MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386524145 · doi:10.56952/arma-2023-0711

Arrest Mechanisms of Buoyant Hydraulic Fractures

2023· article· en· W4386524145 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Möri, Carlo Peruzzo, Brice Lecampion, Dmitry Garagash

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyHydraulic fracturingFracture (geology)Stress (linguistics)GeologyLeakMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Hydraulic fracturing (HF) treatments can form widespread fractures. Understanding their containment at depth is critical, given the positive buoyancy contrast between the fracturing fluid and the surrounding rock, promoting upward growth. We study arrest mechanisms for established buoyant HF, restricting our investigation to fully planar fractures. We show that changes in the fracturing toughness (KIc) (E, and v remain unchanged) are inefficient in arresting buoyant HFs. A fracture size-dependent, apparent KIc can only prevent buoyant fractures from emerging but not stop their ascent. Sudden changes of KIc between layers need to be significant to arrest a buoyant HF KIc−2/KIc−1 ≥ 2 − 3. Contrary, a stress barrier efficiently arrests buoyant fractures for stress contrasts as little as Δσ ≥ 1.00 (MPa). We further demonstrate that the interaction with a high-leak-off layer is more efficient in arresting fracture ascent than an equivalent uniform leak-off value. Moderate to high leak-off arrests fractures before they become buoyant or without significant uprise. All considered arrest mechanisms can stop the propagation of a buoyant HF, implying that combining several mechanisms likely prevents buoyant HFs from reaching shallow formations or even the surface. INTRODUCTION Hydraulic fractures (HF) created through industrial treatments can show significant extents. Ensuring a safe operation and efficient exploitation of the targeted formation is only possible if the fracture becomes contained at depth. In the absence of any heterogeneity, assuming a Newtonian fluid, an impermeable medium subjected to linear background stress, and a block injection, Möri and Lecampion (2023) have shown that the containment depends on a single, dimensionless buoyancy (Equation) (see their Eq. (9)). It is possible to define a limiting volume, determining if the fracture arrests at depth or becomes buoyant (Davis et al., 2020; Salimzadeh et al., 2020). This limit for buoyant propagation is equivalent to (Equation). Here we investigate cases of buoyant fractures with (Equation) (see Tab. 1) and will explore what effects changes in the apparent fracturing toughness, stress barriers, and fluid leak-off will have on buoyant HF. Following Möri and Lecampion (2023), we consider a block injection of a fluid with a viscosity μ at a constant rate Qo until shut-in of the injection at ts, giving a total injected volume of Vo = Qots. The medium is considered linear-elastic with a given value of the plain-strain modulus E′ = E/(1 − v2), with E the materials Young's modulus and v its Poisson's coefficient. We consider a linearly varying background stress with depth (e.g. σ (z) μ z) and use constant values for the rock and fluid density. A buoyant force, caused by the difference of the two Δγ = Δρg = (ρsolid − ρfluid)g, with g = 9.81 (m·s−2) the earth gravitational acceleration, emerges, driving buoyant propagation. Note that we do not consider any density variation. The effect of any heterogeneity will be related to the dominating energy dissipation mechanism (viscosity- vs toughness-dominated) when the fracture becomes buoyant and/or encounters heterogeneity. For a change in properties at a given distance from the injection point, the interaction will differ if the fracture reaches the jump during an ongoing injection or when shut-in has already occurred. All these possible interactions depend on an additional set of two dimensionless coefficients. The first is the dimensionless viscosity (Equation) describing the dominant energy dissipation mechanism at the transition from radial to buoyant propagation (see Eq. (3.9) of Möri and Lecampion (2022)). This parameter alone governs the case of a constant rate, continuous release (Möri and Lecampion, 2022) and characterizes together with (Equation) the release of a finite volume of fluid. Combining these two coefficients is sufficient to describe any possible state of a buoyant fracture. Notably, values of (Equation) indicate viscosity-dominated and (Equation) toughness-dominated fractures at the transition from radial to buoyant. Finally, the case of a change in properties at a distance d (distance from the injection point to the change of properties, see Fig. 1) requires a dimensionless form of this distance. We achieve the dimensionless form using the buoyancy length scale ℓb = (KIc/Δγ)2/3 (Lister and Kerr, 1991) to obtain (Equation) (see Tab. 1). According to Möri and Lecampion (2023), we must ensure (Equation) to have fully developed buoyant fractures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→