Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanics Research Communications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechrescom

A review of theories to calculate pore pressures when fluids penetrate

into rocks
Catarina Baptista-Pereira *, Bruno Gonçalves da Silva 1, Jay N. Meegoda
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA

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

Keywords: Quantifying the pore pressures that build up inside of the rock matrices when fluids are injected inside of them is
Pore Pressures very important. In fact, the effective stresses that a rock is subject to either decrease or increase, when a fluid is
Fluids Injection filling or is being drained out of the rock matrix, respectively, due to the simple fact the fluid pore pressure vary.
Rocks
Several theories have been developed to better understand the pore pressure distributions in the Earth layers.
Fracturing
Fracture
Thus, this review will allow the reader to have a better understanding of the evolution of those theories, in a
Theories single manuscript, rather than in multiple documents which, in turn, is time consuming and not user friendly.
Important also to separate this review paper into two parts, depending on the study the reader needs to make
when fluids are considered: (1) quantification of fracturing pressures and (2) quantification of the pore pressures
due to the fluid penetration.

1. Introduction
Understanding how the injection of a fluid affects the damage (pri­
marily fracturing) of a rock is necessary and essential, especially because
energy is released in the form of micro-seismic events when new frac­
tures are created, and the existing ones are mobilized. Hydraulic frac­
turing processes can be substantially affected by the interaction of two
mechanisms: (i) the elastic effects caused by the hydraulic pressure
applied inside of the existing fractures and (ii) the poro-mechanical ef­
fects caused by the fluid infiltration inside of the porous media. This, in
turn, is primarily affected by the injection rate used, the viscosity of the
fluid and the porosity of the material. To note that other mechanisms
also affect the hydraulic fracturing system, such as the chemical
composition of the materials [27,82,83], temperature, initial conditions,
etc. Thus, quantifying the pore pressures that are built up when a fluid is
injected into the rock matrix of soils and rocks is of extremely
importance.
In an extensive experimental program, Baptista-Pereira et al. [4,5]
investigated the penetration of fluids at a high injection rate of 20
ml/min and a low injection rate of 2 ml/min into the matrix of two
different types of rock (soft gypsum and hard granite). The following
were studied: (a) breakdown and fracturing pressures; (b) volumes
injected inside rock matrices; (c) growth of injected fluid fronts through
the pores; (d) fluid pore pressures, and (e) fracturing patterns, such as
white patching (also known as micro-damage), fracturing and coales­
cence patterns. On the other hand, the micro seismic activity and cor­
responding energy that are generated when the fluid is penetrating and
seeping through the porous matrix were also studied. Thus, this review
was performed to investigate the applicability of existing theories to
validate the experimental results.
Because the pore pressures have been studied for several decades,
since Terzaghi [75], it is important to map the evolution of the different
theories that were developed from the previous author in two different
fronts: (i) hydraulic fracturing pressures (Section 2) and (ii) fluid pore
pressures (Section 3). This review considered several available theories
to calculate the pore pressure due to fluid injection in rock matrices, and
is divided into two main parts that (1) enumerate the different stages
that arise during hydraulic fracturing experiments (Section 2) and (2)
quantify the pore pressures due to the fluid penetration (Section 3). To
note that this review will not cover all the existent theories available, but
will rather show the main ones that have been used as a base throughout
different decades.
2. Hydraulic fracturing pressures
Let us start by introducing several terminologies, depending on

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cb373@njit.edu (C. Baptista-Pereira).
1
Author passed away on August 1st, 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2023.104184
Received 16 March 2023; Received in revised form 11 June 2023; Accepted 5 August 2023
Available online 9 August 2023
0093-6413/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
which part of the pressure-time response curve the study is being made
[30]. Such understanding is important, due to the intrinsic correlation
between the fracturing pressures, and the fluid penetration (and thus,
fluid pore pressures) needed to initiate and propagate newly created
cracks until they further coalesce or not.
• Pump-in phase:
○ Formation Integrity Test (FIT) corresponds to the initial linear
behavior. Here, the wellbore pressure increases until a value lower
than the Fracture Initiation Pressure (FIP). FIP is also known as
fracture pressure or propagation pressure. Nevertheless, during
this test, the FIP and minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) cannot be
obtained as no cracks are created.
○ The Leak-Off Test (LOT) gives the FIP by slightly deviating the
previous curve’s linear behavior as the wellbore pressure is
increased (with a lower slope). At this point, a stable crack starts to
develop as an effect of the wellbore pressure increase until the
Formation Breakdown Pressure is reached (FBP) (with a volume
increase rate lower than the injection rate). According to the au­
thors, the initial deviation point is the Leak-Off Pressure (LOP),
which is assumed to be equal to the FIP. After the FBP point is
reached, an unstable crack is developed (with a volume increase
rate higher than the injection rate). The first instantaneously
decrease of the pressure occurs right before it reaches the constant
value known as Fracture Propagation Pressure (FPP). During this
test, as the created crack is very short, Shmin is not possible to
obtain. To obtain Shmin, the LOT has to continue in order for the
crack to continue to increase – that is why there is the need to
extend the LOT.
• Shut-in phase:
○ The eXtended Leak-Off Test (XLOT) corresponds to the test where a
long enough crack is created (unstable crack), allowing the Shmin
to be measured. At the end of this phase, the steady fracture
propagation pressure (or FPP) is reached, while an unstable crack
is developed. After the FPP is achieved, the shut-in phase starts,
which is characterized by the sudden drop in the FPP value to the
instantaneously shut-in pressure (ISIP). Depending on rock’s type,
the behavior that precedes the Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP, also
referred as the Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) when the induced
fracture during an injectivity test is closed) is different.
■ Permeable rock: It is characterized by a positive concavity as
soon as the ISIP is reached.
■ Impermeable rock: It is characterized by a constant wellbore
pressure value as soon as the ISIP value is reached. Usually,
when using XLOT in impermeable formations, it is difficult to
accurately predict Shmin and FCP because the crack rarely
closes during the shut-in phase.
• Flow-back phase
○ Pump-In and Flow-Back test (PIFB) is an XLOT followed by a flow-
back phase. Using this test in impermeable rocks gives a good
prediction of FCP and Shmin, because the crack closes as the fluid
flow-back, which is not dependent on the fluid leak-off.
Arzuaga-García and Einstein [3] mention the critical wellbore pres­
sure may be both the breakdown pressure and fracture initiation pres­
sure, which is open for debate. Indeed, the authors mention the
following:
• Zoback et al. [88] investigated different fluid viscosities in sand­
stones and Gabbro. In fact, and as shown in Table 2.1, the fluids can
show two behaviors. High viscosity fluids can create stable fracturing
processes during the instant between when the fracture initiates and
breakdown occurs. Low viscosity fluids do not show a pronounced
instant frame between the two instants (fracture initiation and
breakdown pressure).
2
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
Table 2.1
Comparison of breakdown and fracture initiation pressures in Gabbro and
sandstone (Ref. [3] after Ref. [88]). pi is the fracture initiation pressure and pb
the breakdown pressure.
Gabbro (impermeable)
Low pi ∼ pb pi ∼ identical for
pressurization bothrates
rate
High pi ≪ pb
pressurization
rate
Ruhr sandstone (somewhat permeable)
Low pi ∼ pb plow
i
pressurization rate
≪phigh
i
pressurization rate
pressurization
rate
High pisomewhatlowerthanpb
pressurization
rate
• Arzuaga-García and Einstein [3] investigated the effect of pene­
trating and non-penetrating fluids in molded gypsum. They
concluded there is not an actual differentiation between fracture
initiation and breakdown pressures.
Two theoretical hydraulic fracturing (HF) criteria have been mainly
used to calculate the breakdown pressure (Pb) [69], by correlating the
in-situ horizontal stresses and by using non-penetrating or penetrating
fluids. These two criteria, according to Song et al. [69], assume that the
effective stress law developed for soil masses by Terzaghi [75] is valid to
characterize the effects of pore fluid in rocks, given by Eq. (2.1):
σ′ij = σij − δij P0 (2.1)
where, σ′ij is the effective stress, σij the total stress, δij is the Kronecker
symbol and P0 is the initial pore pressure in the rock.
2.1. Hubbert and Willis [45] for non-penetrating fluids
Eq. (2.2) gives the first theoretical HF criterion (elastic model) and it
was developed by Hubbert and Willis [45] for non-penetrating fluids [3,
84]. This equation is based on the elastic theory for stresses in an infinite
plate containing a circular hole, assuming that the rock is elastic, the
borehole is smooth and cylindrical, and that the borehole axis is vertical
and parallel to the pre-existing principal stresses. Eq. (2.2) also considers
the effect of pressure applied in the borehole, namely a non-penetrating
fluid, in the presence of a thick-walled elastic cylinder.
Pw = Δp + P0 (2.2)
where, Pw is the required fluid pressure to keep open the newly created
fracture if a non-penetrating fluid is injected and propagate that fracture
along the plane; Δp = σ, with σ as the total stress acting perpendicularly
to the crack surface; Δp is the increase of pressure with respect to the
original fluid pressure in the rocks. P0 is the initial pore pressure in the
rock (or formation pore pressure, that corresponds to FPP of Ref. [37]).
According to Hubbert and Willis [45] there are two different behaviors,
depending on the in-situ conditions. Fig. 2.1 shows two different be­
haviors, depending on the in-situ conditions:
• Fig. 2.1(a) corresponds to the case where no pre-existent flaws exist,
or where the two horizontal stresses are close to each other (vertical
crack), or to a horizontal crack.
• In Fig. 2.1(b) there are pre-existent flaws or the ratio of the two
horizontal stresses is larger than 2 (vertical crack).
The work developed by Hubbert and Willis [45] on the fracturing of
rocks combined Terzaghi’s theory with Mohr diagrams. By using the
concept of effective stress applied to a rock, the Mohr circle shifts to the
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
Fig. 2.1. Idealized scheme of two types of down-the-hole pressure behavior during a fracturing treatment: (a) breakdown pressure noticeably higher than injection
pressure, (b) breakdown pressure similar to injection pressure (based on Ref. [45]).
left when the pore pressure increases, causing the effective stress to
decrease. Therefore, failure occurs when the circle touches the failure
envelope [45]. According to Shoji and Takenouchi [67], this shift of the
circle could explain how the increase of pore pressures, at a macro-scale,
leads to the decrease in rock strength. However, the last authors refer the
initiation and extension of cracks from a cavity filled with compressed
fluid is difficult to be explained by this theory (as it is only considered
non-penetrating fluids).
2.2. Hubbert and Willis [45] for penetrating fluids
For a penetrating fluid, Hubbert and Willis [45] refer that an incre­
ment of the crack pressure (Δp0) produces an outward flow from the
crack surface of fluid into the rock matrix and in the pore fluid. The
equation for penetrating fluids developed by these authors is the same as
non-penetrating fluids (Eq. (2.2)) because the force acting in the fluid is
fully transmitted to the rock due to viscous coupling.
By using Eq. (2.1) and later Eq. (2.3), the authors predicted the in­
jection pressures. The authors replaced in Eq. (2.1), σij by σv as the total
vertical stress in order to develop Eq. (2.3). In Eq. (2.4), under condi­
tions of incipient normal faulting, σ′Min is the least principal effective
stress, which is usually associated with the least horizontal stress (σh).
Then, by knowing that Δp from Eq. (2.2) is the additional fluid pressure
required to keep open the newly created fracture if a non-penetrating
fluid is injected, this term can be written by Eq. (2.5). The total injec­
tion pressure, Pw, is given by Eq. (2.6).
σ′ij = σ′v = σv − P0 (2.3)
σ′v σ v − P0
σ′Min = σ′h ≅ = (2.4)
3 3
σ′v
Δp ≅ (2.5)
3
σv + 2P0
Pw = Δp + P0 ≅ (2.6)
3 their work are established on the previous three theoretical criteria.
According to Gunarathna [37], the total injection pressure (Pinjection)
is the equivalent to FPP of the graph Pressure-time response of field
injectivity test described by Feng and Gray [30]. Arzuaga-García and
Einstein [3] add that the pressure to keep open and to further propagate
the fracture involves the propagation of unstable fractures.
2.3. Haimson and Fairhurst [[39,40] for non-penetrating and penetrating
fluids, respectively]
The second theoretical HF criterion was developed by Haimson and
Fairhurst [39,40] and is based on (i) the elastic theory for an imper­
meable rock (Eq. (2.7) for non-penetrating fluids), and on (ii) the
poro-elastic theory by considering poro-elastic stresses induced by the
fluid permeation into the rocks (Eq. (2.8) for penetrating fluids). Both
3
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
Eqs. (2.7) and (2.8) assume that a tensile crack develops when the
effective tensile stress reaches the tensile strength of the rock, σtHF (the
rock is assumed to fail when the critical tensile stress is reached) [69].
Zoback et al. [88] refer that when using Eq. (2.7), the pressurizing
fluid can penetrate the rock’s surroundings, even before the crack takes
place. If that is true, then there is a perturbation of the stress field due to
the increase of interstitial pore pressure next to the borehole. Thus, the
maximum principal stress is higher when it is disregarded the fluid
penetrating the rock as the pore pressures would be zero. That is why
there is a need to consider the fluid diffusing into the rock, as shown in
Eq. (2.8).
Pc − P0 = σ tHF − 3σh + σ H (2.7)
σ tHF − 3σh + σ H
Pc − P 0 = (2.8)
2 − 2η
where, Pc is the critical wellbore pressure (which can be named as
breakdown pressure, Pb, or as the fluid pressure, PF), σh and σH are the
maximum and minimum principal stresses perpendicular to the axis of
the wellbore (tension is positive), P0 is the interstitial fluid pressure
(1− 2ν)
(which can also be called as pore pressure, Pp); η = α2(1− ν) is the poroe­
lastic parameter that ranges from 0 to 0.5, α = 1 − Kr /Kb is the Biot’s
parameter [16], ν is the Poisson’s ratio, Kr is the rock matrix
compressibility and Kb is the bulk compressibility.
The minimum principal stress, σh, is given by the value of ISIP of
Kehle [46], which also coincides with the shut-in pressure of the
pressure-time response of field injectivity test given by Feng and Gray
[30]. However, Gunarathna and Gonçalves da Silva [38] identify the
fluid pressure (PF) as FIP. Zoback et al. [88] and Arzuaga-García and
Einstein [3] refer to the critical wellbore pressure, Pc, which can be
either the breakdown pressure (FBP) or the fracture initiation pressure
(FIP).
Several authors have proposed other approaches, such as Abou-
Sayed et al. [1], Hickman and Zoback [42], Schmitt and Zoback, [64],
Song et al. [69] and Huang et al. [43]. However, the base concepts of
Now that it was reviewed the main pressures needed to initiate and
propagate cracks when fluids are added to the system, it is equally
important to review the evolution of the pore pressures and how to
quantify them, especially when the variable time comes into play.
3. Fundamentals of flow in geomaterials
Because the use of the HF technique involves injecting fluid into a
rock matrix, it is important to understand the effect of fluid pore pres­
sures on initiation, propagation and coalescence of new and existent
cracks, and on the microseismic events created during fracturing
development. Under the topic of HF, some authors refer the fluid flow
inside porous materials is driven by convection, which is the combina­
tion of diffusion and advection. Others mention it is only driven by
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
advection, while Shapiro and Dinske [66] refer that prior to the creation
of new cracks or to the propagation of the existent ones, there is infil­
tration phenomena of fluids into the matrices of rocks and diffusion of
the injected fluid pressure not only into the pore space media, but also
inside the hydraulic cracks. Winterle [79] also adds that the diffusion
can be used to describe the flow of fluids through saturated and unsat­
urated porous media, in fractured-rock systems. Thus, there is not a
consensus of which model to use when the fluid penetration is enabling
the creation of new cracks and propagating the existent ones.
3.1. Diffusion
According to Crank [22], the diffusion can be explained as the pro­
cess in which matter travels or it is transported from one point to another
point of the system, which is an outcome of molecular motions, during a
period of time. Thus, when injecting a fluid into the rock, it generates
pore pressure changes at different locations as a function of the fluid
filling history into the rock matrix. Consequently, the effective pressures
in the rock are affected by the fluid diffusion. On the other hand, in a
porous media environment and according to Perkins and Johnston [58],
if fluids flow through porous media, both dispersion and diffusion may
occur, depending on the velocity of the fluid. Large velocities in the
interstices does not allow enough time for the diffusion to equalize the
concentration inside the pore spaces. Low velocities in the interstices
allow the diffusion to dominate in a specific area where dispersion ex­
ists. Webb [78] adds that one of the modes of transport of fluids through
porous media is known as ordinary diffusion, which according to the
author occurs due to different gradients of concentrations or tempera­
tures, and also due to external forces, and thus, molecule-molecule
collisions. McNamee and Gibson [55] state that the process that in­
volves a time-dependent pore pressure also involves diffusion. Accord­
ing to McNamee and Gibson [55], if a fluid is flowing through a porous
media, that same fluid is diffusing and the process is time-dependent,
and Zimmerman [86] adds that basic differential equations that are a
function of time can be used to describe the flow of fluids through those
porous media, such as the principle of conservation of mass with the
Darcy’s law.
The diffusion equation can be used as a function of time to Ref. [7]:
(i) localize the temperature perturbation; (ii) understand the topography
at the surface when a fault ruptures; (iii) describe the concentration of
chemical elements; and (iv) quantify the propagation of seismic waves.
The diffusion equation can be used as a function of time to Ref. [7]:
(i) localize the temperature perturbation; (ii) understand the topography
at the surface when a fault ruptures; (iii) describe the concentration of
chemical elements; and (iv) quantify the propagation of seismic waves.
3.2. Advection
According to Winterle [79], when cracks are added to the system (e.
g., Hydraulic fracturing), the use of a diffusion driven matrix, instead of
a combination between diffusive and advective matrix to define the flow
model has three main implications:
• Uniform mobile continuum may not occur when multiple transport
paths exist.
• The estimation of mobile porosity cannot be obtained from the total
fracture porosity.
• The solutes may not diffuse through all the matrix blocks of the
surface area in advection environments.
Thus, according to the same author, it is a good practice to consider
the problem as a mechanical dispersion process if there are heteroge­
neous flow patterns (e.g., different) (i) fracture velocities, (ii) flow path
lengths; (iii) dead-end fractures [79].
Other authors refer the use of advective theories when soil deforms
due to the dissipation of pore pressure, along with a transient, nonlinear
4
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
advective velocity [2].
3.3. Convection mechanisms (diffusion + advection)
For the purpose of this research it is important to understand how to
quantify the stress changes in a rock formation, when it is considered
fluid extraction or injection [76]. Moreover, in an HF system, two types
of mechanisms that control the evolution of pore pressures may be
present (diffusion and advection), which depend on the boundary con­
ditions [36]. Also, when this information is combined (known as
coupling), namely in terms of stress and changes in fluid pressures, in
space and time [36], the term poroelasticity appears.
According to Makhnenko and Labuz [50] and Wang [76], Geertsma
[34] is the first author to explore the term poroelasticity, which is
developed from the macroscopic stress-strain relations. On the other
hand, such topic is first explained by Biot’s work, when the latter makes
use of the elasticity and viscoelasticity theories applied to porous solids
that are saturated with fluids. Geertsma [34] also mentions that the
macroscopic theory of poroelasticity is very similar to both theories of
thermoelasticity and macroscopic poroelasticity. Moreover, according
to Wang [76], if the fluid pressure increases, the medium can expand,
similar to the material expansion that occurs when the temperature
rises.
According to Darcy’s Law, a non-uniform pore pressure (also called
fluid pressure) enables the fluid to flow as a function of time (time-
dependent). If the pore pressures are now a function of time, poroelastic
stresses and strains can also be defined as a function of time [76].
McNamee and Gibson [55] state that the process that involves a
time-dependent pore pressure also involves diffusion.
Winterle [79] refers the models used for the transport matrix are
assumed to occur under two types of porosity: (i) mobile porosity
comprises systems of connected fractures and macropores (water and/or
contaminants are transported by advective and disperse processes); (ii)
immobile porosity is when the transport of contaminants can only
happen via diffusion processes, which can include “dead-end type of
fractures, as well as the matrix pores, microfractures, and intergranular
porosity. Thus, and according to Goren et al. [36], the mechanisms that
drive the evolution of pore pressures are diffusion and advection, which
are flow-induced (de)pressurization (diffusive) and
porosity-change-induced (de)pressurization (advective). If so, the first
mechanism corresponds to a drained condition and the second to an
undrained condition.
Applying a load or extracting a fluid is a typical poroelastic problem
in Geomechanics, especially when fluid pressure or displacement re­
sponses are unknown [76]. Wang [76] mentions the following basic
concepts:
• Couple or two-way coupling when there is the need to use two
separate studies, both as functions of position and time: one for the
stress field (and hence strain and displacement fields) and one for the
pore pressures. If there is no need to make two different studies
because the stress changes are similar to the ones from the pore
pressure field, then it is called the one-way coupling or just an
uncoupled problem. The term coupling is usually used when the
applied stresses produce significant changes in the pore pressure
field.
• Solid-to-solid coupling happens when the variation of the applied
stresses enables the variation in the fluid pressure or fluid mass.
• Fluid-to-solid coupling happens when the variation of the fluid
pressure (or fluid mass) enables the variation in the volume of the
porous material.
Talwani and Acree [71] also add that the pore pressures have two
main roles: (i) mechanical effect by controlling, in space and time, the
patterns of induced seismicity and (ii) chemical effect as stress-aided
corrosion by reducing, for example, the coefficient of friction of the
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

surfaces of the cracks. Table 3.1

Later, Durá-Gómez and Talwani [29] and Talwani et al. [72] suggest Compilation of theories related with fluid pore pressures.
two primary mechanisms behind the reservoir-induced seismicity. Response
Those mechanisms are (i) the elastic, which occur instantaneously, or the Elastic Undrained Drained or diffused
undrained response, which occurs due to loads applied by the reservoir; Instantaneously
and (ii) the pore pressures diffusion between two points, such as be­ ΔP = Bσkk/2 or ∂P(r, t)
= α∇2 P(r, t)
tween the reservoir and hypocentral locations in discrete, saturated, ΔP = Bσkk/3 ∂t
[68] [56]
critically stressed cracks, as the pore pressures front raises the pore [6] [57] [60]
pressure in the hypocentral regions (for different conditions of perme­ [60] [48]
[80]
ability). Durá-Gómez and Talwani [28,29] note that the total height of [6] [6]
the water column, the filling rate (and thus, penetration rate), the rate of [62] [62]
pore pressure variation and (un)loading pressures are the primary fac­ [71]
[62]
tors that influence induced seismicity. [59]
Also, Fig. 3.1 illustrates the different behaviors proposed by for a [47] [59]
porous elastic material that is subjected to stresses that are time [47]
dependent: undrained vs drained. For sake of length, the unjacketed [20]
[72]
response, introduced by Biot and Willis [16], will not be covered. On the
[20]
other hand, the elastic behavior corresponds to the reservoir surface
[72]
response that when subjected to a load, it will stabilize the regions [28]
underneath. Royer [63]
In undrained conditions, the soil mass has not enough time to
accommodate the changes in the pore pressure (quick response or short
Darcy’s law (an equation that represents the conservation of linear
period of time), not allowing the fluid pore pressures to drain out of the
momentum) is the simplest model to describe the fluid movement
soil. Rice and Cleary [60] state undrained deformation is when the
(laminar and linear flow, or when the Reynolds number is in between 1
imposition of stress alterations, Δσij, is too short over a long period of
and 10) through a porous and fractured medium [54]. To use this law,
time to enable the variation (positive or negative) of the pore fluid in an
the following assumptions are made: (i) The soil is saturated; (ii) The
element through diffusive processes to or from the surrounding elements
flow through soil is laminar, because the dimensions of the pores in fine
and boundaries. Thus, in undrained conditions, the balance of mass
grained soils are very small; and (iii) The flow is continuous and steady.
conservation is valid, which corresponds to a variation of mass of zero,
For petroleum reservoir engineering, the Darcy’s law is usually given
Δm = 0, and thus, the fluid momentum conservation (e.g., Darcy’s Law)
in the form of Eq. (3.1) or Eq. (3.2) (vector form, after Ref. [44]) [8,49].
can be used [36]. The change in pore pressures due to a compression in
These two equations are also known as the generalized Darcy’s law and
an undrained response is proportional to the mean stress σkk/3 [61]. On
can be used when the saturated fluid has different properties of the
the other hand, because the fluid is trapped inside the pore matrix, it can
water at standard conditions.
deform the volume of the system [36].
Drained conditions happen in a longer period of time, allowing the k Δ(p + ρgz)
fluid to be diffuse out of the soil mass, which means diffusion effects Q= A (3.1)
μ L
occur throughout the time and hence, causing volumetric strains in the
soil. Here, the fluid density is assumed zero (ρ = 0), and the pore pres­ k
→
q = − gradΦ (3.2)
sure is a function of time [61]. On the other hand, the fluid is allowed to μ
move freely, as a response to the deformation of the pore matrix [36].
The development of several theories related with fluid pore pressures where, Q is the volume flow rate, K is hydraulic conductivity, A is the
is shown in Table 3.1. Some theories can combine two or more responses flow area of porous media normal to the flow lines, L is the flow path
from this table. Please note that σkk = σxx + σyy + σzz are the components length, Δh is the change in hydraulic head over path L, q is the Darcy’s
of the total force acting on the faces of an infinitesimal cube. B is the flux (or volumetric flow per unit area). The hydraulic head at a point is h
Skempton’s coefficient. Please note that not all these theories will be = z + p/ρg, where z is the elevation measured from a datum, p is the
covered into detail, later in this review paper, for sake of conciseness. water pressure, ρ is the water density and g is the acceleration of gravity.
Also, →q is the vector velocity of Darcy flux, k is the absolute permeability
3.4. Evolution of fluid pore pressures tensor, μ is the fluid viscosity and Φ = p + ρgz is the fluid potential.
If an infinitesimal cube is considered as an elementary control of
The pore pressure changes for different hypocentral locations as a mass, for the same period of time, the inflow mass of water (Eq. (3.3))
function of the fluid “filling history” into the rock matrix. Thus, Darcy’s has to be the same as the outflow mass of water (Eq. (3.4)), as shown by
law is important to quantify the flow of homogeneous fluids in porous Zimmerman [85]. The mass of the cube is given by Eq. (3.5).
media. The Darcy’s law has been used broadly in numerous researches Mass inflow = A(x)ρ(x)q(x)Δt (3.3)
since 1856 [19] for water flowing through a saturated sand filter.
Mass outflow = A(x + Δx)ρ(x + Δx)q(x + Δx)Δt (3.4)

m = ρVp = ρϕV = ρϕAΔx (3.5)

where, Vp is the volume of pores of the rock in between x and x + Δx.

The volume of the pores can be written as a function of the porosity (ϕ)
and the total volume (V), as shown by the second a third terms of Eq.
(3.5).
Finally, the most general three-dimensional equation of conservation
of mass is given by Eq. (3.6). This equation gives the rate at which the
fluid diverges from a region, per unit volume.
Fig. 3.1. Difference between undrained and drained response, as a function of
time (based on Ref. [61]).

5
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

∂(ρq) ∂(ρq) ∂(ρq) ∂(ρϕ) ∂(ρϕ) differences are negligible. Nevertheless, Biot [9] assumes a compressible
+ + =− ( = ) ∇ρϕ = − (3.6)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂t ∂t fluid when using the deformation theory of an elastic porous material.
By using Hooke’s law for an isotropic elastic body in the theory of
True steady-state flow usually does not occur in oil/gas reservoirs.
elasticity and by adding two physical constants, H (H = H1 when it is
Instead, the transient flow is the one that usually occurs, where the
assumed the soil has potential energy) and R, Biot [15] addresses Eq.
variables pressure, density, flow rate, etc., are a function of space and
(3.9) under equilibrium conditions, for the increment of water content,
time. Zimmerman [85] mentions that a specific type of partial differ­
θ. H1 is a measure of the compressibility of the soil when there is a change
ential equations, also known as diffusion equation, is the governing
equation from the transient flow of the fluid in porous media. Thus, in the water pressure, while R1 measures the change in water content for
1
when using the right term of Eq. (3.6), combined with the product rule a certain change in water pressure. Q = R1 − α
H is the coefficient that
and chain rule of differentiation, Eq. (3.7) is valid: measures the amount of water that can be forced to seep into a soil that is
under pressure, while the volume is kept constant.
∂(ρϕ) ∂(ϕ) ∂(ρ) ∂(ϕ) ∂Pw ∂(ρ) ∂Pw
=ρ +ϕ =ρ +ϕ
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂P ∂t ∂P ∂t 1 ( ) P
[( ) ( )] θ= σx + σy + σz + w (3.9)
1 ∂(ϕ) 1 ∂(ρ) ∂Pw 3H1 R
= ρϕ + (3.7)
ϕ ∂Pw ρ ∂Pw ∂t where, E, G, ν are the Young’s modulus, the shear modulus and
where, Pw is the fluid pressure. Poisson’s ratio, respectively; σx,σy,σz are stress components in directions
The concepts of fluid pore pressures and effective pressures are well- x, y and z, respectively; τx,τy,τz are the tangential stress components; and
known in soil mechanics through theories primarily introduced by Pw is the fluid pressure.
Terzaghi [73]. This author used the terminology of effective pressures By rearranging the expressions of Hooke’s law as functions of the
derived from the consolidation equation as a function of time and by strain and the water pressure (Pw), the variation in water content (θ) can
considering the well-known spring-cylinder model for uniaxially con­ be given by Eq. (3.10):
strained soil consolidation (one-dimensional problems) [24,76]. More­ Pw
over, the theory of consolidation is based on Darcy’s law. θ = αϵ + (3.10)
Q
The consolidation equation, which is the diffusion equation for
excess water pressure, Pw, (which is higher than hydrostatic pressure), is where, ε is the volume increase of the soil per unit initial volume; and
2(1+ν)G
shown in Eq. (3.8) for one-dimensional problems. This equation does not α = 3(1− 2ν)H
is the coefficient or ratio of water volume that escapes out of
depend on stress. Thus, the theory of poroelasticity has a special solution the matrix divided by the change of volume of the soil. A can be used as
where the pore pressure field and applied stress field are uncoupled in this ratio if the soil can be compressed when the water is squeezed out of
terms of boundary conditions [76]. The time evolution of the applied the system (Pw = 0)”.
and pressure stresses is the same as the analogous thermal conduction If the water is allowed to escape when applying a load to the soil
problems when a sudden change occurs. (1− 2ν)
mass (Pw = 0), the excess water can be squeezed out and a = 2G(1− ν) is
∂ Pw ∂ Pw 2 named final compressibility. If the water has not enough time to flow
=c 2 (3.8) out, then θ = 0 is valid in Eq. (3.10) and ai = 1+αa2 aQ is the instantaneous
∂t ∂z
compressibility.
where, Pw is the fluid pressure, c is the diffusivity (also known as
Because not always the studies involve a state of equilibrium when
consolidation coefficient), t is the time and z is the distance along the soil
water pressure is uniform across a soil mass, Biot [15] also studies the
column.
transient state. It adds a coefficient of permeability of the soil. To do this,
Next, several theories will be presented, which are considered the
the author needs to use differential equations for the transient phe­
ones that represent the most importance under this review paper,
nomenon of consolidation, where the governing equations are now a
especially because they serve as base to the later theories developed
function of time. Eq. (3.11) can be obtained by using these, which can be
under the topic of this manuscript.
considered another form of the diffusion equation for porous medium.
Finally, the author gives a physical meaning to Eq. (3.11), by proposing
3.4.1. Biot [15]
Eq. (3.12), which satisfies the heat conduction equation:
Biot [15] is well-known for developing the early theories of soil
consolidation by using the work developed by Terzaghi, which until ∂ϵ 1 ∂Pw
α + = k∇2 Pw (3.11)
then was only for one-dimensional problems. This author starts by ∂t Q ∂t
assuming seven properties of the soil, where the assumptions (2) and (3)
are also used by Terzaghi: (1) isotropic material; (2) if final equilibrium ∂Pw (r, t) ∂Pw (r, t) ∂2 Pw (r, t)
= c∇2 Pw (r, t) or =c (3.12)
is reached, then the stress-strain relations are irreversible; (3) ∂t ∂t ∂r 2
stress-strain relations show a linear behavior; (4) small strains; (5)
where, k is the coefficient of permeability of soil; c is the consoli­
incompressible fluid inside the pores, such as water; (6) the fluid can be
dation constant given by Eq. (3.13); t is the time and ∇2 is the Laplace
comprised of water/other and air, also known as bubbles, and (7) the
operator. Depending on the authors, c is given by different equations.
fluid (e.g., water) flows the porous matrix, which follows the Darcy’s
law. However, Biot [15] refer that assuming an element as an isotropic 1 a 1
= α2 + (3.13)
material is not essential and that the anisotropy can be later introduced c k Qk
as a refinement.
According to Wang and Kümpel [77], Eq. (3.11) represents the
Biot [15] initiates the study by considering a small cubic element of
conservation of water mass, with the first term of the left hand being the
the consolidating soil, where the sides of the element are parallel to the
volumetric content of water per unit time caused by dilation of solid
coordinate axes. The stress components are composed of two parts, and
formation, while the second term is caused by the increase in pore
they need to satisfy the equilibrium conditions of a stress field: (1) the
pressures
fluid (e.g., water) that fills the pores makes use of the hydrostatic
pressure; and (2) in the matrix/skeleton, it is used average stress.
3.4.2. Biot [8]
The author considers the water pressure in the pores has a uniform
Biot [8] used elastic or viscoelastic principles (from 1941 to 1962) to
behavior across the entire element. If that does not occur, it is assumed
describe the deformation of rocks due to the flow of fluids inside the
that the changes occur at a very low rate, and therefore, the pressure

6
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

system’s pores, where the author assumes an elastic porous medium Eq. (3.21) at the tip of the crack distanced r, as shown in Fig. 3.2.
with nonuniform porosity. The author also uses (i) Eq. (2.1) from Ter­ [ ]
σ (r) + σ θθ (r) sinθ
zaghi; (ii) the concept of fluid pressure, Pw, given by Eq. (3.14), where σ (r, t) = rr =A× (3.21)
2 r
this pressure is constant throughout the body, (iii) the system is in a
thermodynamic equilibrium and the fluid is at rest; iv) the effective With A = μb/2π(1 − ν); μ and ν the shear modulus and Poisson’s
stress is given by Eq. (2.2). The previous point (iv) according to the ratio, respectively, and b the offset across the break.
experimental work of the author, is justified by the dependency of the By using Eq. (3.21), the initial pore pressure at instant zero is given
magnitudes of the following variables that comprise porous and gran­ by Eq. (3.22).
ular media, individually: slip and failure properties.
sinθ
Pw (r, t) = A × (3.22)
σ = − fPw (3.14) r
Because the fluid pore pressure increases with fluid flow, and vice-
where, σ is the total normal tension force applied to the fluid and Pw is
versa, with values proportional to the volumetric stress change, the
the pressure of the fluid in the pores; f the fraction of the volume
strength of the original rock matrix decreases. At the limit, the rock
occupied by the pores (also known as porosity in Ref. [9], or effective
strength can drop to values close to the local shear stress, enabling af­
porosity in Ref. [10]).
tershocks activity [56].
On the other hand, the author writes the fluid pore pressure, Pw,
Nur and Booker [56] use Eq. (3.12), which obeys the diffusion
given. By Eq. (3.15):
equation. Eq. (3.12) is a formulation of Biot [15] that depends on
Pw = − αMe + Mζ (3.15) stress-strain relations, whereas Nur and Booker [56] use a pore pressure
relation. The former authors propose Eq. (3.23) for a pore pressure at a
where, ζ is the variation of water content (or increment of fluid
distance r from the source at a time t.
content) or θ in previous work of Biot (e.g., Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10)); M is
2(1+ν)G
an elastic constant; α = 3(1− 2ν)H
(α = 1 and M = ∞ for an incompressible − r2
1 − e 4ct
Pw (r, t) = A × sinθ (3.23)
fluid and incompressible matrix material). r
For uniform porosity, the author writes an expression for the varia­
tion of water content, ζ. This equation is a function of the amount of fluid where, c = K/ηβ is the hydraulic diffusivity; β = ϕβwater + (1 − ϕ)βrock is
that flows in and out from an element attached to the solid frame and is the bulk compressibility of the system whit porosity ϕ; K is the perme­
given by Eq. (3.16): ability of the rock, η is the viscosity of the pore fluid. A = μb/2π(1 − ν); μ
( and ν the shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively, and b the
→) offset across the break.
ζ = f div →u− U (3.16)
The pore pressure of Eq. (3.23) decays with time, as a point moves
where, f is the porosity, →
→
u and U are the displacement vectors of the away from the crack [56]. If that is true, then the time constant, τ, is
solid matrix and fluid, respectively. given by Eq. (3.24), which is close related to periods detected during
For nonhomogeneous porosity, the variation of water content is aftershocks.
given by Eq. (3.17): /
τ = L2 4c (3.24)
[ / ] [ ( →)]
ζ = − ∂wx /∂x + ∂wy ∂y + ∂wz /∂z = div f → u− U or
where, L is a typical length and c the hydraulic diffusivity.
Because the frequency of the aftershocks is proportional to the time,
ζ = − div →
w (3.17) and thus to the local pore pressure, Nur and Booker [56] correlated the
→ fluid pore pressure, Pw, with the number of aftershock per unit time,
where, → w = f( U -→
u ) is the flow of the fluid relative to the solid
given Eq. (3.25):
measured as a function of volume per unit area of the bulk medium or wi
∫
= f(Ui − ui) for each direction i. dN 1 ∂Pw
= dv (3.25)
Later the author rewrites the Darcy’s law as Eq. (3.18): dt α ∂t
k k where, α is a constant of proportionality that is equal to the increase in
∂→
w /∂t = gradPw − ρ gradG (3.18)
η η

where, ∂→ w /∂t = (ẇx , ẇy , ẇz ) = →

q is the rate of flow vector, k is the ab­
solute permeability tensor of the medium (or coefficient of perme­
ability), η is the viscosity of the fluid, Pw is the pressure of the fluid in the
pores (Eq. (3.14)), ρ is the mass density of the fluid and G is the gravi­
tational potential per unit mass.

3.4.3. Nur and Booker [56]

Sudden sliding or rupture occurs when the frictional strength of a
rock is achieved [56]. The change in the strength, ΔS, is given by Eq.
(3.19) for a rock subjected to a hydrostatic stress (Eq. (3.20)), σ:
ΔS = μ(σ − Pw ) (3.19)

σ1 + σ2 + σ3
σ= (3.20)
3
where, μ is the frictional coefficient, Pw is the fluid pore pressure
which is equal to σ immediately after an earthquake when the strength
remains unchanged.
Fig. 3.2. (a) Scheme of the tip of a crack due to an edge dislocation (offset b)
In a coordinate system of (r, θ), the hydrostatic stress σ is given by
and (b) the induced hydrostatic stress (based on Ref. [56]).

7
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

the pore pressure between successive cracks multiplied by a volume, v. Bell and Nur [6], B is the result of the resistance of the interstitial water
to compression), which usually is 1 for water-saturated soils
3.4.4. Booker [17] (K′′S /ν0 > K′S > Kf ≫K) and can be substantially less for rocks. According
Booker [17] mentions that it is important to address the interaction to Rice and Cleary [60], rocks are not effectively incompressible. ν0 is
between pore pressures and elastic stress and strain fields. The authors the reference value in the unstressed state. Kf = ρ0Pw/(ρ − ρ0) is the bulk
combine Biot’s work (linear consolidation theory) and McNamee and modulus of the fluid and Δσkk = Δσ11 + Δσ22 + Δσ33.
Gibson’s [55], but for shear crack within a porous medium.
If a medium is assumed saturated and if the changes in pore pressures
1
+ K1′
(3.30)
K S
B=
are significant enough to allow the opening of new cracks and propagate ν0
Kf
1
+ −
K
1
K′S
− ν0
K′′S
the existent ones, Booker [17] states the elastic moduli and permeability
of the porous aggregate can depend on the pressure. If that is true, the The governing equations of Rice and Cleary [60] differ from Biot’s.
linear elasticity and the Darcy’s law are no longer valid. Biot uses displacements and pressure as variables, where:
Booker [17] shows Eq. (3.26) for excess pore-water pressure (Pw),
which is in accordance with the diffusion equation of Eq. (3.12) of Biot’s • The governing equations (equilibrium and diffusion equations) make
[15], and follows the theory of pressure decay: use of σij.
• σij is expressed in terms of displacement gradients, ∂uk/∂xt.
∂Pw ∂2 S • σij is expressed in terms of pressure, Pw.
∇ 2 Pw = + (3.26)
∂t ∂z∂t
Instead, Rice and Cleary [60] combine the linear thermoelasticity
where, S is an arbitrary stress function, t is the time and z the vertical analogy with the constitutive law that governs Darcy’s pore fluid
direction diffusion. By doing so, the governing equation of the mass conservation
The excess pore-water pressure can also be given by Eq. (3.27) for a for an infiltrating pore fluid is given by Eq. (3.31):
two-edge dislocation that forms a crack if Eq. (3.26) is simplified. Eq.
(3.27) also decays with time, when the exponential term to the equation ∂qi ∂m
+ =0 (3.31)
is introduced. ∂xt ∂t
( 2 )[ ( / ( /] The diffusion equation (drained response) proposed by Rice and
z z exp − (x − 1)2 t exp − x(x + 1)2 t
0
Pw = Pw − exp − − (3.27) Cleary [60] is given by Eq. (3.32), which is based in Eq. (3.12) on Biot’s
2π t (x − 1)2 + z2 (x + 1)2 + z2
[15] formulation:
[ ] [ ] ( )
where, P0w = z 1
2π (x− 1)2 +z2 − 1
(x+1)2 +z2
3
c∇2 σkk + Pw =
∂ 3
σkk + Pw (3.32)
B ∂t B
where, P0w is the pore pressure at time, t = 0+. t has units of the hy­
draulic time scale for the total crack length. where, c is the coefficient of consolidation or diffusivity given by Eq.
(3.33).
3.4.5. Rice and Cleary [60] The first bracket of Eq. (3.33) gives the drained elastic modulus for
Rice and Cleary [60] refer that most solved problems developed until one-dimensional deformation.
1976 assume that the fluid and solid constituents are separately [ ][ ]
2G(1 − ν) B2 (1 + νu )2 (1 − 2ν)
uncompressible. To solve this, the authors formulate a new approach c=k (3.33)
considering that the stresses and the pore pressures for plane problems (1 − 2ν) 9(1 − νu )(νu − ν)
are affected by penetrating fluids. The authors combine both undrained
and drained approaches. where, c is the coefficient of consolidation or diffusivity, k the perme­
Rice and Cleary [60] develop an undrained elastic response of the ability, G the shear modulus, ν and νu the drained and undrained Pois­
material linearly expressed by Eq. (3.28). This equation is the repre­ son’s ratio and B the Skepton’s coefficient.
sentation of the fluid mass given by ρV = m. Moreover, Eq. (3.29) gives The pore pressure, Pw, that allows to obtain the fracture strength of
the undrained pore pressure change, ΔPw, which is a relation similar to rocks for a ring- or circular- or annular-shaped specimen, by means of
Skempton [68] between the initial induced pore pressure and total hy­ internal hydraulic pressurization follows a primary formulation. After
drostatic stress on an element. several modifications, the authors obtain Eq. (3.34). This solution
quantifies and trace, in time, the progression of the diffused zone, as
m − m0 = (ρ − ρ0 )v0 + ρ0 (v − v0 ) shown in Fig. 3.3.
( )
v0 ρ 1 1 v0
= ρ0 Pw + 0 − (σ kk + 3Pw ) − ρ0 ″ Pw (3.28)
Kf 3 K K0′ Ks

where, ρ is the fluid density in the imagined fluid reservoir at pres­

sure equilibrium with the element, V is the apparent fluid volume
fraction and m is the pore fluid per unit volume of material. σkk are the
components of total force on the faces of a unit cube of saturated ma­
terial (tension positive), Pw is the pore pressure and m − m0 is the change
in fluid mass content per unit volume of porous material, ρ0 is the
density of the pore fluid (measure at an arbitrary reference pressure), Kf
is the bulk modulus of the fluid, K is the drained bulk modulus, Ks is the
bulk modulus of the solid phase. 1/K − 1/H – – 1/K ′, where H is the
– s
constant of Biot; and 1/R − 1/H – – v0/Ks′′, where R and H are the con­
–
stants of Biot and Willis [16].
Δσkk
ΔPw = − B (3.29)
3
Fig. 3.3. Schematic representation of a typical annular specimen (based
where, B is the Skempton’s coefficient given by Eq. (3.30) (according to
on Ref. [60]).

8
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

[ ]
(a)12
Pw ≈ P0w erfc
r− a ΔP = ΔPwUndrained + ΔPwDiffusion (3.39)
1 , if r > a
r (4ct)2
where, Δσ and Δτ are the incremental normal and shear stresses on the
such that r − a≪a fracture plane due to the water load, μ is the frictional coefficient along
the fracture surface.
( / 1/2 )
∫x
( ) Bell and Nur [6] propose the fluid flow is given by Eq. (3.40), based
erfc(x) ≡ 1 − 2 π exp − ρ2 dρ (3.34) on the work of Rice and Cleary [60]. Eq. (3.41) gives the pore pressure,
0 ΔPw, at the initial time t = 0.
where, P0w is the pressure at the boundary at instant zero, t is the time ( ) ( )
∂ ∂Pw 1 ∂ 3
and c is the coefficient of consolidation or diffusivity. k = σ kk + Pw (3.40)
∂xt ∂xt c ∂t B
Finally, the authors propose Eq. (3.35) to measure de distance of the
diffused area after a period of time: B(1 + νu )
ΔPw at t=0 =− (Δσxx + Δσzz )t=0 =
3
(3.35)
1
X = 0.2(cT) 2

2B(1 + νu )
where, X is the distance measured from the source or perturbation, T =− ΔPc at t=0 = − βΔPc at t=0 (3.41)
3
is the time elapsed and c is the coefficient of consolidation or diffusivity.
where, G is the shear modulus; ν and νu is the Poisson’s ratio under
3.4.6. Lockner and Byerlee [48] drained and undrained conditions, respectively; and k is the flow
Lockner and Byerlee [48] performed hydraulic fracturing laboratory permeability. B = − dPw/dPc is the relation of the initial induced pore
experiments on sandstone cylindrical cores subject to a triaxial state of pressure and the incremental hydrostatic pressure (dPc), where dPw =
compression. They evaluated how the injection rate influences the pore − Bdσkk/3 (or Eq. (3.29)). c is the hydraulic diffusivity and is given by
pressure and failure mechanisms. These authors proposed Eq. (3.36) Eq. (3.42):
adapted from Matthews and Russel [52] to quantify the pore pressure
distribution in a porous medium subjected to a radial flow. c=
2GB(1 + ν)(1 + νu )
(3.42)
[ ] 3(νu − ν)
∂ 2 Pw 1 ∂ Pw ∂Pw 2 μ ∂Pw
+ + (c + β) = ϕc (3.36)
∂r r ∂r ∂r ∂t 3.4.8. Roeloffs [62] and later documented in Roeloffs [61]
2 k
Roeloffs [61,62] improves Rice and Cleary’s [60] work for an
where, Pw is the pore pressure, r the location at a time t, c = 1ρ ∂ρ
∂Pw the isotropic fluid-saturated porous elastic medium. Roeloffs calculated Eq.
compressibility, ρ the density, μ the dynamic viscosity, k the perme­ (3.43) as the fluid pore pressure (Pw) at a point (z) and at a time (t), by
( )− 1 ( ) assuming a drained and undrained response for a one-dimensional so­
ability, ϕ the porosity and β = μk k
∂Pw μ the pressure dependence of
∂
lution. The author also adds the variable viscosity of fluid to Eq. (3.32) of
permeability and viscosity. Rice and Cleary [60] in Eq. (3.45).
Eq. (3.36) can be simplified into Eq. (3.37) at a slow injection rate: [ ]
z
[ Pw (z, t) = (1 − α1 )P0 ⋅erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅ + α1 H(t)P0 (3.43)
′ ki Δt (Pwi+1 + Pwi− 1 − 2Pwi ) 1 (Pwi+1 − Pwi− 1 ) 4ct
P wi = Pwi + +
μi ϕ (Δr2 ) r 2Δr
( )2 ] (3.37) B(1 − νu )
Pwi+1 − Pwi− 1 α1 = (3.44)
+(c + β) 3(1 − νu )
2Δr
where erfc is the complementary error function, H(t) is the Heaviside
All subscripts correspond to the radial coordinate, while P′wi is the
unit step function, B is the Rice and Cleary’s [60] coefficient (Eq.
pressure applied to the ith cell at time t + Δt. According to the authors,
(3.30)), ν and νu are the drained and undrained Poisson’s ration,
the parameter β was assessed by using permeability data, as well as
respectively. z is the depth beneath the reservoir, P0 is the stress at a
viscosity of the Tellus 15 oil [48].
depth z = 0, c is the hydraulic diffusivity given by Eq. (3.45) and t is the
time.
3.4.7. Bell and Nur [6]
Bell and Nur [6] proposes Eq. (3.38) to quantify the fast filling of [ ][ ]
k 2G(1 − ν) B2 (1 + νu )2 (1 − 2ν)
reservoir, if pre-existent cracks were in place, close to a near-critical c= (3.45)
μ (1 − 2ν) 9(1 − νu )(νu − ν)
stress state. To achieve that, they used Coulomb’s Law [70]. Thus,
these authors used Eq. (3.38) in a fault plane where each term, according
where, k is the permeability, with dimensions of length squared and μ
to Rajendrani and Talwani [59], is dependent on the processes involved:
the viscosity; B is the Rice and Cleary’s [60] coefficient given by Eq.
(i) elastic, (ii) undrained and, (iii) drained response. These terms also
(3.30).
depend upon the “filling history” and geologic and hydrogeologic char­
Roeloffs [62] also proposes different solutions for a two-dimensional
acteristics of the reservoir. However, Rajendrani and Talwani [59] also
problem, when considering coupled and uncoupled pore pressure fields,
refer that from the different processes related to reservoir impoundment
by using assuming α1 = α2 in Eq. (3.43), given by Eq. (3.46):
(fluid injection), the ones worthy of study are: (i) the undrained growth
of pore pressures, which assumes a fast increase of the fluid pore pres­ 2B(1 + νu )
α2 = (3.46)
sures when loads are applied to the system and, thus, the porous rock is 3
compressed but the fluids stay trapped in it, ΔPwUndrained; and (ii)
drained response, which is considered a post-effect that arises due to 3.4.9. Rajendrani and Talwani [59]
diffusion, ΔPwDiffusion. Therefore, the incremental pore pressure, ΔPw, is Rajendrani and Talwani [59] use Eq. (3.43) from Roeloffs [62] to
given by Eq. (3.39) propose Eq. (3.47) and Eq. (3.48). The purpose of these equations is to
understand if the seismic events are the product of an elastic response.
ΔS = μ(Δσ − ΔPw ) ± Δτ (3.38) Both equations couple the drained and undrained responses. The first
term of Eqs. (3.47) and (3.48) correspond to the undrained response,

9
C. Baptista-Pereira et al. Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184

while the second term corresponds to the drained response (diffusion of (3.38) and (3.39). For the pore pressure increase due to diffusion
pore pressure). Eq. (3.47) is valid for any t = NΔt and Eq. (3.48) for a tf = (drained response), the authors use a modified equation of Rajendrani
NfΔt, which is the instant when the reservoir is filled and N > Nf. and Talwani [59] given by Eq. (3.53).
[ ]12 i=N [
∑ ( )]
∑
N ri
Pw (z, NΔt) = αPw (0, NΔt) + (1 − α)
z2
erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ΔPwdiff = 1 − erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ΔPwi (3.53)
4c(N − n)Δt i=1
2 cΔti
n=1

⋅[Pw (0, NΔt) − Pw (0, (n − 1)Δt] (3.47) where, r is the diffused distance between the point and the hypocenter
location, c is the hydraulic diffusivity, ΔPwi = ρghi and hi is the water
Nf
[ ]12 level increase on the ith day, Δti is the time elapsed between the time of
∑ z2
Pw (z, t) = αPw (0, t) + (1 − α) erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ that water level increase and the time of earthquake, N is the total
n=1 4c(N − n)Δt number of days between the start of reservoir impoundment and time of
earthquake.
⋅[Pw (0, nΔt) − Pw (0, (n − 1)Δt] (3.48) Talwani et al. [72] use the equations formulated by Roeloffs [62] for
a coupled poroelastic response, Eq. (3.43) (z is now r), and re-formulate
where, Pw(0,NΔt) = nyρg, with y being the change in water level per day, them into Eq. (3.54). The first term is the undrained response, and the
ρ is the water density at 20 ◦ C, g is the gravity acceleration and c is the second term is the fluid pore pressure at a distance r due to diffusion of a
hydraulic diffusivity. Δt is the sampling interval (1 day) and N the load applied at the surface [28].
number of intervals. B is the Skempton’s coefficient and α = B(1 + vu)/3 ( ) [ ]
(1 − vu), vu is the undrained Poisson’s ratio. r r
Pw (r, t) = αp0 erf √̅̅̅̅̅̅ + P0w erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅ (3.54)
4ct 4ct
3.4.10. Kessels and Kück [47]
where, Pw is the pore pressure; Pw (0, t) = P0w (P0w = 0 for t < 0 and
Kessels and Kück [47] find another solution of Eq. (3.12), which is
P0w = 1 for t > 0); α = B(1 + vu)/3(1 − vu); B is the Skempton’s coeffi­
given by Eq. (3.49) for an instantaneous injection of volume (V) in a line
cient; vu is the undrained Poisson’s ratio and c is the hydraulic diffusivity
source. Eq. (3.49) gives the pore pressure, Pw, at a point distanced r from
from Kessels and Kück [47] (Eq. (3.52)).
the source at a time t, as shown in Fig. 3.4. By differentiating Eq. (3.49),
Because the pore pressure changes for different hypocentral loca­
the authors find Eq. (3.50), which gives the instant when the maximum
( ) tions as a function of the “filling history”, Eq. (3.54) can be written as the
pressure is achieved ∂∂Ptw = 0 . sum of pore pressures at different instants. If the principle of super­
V − r2 position is then applied, Eq. (3.55) is valid:
Pw (r, t) = e 4ct (3.49) [ ] ∑ [ ]
Shct × 4π ∑n n
r r
Pwi (r, t) = αΔpi erf √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ + ΔPi erfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (3.55)
∂ Pw r2 1 i=1 4cΔti i=1 4cΔti
= 0⇒ 3 − 2 = 0 (3.50)
∂t 4ctmax tmax
where, n is the number of time increments (Δt) between the start of
where, PW is the pore pressure, V the injection volume, S the specific impoundment and the time t. Δpi is the water load change in each cor­
storage (or storage coefficient); t the time; r the radius (between the responding time increment. c is the hydraulic diffusivity and α is an
main hole and the pilot hole) and c the hydraulic diffusivity given by Eq. elastic constant related to B and the undrained Poisson’s ratio.
(3.51). tmax is the travel time of the particle to reach the maximum
pressure. 4. Discussion

c=
hk
=
T
(3.51) In an extensive experimental program, Baptista-Pereira et al. [4,5]
ηhS η(hS) investigated high fluid injection rate of 20 ml/min and a low fluid in­
jection rate of 2 ml/min into the matrix of two different rock types (soft
where, h is the thickness, k the permeability, η the viscosity, S the
gypsum and hard granite). The following were studied: (a) breakdown
storage coefficient and T the transmissibility.
and fracturing pressures; (b) volumes injected; (c) growth of injected
If it is considered a linear type of source, Eq. (3.52) gives the hy­
fluid fronts; (d) fluid pore pressures, and (e) fracturing patterns, such as
draulic diffusivity at a point located r from that source, when the
white patching (or micro-damage), fracturing and coalescence patterns.
maximum pore pressure is reached, tmax. Eq. (3.52) is achieved by using
This review was performed to investigate the multiple theories available
the former equations Eqs. (3.49) and (3.50).
that can help validate the experimental results. Moreover, the theories
/
c = r2 4tmax (3.52) covered in this manuscript are the ones that serve as a base for later
developed theories.
3.4.11. Chen and Talwani [20] and Talwani et al. [72] The fluid penetration is primarily affected by the injection rate and
Chen and Talwani [20] use Eq. (3.29) for an undrained condition of pressure, fluid viscosity, rock porosity and permeability, and loading
the pore pressure change, and the superposition of the effects of Eqs. conditions, and has been investigated by several authors. In fact,
mathematical approaches have started with Terzaghi [73,74], and were
later modified by Frenkel [32], Biot [8–15], Hubbert and Willis [45],
McNamee and Gibson [55], Geertsma [34], Haimson and Fairhurst [39,
40], Nur and Booker [56], Rice and Cleary [60], Lockner and Byerlee
[48], Bell and Nur [6], Talwani and Acree [71], Roeloffs [61,62],
Rajendrani and Talwani [59], Kessels and Kück [47], Winterle [79],
Talwani et al. [72]. On the other hand, experimental methodologies
were used by Haimson and Fairhurst [39], Mayr et al. [53], Frash [31],
as well as Arzuaga-García and Einstein [3], while some authors have
unified multiple theories which allowed one to solve previous theories
[26]. All methods, somehow, are formulated from the theory developed
from Terzaghi. However, the assumptions used change from
Fig. 3.4. Scheme of the theoretical model (based on Ref. [47]).

10
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
methodology to methodology, and thus, the results will vary accord­
ingly. Experimental and theoretical work on thermal diffusivity (e.g.,
heat conduction transfer) has been published since the 1880′s by Man­
delis [51]. Moreover, for several decades, different authors have been
using other concepts and theories [77], not only under thermoelastic
effects, but also under the topic of poroelasticity, to understand the
evolution of pore pressures and fluid diffusion, such as Refs. [43,50].
Examples of such work are shown below, and the ones shown in
Table 4.1 were covered into more detailed in the previous section, which
to the authors of this manuscript, correspond to the base theories on
such topic:
a) Darcy’s Law [52].
b) The consolidation theory of porous media when loads are applied [9,
12,15,17,23,34,35,47,55,56,73,74,87].
c) Seismotectonically induced groundwater (or lake level) fluctuations
and/or impoundment of a reservoir [20,59,61,62,71,72].
d) The seismic waves propagation through porous media [8,11,12,18,
32,25].
e) Land subsidence and horizontal deformation due to fluid extraction
[33,65,81].
f) Evolution of thermoelasticity and thermodynamics, as well as the
concepts of hydrothermal convection to understand the pore pres­
sures evolution [10,13,41].
g) Fluid storage, where fluids can be extracted and/or stored. Thus, the
pore pressure decreases or increases, respectively [21,47].
h) Annular cylinders subject to different internal and external pres­
sures, or boreholes [6,47,48,60].
5. Summary
Several authors have been studying how injecting a fluid influences
fracture initiation, propagation and coalescence, and how it relates with
acoustic emission events. On the other hand, the pore pressure has also
been studied for undrained and diffused/drained responses and even
how acoustic emission events are also connected with them.
Several authors have been studying how injecting a fluid influences
fracture initiation, propagation and coalescence, and how it relates with
acoustic emission events. On the other hand, the pore pressure has also
been studied for undrained and diffused/drained responses and even
how acoustic emission events are also connected with them. This review
considered several available theories to calculate the pore pressure due
to fluid injection in rock matrices. Moreover, different theories are based
in distinct approaches, such as (a) the Darcy’s Law; (b) the consolidation
theory of porous media when loads are applied; (c) seismic-tectonically
induced groundwater (or lake level) fluctuations and/or impoundment
of a reservoir; (d) the seismic waves propagation through porous media;
(e) the land subsidence and horizontal deformation due to fluid
extraction; (f) the evolution of thermoelasticity and thermodynamics, as
well as the concepts of hydrothermal convection to understand the pore
pressures evolution; (g) the fluid storage, where fluids can be extracted
and/or stored; and (h) the annular cylinders subject to different internal
and external pressures, or boreholes.
Statements and declarations
Dr. Gonçalves da Silva passed away on August 1st of 2021. Dr.
Gonçalves da Silva has contributed not only with his input to the current
manuscript, but also by being a remarkable mentor, and by transferring
his knowledge to the scientific community. The authors would also like
to show their appreciation to the United States National Science Foun­
dation (award number 1738081 and program manager Dr. Richard
Fragaszy).
11
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
Table 4.1
Comparison between theories related with fluid pore pressures.
Author Type of approach
Terzaghi [73,74] Consolidation
Biot [15] Consolidation
Biot [8] Seismic waves propagation
Nur and Booker [56] Consolidation
[17] Consolidation
Rice and Cleary [60] Annular cylinders
Lockner and Byerlee [48] Annular cylinders
Bell and Nur [6] Annular cylinders
Roeloffs [62] Reservoir impoundment
Rajendrani and Talwani [59] Reservoir impoundment
Kessels and Kuck [47] Fluid storage and Consolidation
Chen and Talwani [20] Reservoir impoundment
Declaration of Competing Interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
No funding was received for this work.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] A.S. Abou-Sayed, C.E. Brechtel, R.J. Clifton, In-situ stress determination by
hydrofracturing: a fracture mechanics approach, J. Geophys. Res. 83 (1978)
2851–2862, https://doi.org/10.1029/jb083ib06p02851.
[2] A.N. Alshawabkeh, N. Rahbar, Parametric study of one-dimensional solute
transport in deformable porous media, J. Geotechnol. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (2006)
1001–1010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1001).
[3] I. Arzuaga-García, H. Einstein, Experimental study of fluid penetration and opening
geometry during hydraulic fracturing, Eng. Fract. Mech. 230 (2020), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.106986.
[4] C. Baptista-Pereira, B. Gonçalves da Silva, J.N Meegoda, Hydraulic fracturing of
soft and hard rocks part 1: rock behavior due to fluid penetration rate, First Publ by
Springer, Nat. Transp. Porous Media (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-022-
01818-z.
[5] C. Baptista-Pereira, B. Gonçalves da Silva, J.N Meegoda, Hydraulic fracturing of
soft and hard rocks part 2: acoustic emissions, source mechanisms and energy, First
Publ by Springer, Nat. Transp. Porous Media (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11242-022-01819-y.
[6] M.L. Bell, A. Nur, Strength changes due to reservoir-induced pore pressure and
stresses and application to Lake Oroville, J. Geophys. Res. 83 (1978) 4469–4483,
https://doi.org/10.1029/JB083iB09p04469.
[7] Billen M. 2.0: introduction to diffusion and Darcy’s law 2020. https://geo.
libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_California_Davis/UCD_GEL_56_-_Introduction_
to_Geophysics/Geophysics_is_everywhere_in_geology.../02%3A_Diffusion_and_
Darcy’s_Law/2.00%3A_Introduction_to_Diffusion_and_Darcy’s_Law (accessed
December 4, 2020).
[8] M.A. Biot, Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media,
J. Appl. Phys. 33 (1962) 1482–1498, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1728759.
[9] M.A. Biot, General solutions of the equation of elasticity and consolidation for a
porous material, J. Appl. Mech. 78 (1956) 91–96, a.
[10] M.A. Biot, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid.
I. Low-frequency range, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28 (1956) 168–177, b.
[11] M.A. Biot, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid.
II. Higher frequency range, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28 (1956) 179–191, c.
[12] M.A. Biot, Theory of deformation of a porous viscoelastic anisotropic solid, J. Appl.
Phys. 27 (1956) 459–467, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1722402, d.
[13] M.A. Biot, Thermoelasticity and irreversible thermodynamics, J. Appl. Phys. Am.
Inst. Phys. 27 (1956) 240–253, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1722351, e.
[14] M.A. Biot, Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid,
J. Appl. Phys. 26 (1955) 182–185, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1721956.
[15] M.A. Biot, General theory of three-dimensional consolidation, J. Appl. Phys. 12
(1941) 155–164, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1712886.
[16] M.A. Biot, D.D. Willis, The elastic coefficients of the theory of consolidation,
J. Appl. Mech. (1957) 594–601, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-98950-
5.50011-3.
[17] J.R. Booker, Time dependent strain following faulting of a porous medium,
J. Geophys. Res. 79 (1974) 2037–2044.
[18] T. Bourbier, O. Coussy, B. Zinszer, Acoustics of Porous Media, Editions Technip,
USA, 1987.
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
[19] G.O. Brown, Henry Darcy and the making of a law, Water Resour. Res. 38 (2002)
11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000727. -1–11-2.
[20] L. Chen, P. Talwani, Mechanism of initial seismicity following impoundment of the
Monticello reservoir, South Carolina, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91 (2001)
1582–1594, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000293.
[21] A.H.D Cheng, Poroelasticity, Springer, Switzerland, 2016, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-25202-5.
[22] J. Crank, The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, London
UK, 1975.
[23] C.W. Cryer, A comparison of the three-dimensional consolidation theories of Biot
and Terzaghi, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 16 (1963) 401–412, https://doi.org/
10.1093/qjmam/16.4.401.
[24] B.M. Das, K. Sobhan, Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 9th ed., Cengage
Learning, 2018.
[25] H. Deresiewicz, B. Wolf, The effect of boundaries on wave propagation in a
liquidfilled porous solid: VIII. Reflection of planewaves at an irregular boundary,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 54 (1964) 1537–1561, https://doi.org/10.1785/
BSSA05405A1537.
[26] E. Detournay, A.H.D. Cheng, Fundamentals of Poroelasticity, 2, Pergamon Press,
1993, pp. 113–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(94)90606-8. Chapter 5.
Compr. Rock Eng. Princ. Pract. Proj. - Anal. Des. Method.
[27] J. Du, L. Hu, J.N. Meegoda, G. Zhang, Shale softening: observations,
phenomenological behavior, and mechanisms, Appl. Clay Sci. 161 (2018)
290–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2018.04.033.
[28] I. Durá-Gómez, P. Talwani, Reservoir-induced seismicity associated with the Itoiz
Reservoir, Spain: a case study, Geophys. J. Int. 181 (2010) 343–356, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04462.x.
[29] I. Durá-Gómez, P. Talwani, Hydromechanics of the Koyna-Warna region, India,
Pure Appl. Geophys. 167 (2010) 183–213, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-009-
0012-5, b.
[30] Y. Feng, K.E. Gray, Discussion on field injectivity tests during drilling, Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 50 (2016) 493–498, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1066-1.
[31] L.P. Frash, Laboratory-scale Study of Hydraulic Fracturing in Heterogeneous Media
For Enhanced Geothermal Systems and General Well Stimulation (PH.D.
Dissertation), Colorado School of Mines, 2014.
[32] J. Frenkel, On the theory of seismic and seismoelectric phenomena in a moist soil,
J. Phys. III (1944) 230–241, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)
131:9(879).
[33] J. Geertsma, Land subsidence above compacting oil and gas reservoirs, JPT J. Pet
Technol. 25 (1973) 734–744, https://doi.org/10.2118/3730-PA.
[34] J. Geertsma, Problems of rock mechanics in petroleum production engineering, in:
Proceedings of the 1st ISRM Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, International Society for
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 1966, 25 Sept. Oct.
[35] J. Geertsma, The effect of fluid pressure decline on volume changes of porous rocks
(1956), doi:10.2118/728-g-ms.
[36] L. Goren, E. Aharonov, D.W. Sparks, R. Toussaint, Pore pressure evolution in
deforming granular material: a general formulation and the infinitely stiff
approximation, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 115 (2010) 1–19, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2009JB007191.
[37] G.S. Gunarathna, Stress-state and Injection-Rate Dependent Damage Processes
During the Hydraulic Fracturing of Granite (Ph.D. Dissertation), New Jersey
Institute of Technology, 2020.
[38] G.S. Gunarathna, B. Gonçalves da Silva, Influence of the effective vertical stresses
on hydraulic fracture initiation pressures in shale and engineered geothermal
systems explorations, Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 52 (2019) 4835–4853, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00603-019-01841-5.
[39] B. Haimson, C. Fairhurst, Hydraulic fracturing in porous-permeable materials,
J. Pet Technol. 21 (1969) 811–817, https://doi.org/10.2118/2354-PA.
[40] B. Haimson, C. Fairhurst, Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rocks,
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 7 (1967), https://doi.org/10.2118/1710-PA.
[41] R.D. Hart, C.M St. John, Formulation of a fully-coupled thermal-mechanical-fluid
flow model for non-linear geologic systems, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 23 (1986)
213–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(86)90967-8.
[42] S.H. Hickman, M.D. Zoback, The interpretation of hydraulic fracturing pressure-
time data for in-situ stress determination, in: M.D. Zoback, B.C. Haimson (Eds.),
Hydraulic Fracturing Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
1983.
[43] B. Huang, H. Li, X. Zhao, Y. Xing, Fracturing criterion of rock hydrofracturing
considering pore pressure effect, Front. Earth Sci. 11 (2023) 1–13, https://doi.org/
10.3389/feart.2023.1111206.
[44] M.K. Hubbert, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences - section of
geology and minerology 3 (1940).
[45] M.K. Hubbert, D.G. Willis, Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing, AIME Pet. Trans. 210
(1957) 153–166.
[46] R.O. Kehle, The determination of tectonic stresses through analysis of hydraulic
well fracturing, J. Geophys. Res. 69 (1964) 259–273, https://doi.org/10.1029/
jz069i002p00259.
[47] W. Kessels, J. Kück, Hydraulic communication in crystalline rock between the two
boreholes of the continental deep drilling project in Germany, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 32 (1995) 37–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(94)00017-W.
[48] D. Lockner, J.D. Byerlee, Hydrofracture in Weber Sandstone at high confining
pressure and differential stress, J. Geophys. Res. 82 (1977) 2018–2026, https://
doi.org/10.1029/jb082i014p02018.
[49] P. Macini, E. Mesini, Darcy’s law from water to the petroleum industry: when and
who?, in: Symposium to Honor Henry Philibert Caspard Darcy, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania ASCE, 2003, pp. 2004–2006.
12
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
[50] R. Makhnenko, J.F. Labuz, Elastic and inelastic deformation of fluid-saturated rock,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 374 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsta.2015.0422.
[51] A. Mandelis, Diffusion waves and their uses, Phys. Today 53 (2000) 29–34, https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.1310118.
[52] C.S. Matthews, D.G. Russel, Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, 1, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dalas, USA, 1967.
[53] S.I. Mayr, S. Stanchits, C. Langenbruch, G. Dresen, S.A. Shapiro, Acoustic emission
induced by pore-pressure changes in sandstone samples, Geophysics 76 (2011),
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3569579.
[54] R. Mckibbin, Mathematical models for heat and mass transport in geothermal
systems, Transp. Phenom. Porous Media (2005) 131–154, https://doi.org/
10.1201/9780415876384.pt7.
[55] J. McNamee, R.E. Gibson, Displacement functions and linear transforms applied to
diffusion through porous elastic media, J. Mech. Appl. Math. 13 (1960) 98–111,
https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmam/13.1.98.
[56] A. Nur, J.R. Booker, Aftershocks caused by pore fluid flow? Science 175 (1972)
885–887, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.175.4024.885 (80-).
[57] R.J. O’Connell, B. Budiansky, Seismic velocities in dry and saturated cracked
solids, J. Geophys. Res. 79 (1974) 5412–5426, https://doi.org/10.1029/
JB079i035p05412.
[58] T.K. Perkins, O.C. Johnston, A review of diffusion and dispersion in porous media,
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 3 (1963) 70–84, https://doi.org/10.2118/480-pa.
[59] K. Rajendrani, P. Talwani, The role of elastic, undrained, and drained responses in
triggering earthquakes at Monticello Reservoir, South Carolina, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 82 (1992) 1867–1888.
[60] J.R. Rice, M.P. Cleary, Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid-saturated
elastic porous media with compressible constituents, Rev. Geophys. Sp. Phys. 14
(1976) 227–241, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG014i002p00227.
[61] E.A. Roeloffs, Poroelastic techniques in the study of earthquake-related hydrologic
phenomena, Adv. Geophys. 37 (1996) 135–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2687(08)60270-8.
[62] E.A. Roeloffs, Fault stability changes induced beneath a reservoir with cyclic
variations in water level, J. Geophys. Res. 93 (1988) 2107, https://doi.org/
10.1029/jb093ib03p02107.
[63] P. Royer, Advection–diffusion in porous media with low scale separation:
modelling via higher-order asymptotic homogenisation, Transp. Porous Media 128
(2019) 511–551, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-019-01258-2.
[64] D.R. Schmitt, M.D. Zoback, Poroelastic effects in the determination of the
maximum horizontal principal stress in hydraulic fracturing tests — A proposed
breakdown equation employing a modified effective stress relation for tensile
fracture, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 26 (1989) 499–506.
[65] P. Segall, Stress and subsidence resulting from subsurface fluid withdrawal in the
epicentral region of the 1983 Coalinga Earthquake, J. Geophys. Res. 90 (1985)
6801, https://doi.org/10.1029/jb090ib08p06801.
[66] S.A. Shapiro, C. Dinske, Fluid-induced seismicity: pressure diffusion and hydraulic
fracturing, Geophys. Prospect (2009) 301–310, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2478.2008.00770.x.
[67] T. Shoji, S. Takenouchi, Hydraulic fracturing in geological processes: a review,
Proc. First Japan-United States Jt. Semin. Hydraul. Fract. Geotherm. Energy (1983)
175–190.
[68] A.W. Skempton, The pore-pressure coefficients A and B, Géotechnique 4 (1954)
143–147, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1954.4.4.143.
[69] I. Song, M. Suh, K.S. Won, B. Haimson, A laboratory study of hydraulic fracturing
breakdown pressure in table-rock sandstone, Geosci. J. Lab Study Hydraul. Fract.
Break Press Table-Rock Sandstone 5 (2001) 263–271, https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02910309.
[70] P. Talwani, Seismogenic properties of the crust inferred from recent studies of
reservoir-induced seismicity - application to Koyna, Curr. Sci. 79 (2000)
1327–1333.
[71] P. Talwani, S. Acree, Pore pressure diffusion and the mechanism of reservoir-
induced seismicity, Pure Appl. Geophys. 122 (1985) 947–965, https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00876395.
[72] P. Talwani, L. Chen, K. Gahalaut, Seismogenic permeability, ks, J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth 112 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004665.
[73] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Jonh Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, USA,
1943.
[74] K. Terzaghi, Principle of soil mechanics, Eng. News Rec (1925).
[75] K. Terzaghi, Die Theorie der hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen und ihr
erdbautechnisches, in: Procceedings of the Anwendungsgebiet, International
Congress for Applied Mechanics, Delft, 1924, pp. 445–449.
[76] H.F. Wang, Theory of Linear Poroelasticity With Application to Geomechanics and
Hydrogeology, 150, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 2000.
[77] R. Wang, H.J. Kümpel, Poroelasticity: efficient modeling of strongly coupled, slow
deformation processes in a multilayered half-space, Geophysics 68 (2003)
705–717, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1567241.
[78] Webb S. Gas-phase diffusion in porous media - evaluation of an advective-
dispersive formulation and the dusty-gas model including comparison to data for
binary mixtures 1996.
[79] Winterle J. Matrix diffusion summary report. San Antonio, Texas: 1998.
[80] R.J. Withers, E. Nyland, Theory for the rapid solution of ground subsidence near
reservoirs on layered and porous media, Eng. Geol. (1976) 169–185.
[81] R.F. Yerkes, R.O. Castle, Seismicity and faulting attributable to fluid extraction,
Eng. Geol. 10 (1976) 151–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(76)90017-X.
C. Baptista-Pereira et al.
[82] D. Zhang, J.N. Meegoda, B. Goncalves da Silva, L Hu, Impact of de-ionized water
on changes in porosity and permeability of shales mineralogy due to clay-swelling,
Sci. Rep. 11 (2021) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99523-2.
[83] P. Zhang, L. Hu, J.N. Meegoda, S. Gao, Micro/nano-pore network analysis of gas
flow in shale matrix, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13501.
[84] X. Zhao, Imaging the Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally-Fractured
Reservoirs Using Induced Seismicity and Numerical Modeling (Ph.D. Dissertation),
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2010.
[85] R.W. Zimmerman, Pressure diffusion equation for fluid flow in porous rocks, in:
Proceedings of the Imperial College Lectures in Petroleum Engineering, World
Scientific, Hackensack, USA, 2020, pp. 1–21.
13
Mechanics Research Communications 132 (2023) 104184
[86] R.W. Zimmerman, Chapter 1: pressure diffusion equation for fluid flow in porous
rocks, in: Proceedings of the Imperial College Lectures in Petroleum Engineering,
World Scientific, Hackensack, USA, 2018, pp. 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1142/
9781786345004_0001.
[87] R.W. Zimmerman, Compressibility of Sandstones, Elsevier Science, New York, USA,
1991, https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-4105(92)90053-4.
[88] M.D. Zoback, F. Rummel, R. Jung, C.B. Raleigh, Laboratory hydraulic fracturing
experiments in intact and pre-fractured rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 14 (1977)
49–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(77)90196-6.