DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Fracture propagation in Indiana Limestone interpreted via linear softening cohesive fracture model

Abstract

Abstract We examine the use of a linear softening cohesive fracture model (LCFM) to predict single‐trace fracture growth in short‐rod (SR) and notched 3‐point‐bend (N3PB) test configurations in Indiana Limestone. The broad goal of this work is to (a) understand the underlying assumptions of LCFM and (b) use experimental similarities and deviations from the LCFM to understand the role of loading paths of tensile fracture propagation. Cohesive fracture models are being applied in prediction of structural and subsurface fracture propagation in geomaterials. They lump the inelastic processes occurring during fracture propagation into a thin zone between elastic subdomains. LCFM assumes that the cohesive zone initially deforms elastically to a maximum tensile stress ( σ max ) and then softens linearly from the crack opening width at σ max to zero stress at a critical crack opening width w 1 . Using commercial finite element software, we developed LCFMs for the SR and N3PB configurations. After fixing σ max with results from cylinder splitting tests and finding an initial Young's modulus ( E ) with unconfined compressive strength tests, we manually calibrate E and w 1 in the SR model against an envelope of experimental data. We apply the calibrated LCFMmore » parameters in the N3PB geometry and compare the model against an envelope of N3PB experiments. For accurate simulation of fracture propagation, simulated off‐crack stresses are high enough to require inclusion of damage. Different elastic moduli are needed in tension and compression. We hypothesize that the timing and location of shear versus extensional micromechanical failures control the qualitative macroscopic force‐versus‐displacement response in different tests. For accurate prediction, the LCFM requires a constant style of failure, which the SR configuration maintains until very late in deformation. The N3PB configuration does not maintain this constancy. To be broadly applicable between geometries and failure styles, the LCFM would require additional physics, possibly including elastoplastic damage in the bulk material and more complicated cohesive softening models.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM (United States). Earth and Environmental Science Dept.; Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Geomechanics Dept.; New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM (United States). New Mexico Bureau of Geology
  2. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Solid Mechanics Dept.
  3. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Geomechanics Dept.
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC), Washington D.C. (United States). Center for Frontiers of Subsurface Energy Security (CFSES)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
OSTI Identifier:
1370735
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1402255
Grant/Contract Number:  
SC0001114; AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research. Solid Earth
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 120; Journal Issue: 4; Related Information: CFSES partners with University of Texas at Austin (lead); Sandia National Laboratory; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-9313
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; nuclear (including radiation effects); carbon sequestration; cohesive fracture; experimental fracture mechanics; Indiana limestone; geometric effects

Citation Formats

Rinehart, Alex J., Bishop, Joseph E., and Dewers, Thomas. Fracture propagation in Indiana Limestone interpreted via linear softening cohesive fracture model. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1002/2014JB011624.
Rinehart, Alex J., Bishop, Joseph E., & Dewers, Thomas. Fracture propagation in Indiana Limestone interpreted via linear softening cohesive fracture model. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011624
Rinehart, Alex J., Bishop, Joseph E., and Dewers, Thomas. Sat . "Fracture propagation in Indiana Limestone interpreted via linear softening cohesive fracture model". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011624. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1370735.
@article{osti_1370735,
title = {Fracture propagation in Indiana Limestone interpreted via linear softening cohesive fracture model},
author = {Rinehart, Alex J. and Bishop, Joseph E. and Dewers, Thomas},
abstractNote = {Abstract We examine the use of a linear softening cohesive fracture model (LCFM) to predict single‐trace fracture growth in short‐rod (SR) and notched 3‐point‐bend (N3PB) test configurations in Indiana Limestone. The broad goal of this work is to (a) understand the underlying assumptions of LCFM and (b) use experimental similarities and deviations from the LCFM to understand the role of loading paths of tensile fracture propagation. Cohesive fracture models are being applied in prediction of structural and subsurface fracture propagation in geomaterials. They lump the inelastic processes occurring during fracture propagation into a thin zone between elastic subdomains. LCFM assumes that the cohesive zone initially deforms elastically to a maximum tensile stress ( σ max ) and then softens linearly from the crack opening width at σ max to zero stress at a critical crack opening width w 1 . Using commercial finite element software, we developed LCFMs for the SR and N3PB configurations. After fixing σ max with results from cylinder splitting tests and finding an initial Young's modulus ( E ) with unconfined compressive strength tests, we manually calibrate E and w 1 in the SR model against an envelope of experimental data. We apply the calibrated LCFM parameters in the N3PB geometry and compare the model against an envelope of N3PB experiments. For accurate simulation of fracture propagation, simulated off‐crack stresses are high enough to require inclusion of damage. Different elastic moduli are needed in tension and compression. We hypothesize that the timing and location of shear versus extensional micromechanical failures control the qualitative macroscopic force‐versus‐displacement response in different tests. For accurate prediction, the LCFM requires a constant style of failure, which the SR configuration maintains until very late in deformation. The N3PB configuration does not maintain this constancy. To be broadly applicable between geometries and failure styles, the LCFM would require additional physics, possibly including elastoplastic damage in the bulk material and more complicated cohesive softening models.},
doi = {10.1002/2014JB011624},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research. Solid Earth},
number = 4,
volume = 120,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 EST 2015},
month = {Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 EST 2015}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 18 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Fracture toughness testing of rock with core based specimens
journal, January 1990


Generalizations and specializations of cohesive crack models
journal, September 2003


Non-linear elastic behaviour of damaged rocks
journal, July 1997


Hybrid fracture and the transition from extension fracture to shear fracture
journal, March 2004

  • Ramsey, Jonathan M.; Chester, Frederick M.
  • Nature, Vol. 428, Issue 6978
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature02333

Brazilian tensile strength of rocks with different elastic properties in tension and compression
journal, April 1980

  • Sundaram, P. N.; Corrales, J. M.
  • International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 17, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(80)90265-X

Influence of microstructure of concrete on size/scale effects in tensile fracture
journal, November 2003


Linear Elastic and Cohesive Fracture Analysis to Model Hydraulic Fracture in Brittle and Ductile Rocks
journal, December 2011


Pore pressure cohesive zone modeling of hydraulic fracture in quasi-brittle rocks
journal, April 2015


Cohesive mixed mode fracture modelling and experiments
journal, December 2008


Discrete fracture in quasi-brittle materials under compressive and tensile stress states
journal, July 2004

  • Klerck, P. A.; Sellers, E. J.; Owen, D. R. J.
  • Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 193, Issue 27-29
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2003.10.015

The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges
journal, January 2002


Damage and plastic deformation of reservoir rocks: Part 1. Damage fracturing
journal, September 2012

  • Busetti, Seth; Mish, Kyran; Reches, Ze'ev
  • AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 96, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1306/02011211010

Damage and plastic deformation of reservoir rocks: Part 2. Propagation of a hydraulic fracture
journal, September 2012

  • Busetti, Seth; Mish, Kyran; Hennings, Peter
  • AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 96, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1306/02011211011

Two-scale study of concrete fracturing behavior
journal, January 2007


Concrete fracture models: testing and practice
journal, January 2002


Meso-scale modelling of the size effect on the fracture process zone of concrete
journal, June 2012

  • Grassl, Peter; Grégoire, David; Rojas Solano, Laura
  • International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 49, Issue 13
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.03.023

Confinement-Shear Lattice Model for Concrete Damage in Tension and Compression: I. Theory
journal, December 2003


Class I vs Class II stability: a demonstration of size effect
journal, May 1991

  • Labuz, J. F.; Biolzi, L.
  • International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 28, Issue 2-3
  • DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(91)92167-W

Mixed mode cohesive law
journal, October 2006


On the background to the formulae and accuracy of rock fracture toughness measurements using ISRM standard core specimens
journal, January 1989

  • Ouchterlony, F.
  • International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 26, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(89)90521-4

Explicit representation of physical processes in concrete fracture
journal, October 2009


Cohesive zone finite element-based modeling of hydraulic fractures
journal, October 2009


Measurement of the fracture energy using three-point bend tests: Part 2—Influence of bulk energy dissipation
journal, June 1992

  • Planas, J.; Elices, M.; Guinea, G. V.
  • Materials and Structures, Vol. 25, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF02472671

The influence of the cohesive process zone in hydraulic fracturing modelling
journal, June 2010


Simulation of the fracture process in rock with application to hydrofracturing
journal, June 1986

  • Boone, T. J.; Wawrzynek, P. A.; Ingraffea, A. R.
  • International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 23, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(86)90971-X

Coupled reservoir–geomechanical analysis of the potential for tensile and shear failure associated with CO2 injection in multilayered reservoir–caprock systems
journal, February 2008

  • Rutqvist, J.; Birkholzer, J. T.; Tsang, Chin-Fu
  • International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 45, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.04.006

The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brittle Fracture
book, January 1962


Cohesive crack analysis of size effect
journal, September 2009


Process zone and size effect in fracture testing of rock
journal, June 2013


Tensile fracture of rock at high confining pressure: Implications for dike propagation
journal, January 1993

  • Rubin, Allan M.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, Issue B9
  • DOI: 10.1029/93JB01391

Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements
journal, November 1976


Confinement-shear lattice CSL model for fracture propagation in concrete
journal, November 2006

  • Cusatis, Gianluca; Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Cedolin, Luigi
  • Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 195, Issue 52
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2005.04.019

Modelling of the effect of discontinuities on the extent of the fracture zone surrounding deep tunnels
journal, October 2000


Yielding of steel sheets containing slits
journal, May 1960


Cohesive crack, size effect, crack band and work-of-fracture models compared to comprehensive concrete fracture tests
journal, January 2014

  • Hoover, Christian G.; Bažant, Zdeněk P.
  • International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 187, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10704-013-9926-0

Constitutive models for cohesive zones in mixed-mode fracture of plain concrete
journal, September 2009


Works referencing / citing this record:

Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Porous Media: Pore-Scale Implications of Mineral Dissolution
journal, April 2019