in this time, this means
that less pressure is needed for the fracture propagation.
We could also see that in Tests 4, 5, and 6, some fracture branches still did not approach the
PFD when they reached the rock boundary, and even parts of them were perpendicular to the PFD.
As shown in Figure 13d–f, some of the main fractures, that propagated from the wellbore, could not be
seen to turn towards the PFD when the fracture tips hit boundary. Fan and Hannes et al. [35] performed
a series of studies, and showed that with the increase of injection flow rate, the balance between
fracture propagation and fluid injection could be broken, the fracture propagation would become
unstable and fluctuated, and it meant that the fracture propagation pathway might be unpredictable.
And sometimes, in the area around the wellbore, the fracture propagation would not obey the PFD law.
This was in accordance with our experiment results. Higher injection flow rate meant higher pump
pressure and more energy available for rock failure near the injection wellbore. More energy was
introduced into the rock, the chances of creating a complicated fracture network were increased [61].
The reason was that, when a lot of water was pumped into the wellbore in a short time, a high-pressure
environment was formed rapidly at the bottom of the wellbore, this would lead the fracturing process
to be similar to an explosion process, the fractures propagated rapidly from the wellbore to the rock
boundary, and the hydraulic fracturing time was very short. As the energy and pressure were released
rapidly, this kind of “exploded” fracture propagation pattern always triggered new tension fractures,
and as a result, the fractures might not propagate along the PFD. Whereas, when the injection flow
rate was low, the fracture propagation rate was low and the fracture tended to be shearing ones, shear
fracturing always propagated along the weak points among the rock mineral particles approaching to
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 23 of 31

the PFD and this process was controlled by the principal stresses [26]. Usually, in high injection
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
flow
23 of 31
rate, the “exploded” phenomenon only influenced the rock mass near the wellbore, when the fractures
propagated
it may be still farinaway enough, of
the influence thethe
propagation
“exploded”, turned
so thetofractures
the PFDpropagating
again. But intowardsour tests, thethe
PFDsidewas length
not
of the rock sample
obviously observed. was only 300 mm, it may be still in the influence of the “exploded”, so the fractures
propagating towardsfor
The description thethe PFD was notfracture
hydraulic obviously observed.
geometry was very important in the in-situ operation.
A more The description
complex and for wider
the hydraulic
fracturefracture
might geometry
result in was very
lesser important
frictional in the in-situ
resistance and operation.
a higher
A more complex and wider fracture might result in lesser frictional
permeability, the fluid flowed through the fractures would be more easily with less resistance, and resistance and a higher permeability,
thea fluid
as result,flowed through operations,
in field-scale the fractures thewould be more easily
heat extraction time with
from less rockresistance,
would be and short,as the
a result,
heat
in field-scale operations, the heat extraction time from rock would be
extraction efficiency would be low. On the other hand, fluid would suffer higher frictional pressures short, the heat extraction efficiency
wouldflowing
when be low. On the other
through hand, narrow
a single fluid would sufferThe
fracture. higherflow frictional
rate was pressures
low and when
the flowing through
heat extraction
a single narrow
between fluid and fracture.
rock The was flow rate was
sufficient, low and
whereas the thetotal
heatamount
extraction of between
fluid flowingfluid and rock was
through the
fractures would also be low. As a result, the amount of the extracted heat was still low. So, ana
sufficient, whereas the total amount of fluid flowing through the fractures would also be low. As
result, the amount
appropriate fracture ofgeometry
the extracted was heat
vitalwas
for anstill low. So,
in-situ an appropriate fracture geometry was vital
project.
for an in-situ project.
Analyzing fracture morphology after hydraulic fracturing would demonstrate how the injection
flow rate could fracture
Analyzing influence morphology
the fracture after hydraulic
geometry. Tofracturing
compare would and observedemonstrate how thewidths
the fractures injection of
flow ratetests.
different couldWe influence
chose two theparts
fracture geometry.
to enlarge To compare
five times and observe
in the fracture photothe of fractures
each test. widths
In Figure of
different
13, with thetests. We chose
increase of the twoflowparts to the
rate, enlarge five generally
fracture times in the fracture
became photo
wider. of each
Figure 14 test.
showedIn Figure
the total 13,
with the
length of increase
the fractures of the flow with
varied rate, respect
the fracture generally
to injection flow became wider. Figure
rate. Generally speaking,14 showed
the total the total
length
length
of of theincreased
fractures fractures with varied thewith respect
increase of to
flowinjection flow rate.we
rate. However, Generally
could see speaking,
that thethe total
total length
length of
of fractures increased with the increase of flow rate. However,
the fractures in Test 4 was less than that in Test 3. Combined with Figure 13, from the enlarged we could see that the total length
of the fractures
fractures photos,inwe Test 4 was
could seeless
thatthan that in Test
the fractures of Test3. Combined
4 were wider, withand Figure 13, from the enlarged
the corresponding revised
fractures photos,
post-fracturing we could
pressure see that
in Table the fractures
4 was lower yet,ofitTest meant 4 were
thatwider, and theresistance
the frictional correspondingin Testrevised
4 was
post-fracturing pressure in Table 4 was lower yet, it meant that the
lower than that in Test 3 when the fluid flowed through the fracture system, so it could be considered frictional resistance in Test 4 was
lower
that thannot
it did that in Test
violate the3 flow
whenrate-post
the fluidfracturing
flowed through pressure thelaw.
fracture
As a system,
result, we socould
it couldgetbe considered
that a higher
that itrate
flow did lednot toviolate
higher theinitiation
flow rate-post fracturing pressure
and breakdown pressures, law.wider
As a result, we could
fractures, and aget morethatcomplex
a higher
flow rate led to higher initiation and breakdown pressures, wider
fracture system. This resulted in a higher connectivity of the fractures and a lower friction resistance fractures, and a more complex
fracture
for fluidsystem.
flowing. ThisTheresulted
revised in apost-fracturing
higher connectivity of thein
pressure fractures
Table and 4 was a lower friction resistance
in accordance with this for
fluid flowing.
conclusion. The revised post-fracturing pressure in Table 4 was in accordance with this conclusion.

Figure 14.
Figure Influence of
14. Influence of injection
injection flow
flow rate
rate on
on the
the fracture
fracture length.
length.

When the
When the injection
injection flow
flow rate
rate was
was increased
increased from
from 55 to
to 20
20 mL/min,
mL/min, the
the total
total length
length of
of fractures
fractures
increased, but the increase trend, as shown in Figure 14, was not obvious. When
increased, but the increase trend, as shown in Figure 14, was not obvious. When the injection flow the injection flow
rates were
rates were increased
increased to to 25
25 and
and 3030 mL/min,
mL/min, thethe fractures
fractures total
total lengths
lengths had
had notable
notable increase.
increase. Combined
Combined
with Figure 13, the fractures in Tests 1, 2, 3, and 4 (injection flow rate from 5 to 20 mL/min)
with Figure 13, the fractures in Tests 1, 2, 3, and 4 (injection flow rate from 5 to 20 mL/min) formed formed aa
two-wing or
two-wing or aa three-wing
three-wing fracture,
fracture, aa fractured
fractured network
network inin these
these tests
tests was
was not
not induced.
induced. As Asaa result,
result,
the increase of injection flow rate only increased the fractures width, but not in the fracture length.
This meant the fractures in Tests 1–4 should be mainly shear fractures. When the injection flow rate
was increased to 25 mL/min (Test 5) and 30 mL/min (Test 6), the “exploded” fracturing mode was
trigger, the fractures were mainly tension fractures. Fracture networks formed in the both two test
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 24 of 31

the increase of injection flow rate only increased the fractures width, but not in the fracture length.
This meant the fractures in Tests 1–4 should be mainly shear fractures. When the injection flow rate
was increased to 25 mL/min (Test 5) and 30 mL/min (Test 6), the “exploded” fracturing mode was
trigger, the fractures were mainly tension fractures. Fracture networks formed in the both two test
and hence the fracture lengths had obvious increase. It showed that when the injection flow rate was
low, the shear fractures were induced, and the hydraulic fracturing usually formed a main fracture
without branches. When the injection flow rate was high enough, the tension fractures could be trigged,
the hydraulic fracturing could form a fracture network.

4.6. The Mean Injection Power

Figure 14 recognizes the relationship between the injection flow rate and fracture total length,
although by increasing the injection flow rate, a longer fracture length is induced, the mathematical
relationship between the two parameters were not gotten from Figure 14.
To analyze the reason that injection flow rate could influence the geometry, width, and complexity
of fractures. A new parameter called Mean Fracturing Power (PI ) is put forward. Each test has a
specific flow rate (Q), the fracturing pressure (P) varies as a function of time (t). In view the injection
flow rate unit (m3 /s), hydraulic fracturing pressure unit (N/m2 ), and time unit (s), it could be realized
that the unit of the product of fracturing pressure, injection flow rate, and time will be N·m. This
means that this product represents the energy that supplies for hydraulic fracturing. Hence, the PI is
defined as: RT
Q·Pdt
PI = 0 , (1)
T
where T is the fracture propagation time. The unit of PI is power (W). Table 6 shows the Mean
Fracturing Power of Test No. 1–6.

Table 6. Mean Fracturing Power.

Injection Flow Rate Mean Fracturing The Total Length of

Test No.
(mL/min) Power (mW) Fractures (mm)
1 5 67.86 319
2 10 125.23 342
3 15 202.93 467
4 20 316.50 388
5 25 489.32 1089
6 30 751.65 1386

The relationship between the mean fracturing power and the total length of fractures is shown in
Figure 15. The mean fracturing power has a good positive liner relationship with the fracture total
length and the coefficient of determination is found to 0.9052. In most circumstances, especially in
field, fractures cannot be observed and measured directly. And the fracture length is most important
parameter to evaluate the hydraulic fracturing effect. Previous methods to the evaluate hydraulic
fracturing are usually the drilling, micro-earthquake, and magnetotelluric method, these measurement
methods sometimes cannot be used in field due to their high budget. As a result, estimating the
fracture length is always a challenging work in field scale hydraulic fracturing. The fracture total
length roughly positive increases with the increase of the mean fracturing power, hence we can use this
relationship to roughly evaluate the fracture length in field with almost no cost. This linear relationship
provides us with a new way to roughly predict fracture length.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 25 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 31

Figure
Figure 15. Influence
Influence of
of mean
mean fracturing
fracturing power
power on
on the fracture length.

4.7. The
4.7. The Permeability
Permeability of
of the
the Hydraulic
Hydraulic Fracture
Fracture
Up until
Up until now,
now, hydraulic
hydraulic fracturing
fracturing is is an
an imperative technique for
imperative technique for economic
economic exploitation
exploitation of of
geothermal energy
geothermal energy resources
resources by by enhancing
enhancing deepdeep buried
buried rock
rock permeability.
permeability. Therefore,
Therefore, itit is
is important
important
to understand the permeability after hydraulic fracturing. Patel et al. [62]
to understand the permeability after hydraulic fracturing. Patel et al. [62] proposed a method to proposed a method to
estimate fracture permeability using the injection pressure data. This method
estimate fracture permeability using the injection pressure data. This method hypothesizes that duehypothesizes that due to
thethe
to injected
injectedfracturing fluidfluid
fracturing flowing into induced
flowing fractures,
into induced a dropaofdrop
fractures, the injection pressure pressure
of the injection happens
just after the breakdown phenomenon. This hypothesizes is in accordance
happens just after the breakdown phenomenon. This hypothesizes is in accordance with our with our aforementioned
pressure sharplypressure
aforementioned decreasesharply
reason.decrease
Here, wereason.
used this method
Here, we usedto analyze the fracture
this method permeability
to analyze the fractureof
the rock samples after test.
permeability of the rock samples after test.
Figure 8a–f
Figure 8a–f show
show the the pressure
pressure curves
curves the
the six
six tests. In these
tests. In these curves,
curves, just
just after
after the
the breakdown
breakdown
pressure, aa sharp
pressure, sharp decrease
decrease in in injection
injection pressure
pressure (pump pressure) is
(pump pressure) is observed.
observed. TheThe drop
drop down
down of of the
the
pressure is caused by the injected fluid diffusion when water goes into the new
pressure is caused by the injected fluid diffusion when water goes into the new created fracture created fracture volume.
The diffusion
volume. source is source
The diffusion the water outlet
is the waterhole in the
outlet steel
hole in tube. After
the steel theAfter
tube. sharpthedescend in the pressure
sharp descend in the
curve, the injected fluid flows into the rock sample through induced fractures. Therefore
pressure curve, the injected fluid flows into the rock sample through induced fractures. Therefore the the pressure
will obeywill
pressure a one-dimensional diffusion diffusion
obey a one-dimensional equation:equation:

∂P𝜕𝑃 ∂2𝜕P2 𝑃
−−D𝐷 2 2==0,0, (2)
(2)
∂t𝜕𝑡 ∂z𝜕𝑧
The
The solution
solution to
to Equation
Equation (2) could be
(2) could be given
given by
by Equation
Equation (3):
(3):
𝑧
△ 𝑃(𝑧, 𝑡) = 𝑃0 𝑒𝑟𝑓 ( ! ), (3)
z
√4𝐷𝑡
4 P(z, t) = P0 er f √ , (3)
where t is the time after the breakdown, D is the hydraulic4Dt diffusivity, 𝑧 is the length of the fracture,
and
where 𝑃0t is
isthe
thetime
breakdown
after thepressure. Equation
breakdown, (3)hydraulic
D is the can be used to modelling
diffusivity, fitlength
z is the the experiment pressure
of the fracture, and
curve, 𝑃 , z, and t are known and then the hydraulic diffusivity could be estimated.
P0 is the 0breakdown pressure. Equation (3) can be used to modelling fit the experiment pressure The induced
curve,
fracture
P0 , z, andpermeability
t are knowncould be estimated
and then fromdiffusivity
the hydraulic Equation (3) through
could hydraulicThe
be estimated. diffusivity
inducedwith the
fracture
equation Shapiro et al. [63]:
permeability could be estimated from Equation (3) through hydraulic diffusivity with the equation
Shapiro et al. [63]: 𝑁𝐾
𝐷 =NK , (4)
D = 𝜇, (4)
µ
where 𝜇 is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, K is the permeability, and N is defined as:
where µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, K is the permeability, and N is defined as:
𝑀𝑃𝑑
𝑁= , (5)
MP𝐻d
N= , (5)
where, H
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 26 of 31

where,
1
M=  , (6)
φ (α−φ)
Kf + Kg

Kd
α = 1− , (7)
Kg

H = Pd + α2 M, (8)
4
Pd = Kd + , (9)
3µd
where µd is the shear modulus of the frame and φ is the porosity, K f , K g , and Kd are the fluid bulk
moduli, grain material, and dry frame, respectively.
Based on the Equations (2)–(9), the fracture permeability could be calculated by using hydraulic
fracturing pressure curves of the six granite rock samples. The values of K f , K g , and Kd are 2.18, 75,
and 28.09 GPa, respectively. The µd and φ are 15.58 GPa and 0.0395 Pa·s, respectively, and the µ is
0.000,186,3 Pa·s.
The permeability was 0.92 1.21, 2.23, 3.32, 5.72, and 7.54 mD when injection flow rate was 5, 10, 15,
20, 25, and 30 mL/min, respectively. The value of estimated fracture permeability with injection flow
rate is plotted in Figure 16. The fracture permeability shows a positively ascend trend with the injection
flow rate increase. And it means that a higher injection flow rate will cause wider, lager fractures. All of
the rock sample permeability after hydraulic fracturing is higher than the sample original permeability.
As the original permeability is 0.34 mD, the permeability is obviously promoted. When the injection
flow rate increases by 5 mL/min every time, compared with the original sample permeability, the
permeability is increased 1.71, 2.55, 5.56, 8.78, 15.81, and 21.21 times, respectively. When the injection
flow rate is 30 mL/min, the permeability is the highest. In field-scale operation, we usually trend to
create more fractures and form higher permeability, a higher injection flow rate is better. At the same
time, this also puts forward higher requirements for technology and equipment, it may require more
cost and more advanced equipment, hence the maximum permeability as the primary consideration
may not be economical nor reasonable. Therefore, in the hydraulic fracturing process, it is necessary
to consider fracturing scheme carefully, the injection rate can not only form a good fracture network,
obviously improve permeability, but also ensure a reasonable cost. For example, for the five fracturing
injection rates selected in this experiment, the 25 mL/min can be considered as the best. Although 5, 10,
15, and 20 mL/min increased the permeability to a certain extent, but the magnitude of the permeability
is not increased higher enough, a fracture network is not formed, the hydraulic fracturing effect is
not obvious. Whereas the 30 mL/min has obtained the maximum permeability, compared with the
permeability result of 25 mL/min, the permeability is increased 31.82%, this promotion is not obvious
enough. Considering the cost of a field operation, this increase is unworthy, so the injection rate of
25 mL/min can be regarded as the best, of course, this conclusion is only the based on the experimental
result. In field, more factors should be considered when selecting a reasonable injection flow rate.
Pate et al. [63] calculated hydraulic fracturing permeabilities, which are 2.28, 2.58, and 5.69 mD,
when hydraulic diffusivities are 0.00086, 0.001075, and 0.00215, respectively. The estimated fracture
permeabilities were compared with the fracture permeabilities measured by using AP608™ permeability
test apparatus. Solberg et al. [19] analyzed the hydraulic fracturing in low permeability sandstone rocks
with kinds of injection rates. The permeabilities of rock are measured and the change of permeability
before and after the experiment is compared. Their research shows that hydraulic fracturing induced
permanent structural changes in the rock and increased rock permeability. The permeabilities are 0.38,
5.99, 24.89, and 13.76 nm2 correspond to the pump rates of 3.0, 15, 30, and 70 mm3 /s. The estimated
permeabilities are in close agreement with the measured ones. Our experimental conclusions were
consistent with the results of Solberg and Patel et al.
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 27 of 31
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 31

Figure 16. 16.

Figure Influence of injection
Influence flow
of injection raterate
flow on the permeability
on the permeability

5. Application of the
Pate et al. [63] Methodology
calculated hydraulicin Energy
fracturingMining
permeabilities, which are 2.28, 2.58, and 5.69 mD,
whenThe hydraulic diffusivities are 0.00086, 0.001075,
rock reservoirs natural permeability is very and 0.00215,
low, and respectively.
hence theseThe estimated
reservoirs fracture
should be
permeabilities were compared with the fracture permeabilities measured
enhanced to stimulate efficient and economic mining. Hydraulic fracturing, as a promising method by using AP608™
permeability
to improvingtest apparatus.
in situ Solberg
permeability, et al.
fluid [19]and
flow, analyzed the hydraulic
extraction efficiency,fracturing
provides ainsustained
low permeability
injection
sandstone rocks with
and circulation kinds offor
technology injection
prospectsrates.
of The permeabilities
commercial of rock
extracting are measured
petroleum and the change
and geothermal heat
of permeability before and after the experiment is compared. Their research
from deep buried reservoir. The core technology of hydraulic fracturing is choosing a reasonable shows that hydraulic
fracturing induced
injection flow permanent
rate and pressure structural
to enhancechanges in theand
permeability rock and new
create increased rockOur
fractures. permeability. The
research results
permeabilities
show that a high areinjection
0.38, 5.99,rate
24.89,
trendandto13.76
causenm
2 correspond
a relatively to theinduced
complex pump rates of 3.0,
fracture 15, 30, and
network. 70
At the
mm 3/s. The estimated permeabilities are in close agreement with the measured ones. Our
same time, high injection rates also correspond to high breakdown pressures, high initiation pressures,
experimental conclusions
long propagation werelow
times, and consistent
revisedwith the results ofpressures,
post-fracturing Solberg andthePatel et al. pressures could
initiation
be used to estimate failure stresses, the propagation times are related to the induced earthquakes,
5. Application of the Methodology in Energy Mining
the post-fracturing pressures influences the heat extraction efficiency. Therefore, we cannot only
consider
The breakdown
rock reservoirs pressure whenpermeability
natural designing fracturing
is very scheme,
low, and whereas
hence should consider the
these reservoirs influence
should be
of differenttoparameters
enhanced on the fracturing
stimulate efficient and economicresults, induced
mining. earthquakes
Hydraulic and heatasextraction
fracturing, a promisingefficiency
method in
situ
to when choosing
improving injection flow fluid
in situ permeability, rates.flow, and extraction efficiency, provides a sustained injection
Because oftechnology
and circulation the limitation of experiment
for prospects conditions,
of commercial our experimental
extracting petroleum andstudy contains some
geothermal heat
shortcomings:
from deep buried for instance,
reservoir.asThejust core
mentioned, even of
technology if we know the
hydraulic injection is
fracturing flow rate is not
choosing the higher
a reasonable
the better,flow
injection we do notand
rate know how to to
pressure choose
enhancean injection flow rate
permeability andand how new
create muchfractures.
permeability
Ourisresearch
optimal.
This work
results show needs
that further research.rate trend to cause a relatively complex induced fracture network.
a high injection
At the same time, high injection rates also correspond to high breakdown pressures, high initiation
6. Conclusions
pressures, long propagation times, and low revised post-fracturing pressures, the initiation pressures
couldInbe thisused
paper,to we
estimate failure stresses,
use true-triaxial hydraulic thefracturing
propagation times testing
laboratory are related to the induced
with large-size granite
earthquakes, the post-fracturing pressures influences the heat extraction efficiency.
samples to investigate hydraulic fracturing characteristics by varying the injection flow rate. According Therefore, we
cannot onlygranite
to the cut consider breakdown
samples and the pressure
pressure whendata,designing
we analyzedfracturing scheme,initiation
the fracture whereaspressure,
should
consider the influence of different parameters on the fracturing results, induced
propagation time, post-fracturing pressure, breakdown pressure, fracture geometry, and length. earthquakes and heat
extraction
The fractureefficiency in situwas
permeability when choosingatinjection
calculated last. Theflow rates. obtained are list below:
conclusions
Because of the limitation of experiment conditions, our experimental study contains some
(1) A particular
shortcomings: pressure–time
for instance, curve could
as just mentioned, evenbe ifdivided
we know into
thefour mainflow
injection phases:
rate isinitial
not thepressure
higher
development stage, wellbore pressurization stage, fracturing
the better, we do not know how to choose an injection flow rate and how much permeability phase, and post-failure stage.
is
TheThis
optimal. pressurization
work needsrate curve
further could help to distinguish the four phases. Four parameters of the
research.
fracture initiation pressure, propagation time, post-fracturing pressure, and breakdown pressure
could be obtained from the pressure–time curves. The injection flow rates significantly influenced
6. Conclusions
these four parameters during hydraulic fracturing. The initiation pressures and breakdown
In this paper, we use true-triaxial hydraulic fracturing laboratory testing with large-size granite
samples to investigate hydraulic fracturing characteristics by varying the injection flow rate.
According to the cut granite samples and the pressure data, we analyzed the fracture initiation
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 28 of 31

pressures have approximately linear positive relations to injection flow rates. The post-fracturing
pressure and propagation time had approximately linear negative relations to injection flow rates.
(2) When the injection flow rate is low, fracture propagation direction is along the PFD under the
control of triaxial stresses. With the increase of injection flow rate, the fracture initiation is
like a kind of “exploded” phenomenon, the energy and pressure are released rapidly, and the
fracture propagation direction sometimes is not along the PFD near the wellbore zone because
of the complex stress state. When the fracture propagates away from the stress complex zone,
its direction is influenced by triaxial stresses (crustal stress in field) again and will gradually turn
to PFD as the fracture grows.
(3) The total length of the fractures increases with the increase of injection flow rate, and when the
injection flow rate is low, mainly shear fractures are induced, and the hydraulic fracturing may
not cause a fracture network. As the injection flow rate increases, when the tension fractures
dominate fracturing patterns, the hydraulic fracturing tends to form a complex fracture network.
The width of the fracture also increases with the increase of injection flow rate, a wider fracture
system will result in lesser frictional resistance for fluid flowing and a higher permeability.
(4) A parameter of Mean Fracturing Power is proposed to estimate the fracture total length. This
parameter represents the power injected into rock for fracture propagation. The fracture total
length almost linearly increases with the increase of Mean Fracturing Power and this linear
relationship provided us with a way to roughly predict fracture length.
(5) The fracture permeability of rock samples after hydraulic fracturing shows a linear ascending
trend with the increase of the injection flow rates.

In the future work of this study, we will numerically simulate the hydraulic induced fracture
propagation by the discrete element method, especially analyzing the influence of injection flow rate
on the fracture patterns. Then, we will compare the numerical results with the experimental results,
and try to find a numerical model which could be used in field-scale operation. In addition, we will try
to find out which injection flow rate and permeability is optimal for field-scale hydraulic fracturing.
The connection of existing natural fractures is also part of our future study.

Author Contributions: Y.C. and Y.Z. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.C. performed the experiments
and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Topic 3
(NO.2018YFB1501803), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.41772238).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chong, Z.H.; Yao, Q.L.; Li, X.H. Experimental Investigation of Fracture Propagation Behavior Induced by
Hydraulic Fracturing in Anisotropic Shale Cores. Energies 2019, 12, 976. [CrossRef]
2. Jing, F.; Sheng, Q.; Luo, C.W.; Zeng, J. The application of hydraulic fracturing in storage projects of liquefied
petroleum gas. Key Eng. Mat. 2006, 306–308, 1509–1514. [CrossRef]
3. Zhao, X.; He, E.J.; Guo, J.C.; Zhu, H.Y.; Wang, H.H.; He, W. The study of fracture propagation in pre-acidized
shale reservoir during the hydraulic fracturing. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2020, 184, 106488. [CrossRef]
4. Tan, P.; Pang, H.W.; Zhang, R.X.; Jin, Y.; Zhou, Y.C.; Kao, J.W.; Fan, M. Experimental investigation into
hydraulic fracture geometry and proppant migration characteristics for southeastern Sichuan deep shale
reservoirs. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2020, 184, 106517. [CrossRef]
5. Osborn, S.G.; Vengosh, A.; Warner, N.R.; Jackson, R.B. Methane contamination of drinking water
accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 8172–8176.
[CrossRef]
6. Cahill, A.G.; Steelman, C.M.; Forde, O.; Kuloyo, O.; Ruff, S.E.; Mayer, B.; Mayer, K.U.; Strous, M.; Ryan, M.C.;
Cherry, J.A. Mobility and persistence of methane in groundwater in a controlled-release field experiment.
Nat. Geosci. 2017, 10, 289–294. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 29 of 31

7. Taherdangkoo, R.; Tatomir, A.; Taylor, R.; Sauter, M. Numerical investigations of upward migration of
fracking fluid along a fault zone during and after stimulation. Energy Procedia 2017, 125, 126–135. [CrossRef]
8. Taherdangkoo, R.; Tatomir, A.; Anighoro, T.; Sauter, M. Modeling fate and transport of hydraulic fracturing
fluid in the presence of abandoned wells. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2019, 221, 58–68. [CrossRef]
9. Giardini, D. Geothermal quake risks must be faced. Nature 2009, 462, 848–849. [CrossRef]
10. Trifu, C.I. Special issue: The mechanism of induced seismicity - Introduction. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2002, 159,
1–5.
11. Guo, F.; Morgenstern, N.; Scott, J. Interpretation of hydraulic fracturing breakdown pressure. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 1993, 30, 617–626. [CrossRef]
12. Santillán, D.; Juanes, R.; Cueto-Felgueroso, L. Phase field model of hydraulic fracturing in poroelastic media:
Fracture propagation, arrest, and branching under fluid injection and extraction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
2018, 123, 2127–2155. [CrossRef]
13. Rothert, E.; Shapiro, S.A. Statistics of fracture strength and fluid-induced microseismicity. J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth 2007, 112. [CrossRef]
14. Zoback, M.D.; Harjes, H.-P. Injection-induced earthquakes and crustal stress at 9 km depth at the KTB deep
drilling site, Germany. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1997, 102, 18477–18491. [CrossRef]
15. Zoback, M.; Rummel, F.; Jung, R.; Raleigh, C. Laboratory hydraulic fracturing experiments in intact and
pre-fractured rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. 1977, 14, 49–58. [CrossRef]
16. Hubbert, M.K.; Willis, D.G. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. In Underground Waste Management and
Environmental Implications; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 1972.
17. Haimson, B.; Fairhurst, C. Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rocks. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1967, 7,
310–318. [CrossRef]
18. Haimson, B.; Fairhurst, C. Hydraulic fracturing in porous-permeable materials. J. Pet. Technol. 1969, 21,
811–817. [CrossRef]
19. Solberg, P.; Lockner, D.; Byerlee, J. Hydraulic fracturing in granite under geothermal conditions. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. 1980, 17, 25–33. [CrossRef]
20. Solberg, P.; Lockner, D.; Byerlee, J. Shear and tension hydraulic fractures in low permeability rocks. Pure Appl.
Geophys. 1977, 115, 191–198. [CrossRef]
21. Frash, L.P.; Gutierrez, M.; Hampton, J. True-triaxial apparatus for simulation of hydraulically fractured
multi-borehole hot dry rock reservoirs. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2014, 70, 496–506. [CrossRef]
22. Lockner, D.; Byerlee, J. Hydrofracture in Weber sandstone at high confining pressure and differential stress.
J. Geophys. Res. 1977, 82, 2018–2026. [CrossRef]
23. Song, I.; Suh, M.; Won, K.S.; Haimson, B. A laboratory study of hydraulic fracturing breakdown pressure in
tablerock sandstone. Geosci. J. 2001, 5, 263–271. [CrossRef]
24. Patel, S.; Sondergeld, C.; Rai, C. Laboratory studies of hydraulic fracturing by cyclic injection. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2017, 95, 8–15. [CrossRef]
25. Fallahzadeh, S.; Hossain, M.; James Cornwell, A.; Rasouli, V. Near Wellbore Hydraulic Fracture Propagation
from Perforations in Tight Rocks: The Roles of Fracturing Fluid Viscosity and Injection Rate. Energies 2017,
10. [CrossRef]
26. Nagel, N.B.; Gil, I.; Sanchez-Nagel, M.; Damjanac, B. Simulating hydraulic fracturing in real fractured
rocks-overcjavascript: Itermoming the limits of pseudo3D models. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 24–26 January
2011.
27. Zhang, X.; Jeffrey, R. Development of fracture networks through hydraulic fracture growth in naturally
fractured reservoirs. In Proceedings of the ISRM International Conference for Effective and Sustainable
Hydraulic Fracturing, Brisbane, Australia, 20–22 May 2013.
28. Al-Busaidi, A.; Hazzard, J.F.; Young, R.P. Distinct element modeling of hydraulically fractured Lac du Bonnet
granite. J. Geophys Res. Solid Earth 2005, 110, B06302. [CrossRef]
29. Weng, X.; Kresse, O.; Cohen, C.; Wu, R.; Gu, H. Modeling of Hydraulic-Fracture-Network Propagation in a
Naturally Fractured Formation. SPE Prod. Oper. 2011, 26, 368–380. [CrossRef]
30. Rothert, E.; Shapiro, S.A. Microseismic monitoring of borehole fluid injections: Data modeling and inversion
for hydraulic properties of rocks. Geophysics 2003, 68, 685–689. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 30 of 31

31. Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, S.S. Studies of Hydraulic Fracture-Propagation Behavior in Presence of Natural
Fractures: Fully Coupled Fractured-Reservoir Modeling in Poroelastic Environments. Int. J. Geomech. 2013,
13, 809–826. [CrossRef]
32. Guo, T.K.; Qu, Z.Q.; Gong, D.Q.; Lei, X.; Liu, M. Numerical simulation of directional propagation of hydraulic
fracture guided by vertical multi-radial boreholes. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 175–188. [CrossRef]
33. Pakzad, R.; Wang, S.Y.; Sloan, S.W. Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in Low-/High-Permeability,
Quasi-Brittle and Heterogeneous Rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2018, 51, 1153–1171. [CrossRef]
34. Deng, J.Q.; Lin, C.; Yang, Q.; Liu, Y.R.; Tao, Z.F.; Duan, H.F. Investigation of directional hydraulic fracturing
based on true tri-axial experiment and finite element modeling. Comput. Geotech. 2016, 75, 28–47. [CrossRef]
35. Fan, T.-G.; Zhang, G.-Q. Laboratory investigation of hydraulic fracture networks in formations with
continuous orthogonal fractures. Energy 2014, 74, 164–173. [CrossRef]
36. Kumari, W.G.P.; Ranjith, P.G.; Perera, M.S.A.; Li, X.; Li, L.H.; Chen, B.K.; Isaka, B.L.A.; De Silva, V.R.S.
Hydraulic fracturing under high temperature and pressure conditions with micro CT applications:
Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks. Fuel 2018, 230, 138–154. [CrossRef]
37. Ma, X.; Zoback, M.D. Laboratory experiments simulating poroelastic stress changes associated with depletion
and injection in low-porosity sedimentary rocks. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2017, 122, 2478–2503. [CrossRef]
38. Zhuang, L.; Kim, K.Y.; Jung, S.G.; Diaz, M.; Min, K.B. Effect of Water Infiltration, Injection Rate and Anisotropy
on Hydraulic Fracturing Behavior of Granite. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2019, 52, 575–589. [CrossRef]
39. Liu, H.; Chi, X.Y.; Li, W. Tectono-paleogeographic study of the early cretaceous in the Songliao Basin. Min. Sci.
Technol. (China) 2011, 21, 93–98.
40. Mao, R.B.; Feng, Z.J.; Liu, Z.H.; Zhao, Y.S. Laboratory hydraulic fracturing test on large-scale pre-cracked
granite specimens. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 44, 278–286. [CrossRef]
41. Huang, J.S.; Griffiths, D.V.; Wong, S.W. Initiation pressure, location and orientation of hydraulic fracture.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2012, 49, 59–67. [CrossRef]
42. Xie, L.M.; Min, K.B. Hydraulic fracturing initiation and propagation in deep inclined open hole for Enhanced
Geothermal System. Geothermics 2017, 70, 351–366. [CrossRef]
43. Baumgärtner, J.; Zoback, M.D. Interpretation of hydraulic fracturing pressure-time records using interactive
analysis methods. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 1989, 26, 461–469. [CrossRef]
44. Fallahzadeh, S.H.; Rasouli, V.; Sarmadivaleh, M. An Investigation of Hydraulic Fracturing Initiation and
Near-Wellbore Propagation from Perforated Boreholes in Tight Formations. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2015, 48,
573–584. [CrossRef]
45. Cornet, F.H. Earthquakes induced by fluid injections. Science 2015, 348, 1204–1205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. McGarr, A. Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2014,
119, 1008–1019. [CrossRef]
47. Lu, S.M. A global review of enhanced geothermal system (EGS). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81,
2902–2921. [CrossRef]
48. Zhuang, L.; Kim, K.Y.; Jung, S.G.; Diaz, M.; Min, K.B.; Zang, A.; Stephansson, O.; Zimmerman, G.; Yoon, J.S.;
Hofmann, H. Cyclic hydraulic fracturing of pocheon granite cores and its impact on breakdown pressure,
acoustic emission amplitudes and injectivity. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2019, 122, 104065. [CrossRef]
49. Grigoli, F.; Cesca, S.; Rinaldi, A.P.; Manconi, A.; Lopez-Comino, J.A.; Clinton, J.F.; Westaway, R.; Cauzzi, C.;
Dahm, T.; Wiemer, S. The November 2017 M-w 5.5 Pohang earthquake: A possible case of induced seismicity
in South Korea. Science 2018, 360, 1003–1006. [CrossRef]
50. Kim, K.H.; Ree, J.H.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Kang, S.Y.; Seo, W. Assessing whether the 2017 M-w 5.4 Pohang
earthquake in South Korea was an induced event. Science 2018, 360, 1007–1009. [CrossRef]
51. Jeffrey, R.G.; Chen, Z.R.; Zhang, X.; Bunger, A.P.; Mills, K.W. Measurement and Analysis of Full-Scale
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Reorientation. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2015, 48, 2497–2512. [CrossRef]
52. Legarth, B.; Huenges, E.; Zimmermann, G. Hydraulic fracturing in a sedimentary geothermal reservoir:
Results and implications. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2005, 42, 1028–1041. [CrossRef]
53. Hou, P.; Gao, F.; Ju, Y.; Yang, Y.G.; Gao, Y.N.; Liu, J. Effect of water and nitrogen fracturing fluids on initiation
and extension of fracture in hydraulic fracturing of porous rock. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 45, 38–52.
[CrossRef]
54. Hossain, M.M.; Rahman, M.K.; Rahman, S.S. Hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation: Roles of wellbore
trajectory, perforation and stress regimes. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2000, 27, 129–149. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 1411 31 of 31

55. Tan, P.; Jin, Y.; Han, K.; Hou, B.; Chen, M.; Guo, X.F.; Gao, J. Analysis of hydraulic fracture initiation and
vertical propagation behavior in laminated shale formation. Fuel 2017, 206, 482–493. [CrossRef]
56. Fatahi, H.; Hossain, M.M.; Fallahzadeh, S.H.; Mostofi, M. Numerical simulation for the determination of
hydraulic fracture initiation and breakdown pressure using distinct element method. J. Nat. Gas Sci Eng.
2016, 33, 1219–1232. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, Y.S.; Zhang, J.C.; Yuan, B.; Yin, S.X. In-situ stresses controlling hydraulic fracture propagation and
fracture breakdown pressure. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2018, 164, 164–173. [CrossRef]
58. Chen, M.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, G.Q.; Jin, Y. The Experimental Investigation of Fracture Propagation Behavior
and Fracture Geometry in Hydraulic Fracturing through Oriented Perforations. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 2010, 28,
1297–1306. [CrossRef]
59. Jin, X.; Shah, S.N.; Roegiers, J.-C.; Hou, B. Breakdown Pressure Determination-a Fracture Mechanics Approach.
In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 October
2013.
60. Haimson, B.; Huang, X. Hydraulic Fracturing Breakdown Pressure and In Situ Stress at Great Depth.
In Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium, Pau, France, 30 September 1989.
61. Hofmann, H.; Babadagli, T.; Zimmermann, G. Numerical Simulation of Complex Fracture Network
Development by Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured Ultratight Formations. J. Energ. Resour.-Asme
2014, 136, 042905. [CrossRef]
62. Patel, S.M.; Sondergeld, C.H.; Rai, C.S. Hydraulic fracture permeability estimation using stimulation pressure
data. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2018, 101, 50–53. [CrossRef]
63. Shapiro, S.A.; Patzig, R.; Rothert, E.; Rindschwentner, J. Triggering of seismicity by pore-pressure
perturbations: Permeability-related signatures of the phenomenon. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2003, 160,
1051–1066. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).