4.7 Article

A continuum damage failure model for hydraulic fracturing of porous rocks

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY
卷 59, 期 -, 页码 199-212

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2014.03.003

关键词

Poroelasticity; Rock Mechanics; Hydraulic fracturing; Rock continuum damage mechanics

资金

  1. NASA [NNX11AM17A]
  2. Louisiana Board of Regents [NNX11AM17A]
  3. NSF [CMMI0900064]
  4. Army Research Office [W911NF-13-1-0145]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A continuum damage mechanics (CDM) based constitutive model has been developed to describe elastic, plastic and damage behavior of porous rocks. The pressure sensitive inelastic deformation of porous rocks together with their damage mechanisms are studied for drained and undrained conditions. Fracture mechanics of microcrack and micro-void nucleation and their coalescence are incorporated into the formulation of the CDM models to accurately capture different failure modes of rocks. A fracture mechanics based failure criterion is also incorporated to accurately capture the post fracture crack advances in the case of progressive failures. The performance of the developed elastoplastic and CDM models are compared with the available experimental data and then the models are introduced into a commercial software package through user-defined subroutines. The hydraulic fractures growth in a reservoir rock is then investigated; in which the effect of injection pressure is studied and the simulations are compared with the available solutions in the literature. The developed CDM model outperforms the traditional fracture mechanics approaches by removing stress singularities at the fracture tips and simulation of progressive fractures without any essential need for remeshing. This model would provide a robust tool for modeling hydraulic fracture growth using conventional elements of FEA with a computational cost less than similar computational techniques like cohesive element methods. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据