4.7 Article

Hybrid FEM and peridynamic simulation of hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated porous media

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113101

Keywords

Peridynamics; Hydraulic fracture propagation; Saturated porous media; Finite element method

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1501102]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51679068, 11872172]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities, China [2017B704X14]
  4. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province, China [KYCX17 0479]
  5. China Scholarship Council [201706710018]
  6. MIUR [PRIN2017-DEVISU]
  7. University of Padua [183703/18, 175705/17, BIRD197110/19]
  8. H2020-MSCA-RISE-2016 [734370-BESTOFRAC]
  9. Technische Universitat Munchen - Institute for Advanced Study - German Excellence Initiative
  10. TUV SUD Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a hybrid modeling approach for simulating hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated porous media: ordinary state-based peridynamics is used to describe the behavior of the solid phase, including the deformation and crack propagation, while FEM is used to describe the fluid flow and to evaluate the pore pressure. Classical Biot poroelasticity theory is adopted. The proposed approach is first verified by comparing its results with the exact solutions of two examples. Subsequently, a series of pressure- and fluid-driven crack propagation examples are solved and presented. The phenomenon of fluid pressure oscillation is observed in the fluid-driven crack propagation examples, which is consistent with previous experimental and numerical evidences. All the presented examples demonstrate the capability of the proposed approach in solving problems of hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated porous media. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available