Laboratory investigation of hydraulic fracturing in granitic rocks using active and passive seismic monitoring
SUMMARY Knowledge of the fracturing processes can be important for the optimization of pressurized fluid injection operations in the deep underground rock mass. Active and passive seismic monitoring techniques have been used in the field for tracking or mapping the propagating hydraulic fracture. Although both these monitoring techniques provide valuable information about the generated fracture network, it is difficult for either technique to comprehensibly identify the different processes associated with hydraulic fracturing. The combined active and passive monitoring has the potential for better characterization of the complex hydraulic fracturing phenomena. In this study, laboratory hydraulic fracturing experiments with combined active and passive seismic monitoring were conducted on true triaxially loaded Barre granite cubes with different fluid injection rates. The seismic inelastic fracturing was detected by 16 passive acoustic emission sensors, where 3678 and 2370 seismic source events were detected for the high and low injection rate experiments, respectively. For active monitoring, strong variations in the attributes of signals were observed which were transmitted through four source–receiver pairs, placed both perpendicular and parallel to the generated hydraulic fracture. Positive velocity changes were observed for active sensor pairs with ray paths passing through the generated hydraulic fracture indicating fluid permeation, whereas isolated dry deformation was characterized by a slight but permanent velocity decrease. Compared to velocity, the energy of the active signals was 1–2 orders of magnitude more sensitive to different hydraulic fracturing processes. However, the sensitivity and signatures of the active signal attributes were found to be dependent on the frequency range and direction of ray path with respect to the location of the generated fracture network. Using the coupled evaluation of the active and passive signals we were able to systematically identify various hydraulic fracturing processes including: (1) aseismic deformation, (2) fracture initiation and fluid permeation, (3) pressure build-up, (4) fracture propagation and (5) pressure release and leak-off. The results of this study showed that combining the respective advantages of active and passive seismic techniques and using both of them to monitor the failure processes can facilitate a more comprehensive understanding and better control of the hydraulic stimulations in subsurface operations.
- Research Organization:
- Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Science (SC), Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
- Grant/Contract Number:
- SC0019117
- OSTI ID:
- 1972890
- Journal Information:
- Geophysical Journal International, Journal Name: Geophysical Journal International Journal Issue: 3 Vol. 234; ISSN 0956-540X
- Publisher:
- Oxford University PressCopyright Statement
- Country of Publication:
- United Kingdom
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Geophysical Signatures of Crack Network Coalescence in Rocks at Multiple Length Scales
Microseismic Monitoring of Laboratory Hydraulic Fracturing Experiments in Granitic Rocks for Different Fracture Propagation Regimes