水力压裂诱发裂缝动态失稳滑移的响应规律研究
Study on the Response Mechanism of Dynamic Instability and Slip in Fractures Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing
DOI: 10.12677/hjce.2026.151005, PDF,   
作者: 陈鸿杰, 王鑫尧*, 张博文:辽宁工业大学土木建筑工程学院,辽宁 锦州;王 春:山西冶金岩土工程勘察有限公司,山西 太原
关键词: 水力压裂裂缝失稳裂缝滑动压裂参数Hydraulic Fracturing Fracture Instability Fracture Slip Fracturing Parameter
摘要: 随着全球新型能源需求增长,水力压裂等工业活动诱发的地震事件显著增加。文章采用离散元方法,探究了压裂液注入速率(通过增压速率体现)、地应力(通过有效正应力体现)以及压裂液黏度三个主要压裂参数对裂缝动态失稳滑移的影响。结果表明:1) 提高压裂液增压速率会促进裂缝从稳定蠕滑向黏滑运动转变;2) 增加有效正应力会提高裂缝滑移所需的临界剪应力,从而增强其稳定性;3) 压裂液黏度的变化对裂缝失稳激活的临界条件影响不大,但高黏度液体会限制流体扩散、增强局部孔隙压力而加剧滑移量和不稳定性。该研究为油气资源开发中的诱发地震风险防控提供理论指导。
Abstract: With the global growth in demand for new energy sources, induced seismic events triggered by industrial activities such as hydraulic fracturing have significantly increased. This study employs the discrete element method to investigate the effects of three primary fracturing parameters—fracturing fluid injection rate (represented by the pressurization rate), in-situ stress (represented by effective normal stress), and fracturing fluid viscosity—on the dynamic instability and slip of fractures. Results indicate: 1) Increasing the pressurization rate of fracturing fluid accelerates the transition of fractures from stable creep to viscous slip; 2) Elevating effective normal stress raises the critical shear stress required for fracture slip, thereby enhancing stability; 3) Changes in fracturing fluid viscosity have a limited impact on the critical conditions for fracture instability activation. However, high-viscosity fluids exacerbate slip magnitude and instability by restricting fluid diffusion and increasing local pore pressure. This research provides theoretical guidance for mitigating induced seismicity risks in oil and gas resource development.
文章引用:陈鸿杰, 王鑫尧, 张博文, 王春. 水力压裂诱发裂缝动态失稳滑移的响应规律研究[J]. 土木工程, 2026, 15(1): 34-40. https://doi.org/10.12677/hjce.2026.151005

参考文献

[1] Tran, M. and Jha, B. (2021) Effect of Poroelastic Coupling and Fracture Dynamics on Solute Transport and Geomechanical Stability. Water Resources Research, 57, e2021WR029584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Zhao, X. and Jha, B. (2022) Diagnostic and Predictive Analysis of Production and Injection‐Induced Fault Activation. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 46, 392-415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Dana, S., Zhao, X. and Jha, B. (2022) A Two-Grid Simulation Framework for Fast Monitoring of Fault Stability and Ground Deformation in Multiphase Geomechanics. Journal of Computational Physics, 466, Article 111405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] Kim, K., Ree, J., Kim, Y., Kim, S., Kang, S.Y. and Seo, W. (2018) Assessing Whether the 2017 Mw 5.4 Pohang Earthquake in South Korea Was an Induced Event. Science, 360, 1007-1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Bao, X. and Eaton, D.W. (2016) Fault Activation by Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Canada. Science, 354, 1406-1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Woo, J.‐U., Kim, M., Sheen, D.‐H., Kang, T., Rhie, J., Grigoli, F., et al. (2019) An In‐Depth Seismological Analysis Revealing a Causal Link between the 2017 Mw 5.5 Pohang Earthquake and EGS Project. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 124, 13060-13078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Grigoli, F., Cesca, S., Rinaldi, A.P., Manconi, A., López-Comino, J.A., Clinton, J.F., et al. (2018) The November 2017 Mw 5.5 Pohang Earthquake: A Possible Case of Induced Seismicity in South Korea. Science, 360, 1003-1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] 雷兴林, 苏金蓉, 王志伟. 四川盆地南部持续增长的地震活动及其与工业注水活动的关联[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2020, 50(11): 1505-1532+1-8.
[9] Kolawole, F., Johnston, C.S., Morgan, C.B., Chang, J.C., Marfurt, K.J., Lockner, D.A., et al. (2019) The Susceptibility of Oklahoma’s Basement to Seismic Reactivation. Nature Geoscience, 12, 839-844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] Ellsworth, W.L. (2013) Injection-Induced Earthquakes. Science, 341, Article 1225942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Dempsey, D. and Riffault, J. (2019) Response of Induced Seismicity to Injection Rate Reduction: Models of Delay, Decay, Quiescence, Recovery, and Oklahoma. Water Resources Research, 55, 656-681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] Langenbruch, C. and Zoback, M.D. (2016) How Will Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma Respond to Decreased Saltwater Injection Rates? Science Advances, 2, e1601542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Barbour, A.J., Norbeck, J.H. and Rubinstein, J.L. (2017) The Effects of Varying Injection Rates in Osage County, Oklahoma, on the 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 88, 1040-1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[14] Chang, K.W., Yoon, H. and Martinez, M.J. (2018) Seismicity Rate Surge on Faults after Shut‐In: Poroelastic Response to Fluid Injection. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 108, 1889-1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[15] Rudnicki, J.W. and Zhan, Y. (2020) Effect of Pressure Rate on Rate and State Frictional Slip. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL089426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] Sun, Z., Che, M., Zhu, L., Zhang, S., Lu, J. and Jin, C. (2024) Implications for Fault Reactivation and Seismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. Petroleum Science, 21, 1081-1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[17] Passelègue, F.X., Brantut, N. and Mitchell, T.M. (2018) Fault Reactivation by Fluid Injection: Controls from Stress State and Injection Rate. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 12,837-12,846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[18] Cebry, S.B.L., Ke, C.‐Y. and McLaskey, G.C. (2022) The Role of Background Stress State in Fluid‐Induced Aseismic Slip and Dynamic Rupture on a 3‐m Laboratory Fault. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127, e2022JB024371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[19] Cornelio, C., Passelègue, F.X., Spagnuolo, E., Di Toro, G. and Violay, M. (2020) Effect of Fluid Viscosity on Fault Reactivation and Coseismic Weakening. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125, e2019JB018883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[20] Jiang, R., Duan, K., Ji, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, L. and Zheng, Y. (2025) Impact of Injection Rate on Smooth and Rough Fracture Activation in Granite: Laboratory-Scale Acoustic Emission Analysis. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 17, 2133-2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[21] Butt, A., Hedayat, A. and Moradian, O. (2023) Energy Budgeting of Laboratory Hydraulic Fracturing in Granite with Different Viscosity Injection Fluids. 57th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Atlanta, 25-28 June 2023, ARMA-2023-0751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[22] 张致伟, 孙小龙. 四川长宁地区注水诱发地震的孔隙压力扩散特征[J]. 国际地震动态, 2018(8): 132-133.