Stress–Strain Modeling and Brittleness Variations of Low-Clay Shales with CO2/CO2-Water Imbibition

  • Qiao Lyu
  • Jingqiang TanEmail author
  • Jeffrey M. Dick
  • Qi Liu
  • Ranjith Pathegama Gamage
  • Lei Li
  • Zhanghu Wang
  • Chenger Hu
Original Paper


A better understanding of the stress–strain behaviors of shale samples after shale-CO2 or shale-water–CO2 interactions is of great importance to CO2 enhanced shale gas exploitation and CO2 sequestrating in shale reservoirs. In this study, a constitutive model that combines with the modified Duncan–Chang model and Weibull distribution-based model is applied to investigate the stress–strain characteristics of low-clay shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2 and sub-/super-critical CO2 + water for different times (10 days, 20 days, and 30 days). The results show that the model could describe well the crack closure stage, the elastic stage, and the inelastic stage of shale samples. The axial strain at the connection point between the two models varies from 28.51 to 43.36% of the axial strain at the failure point. Shale-CO2 or shale-water–CO2 interactions make shale samples more ductile at the crack closure stage, which can be depicted as the increase of initial elastic modulus during the imbibition process. The brittleness index values (BI) which are calculated based on the combined constitutive model increase with increasing soaking time for shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2, and decrease with increasing soaking time for shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2 + water.


Low-clay shale CO2/CO2 + water imbibition Constitutive model Brittleness 



The authors would like to thank all the technical staffs of the Geo-lab at Monash University for their help with the experimental work, the help of Prof. Jeffrey M. Dick and Dr. Asim Shahzad for the writing revision, and the financial support from the Innovation-Driven Project of Central South University (Grant no.: 502501005), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41872151), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant no.: 2018M630913).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Carroll SA, McNab WW, Dai Z, Torres SC (2012) Reactivity of Mount Simon sandstone and the Eau Claire shale under CO2 storage conditions. Environ Sci Technol 47:252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duncan JM (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Jour Smf Div 96:1629–1653Google Scholar
  3. Fan C-K, Sun Y-K, Li Q, Lu H-F, Niu Z-Y, Li X-Y (2017) Testing technology of fiber Bragg grating in the shale damage experiments under uniaxial compression conditions. Rock Soil Mechanics 38:2456–2464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fan C, Li Q, Li X, Niu Z, Xu L (2018) Dynamic optical fiber monitoring of water-saturated sandstone during supercritical CO2 injection at different sequestration pressures. In: Zhan L, Chen Y, Bouazza A (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international congress on environmental geotechnics volume 1: towards a sustainable geoenvironment. Environmental engineering. Springer Singapore, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Fei W, Li Q, Wei X, Song R, Jing M, Li X (2015) Interaction analysis for CO2 geological storage and underground coal mining in ordos basin. China Eng Geol 196:194–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gunter W, Wiwehar B, Perkins E (1997) Aquifer disposal of CO2-rich greenhouse gases: extension of the time scale of experiment for CO2-sequestering reactions by geochemical modelling. Mineral Petrol 59:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hucka V, Das B Brittleness determination of rocks by different methods. In: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1974. vol 10. Elsevier, pp 389–392Google Scholar
  8. Jarvie DM, Hill RJ, Ruble TE, Pollastro RM (2007) Unconventional shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. Aapg Bull 91:475–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang YD, Xian XF, Jian SU (2005) Research on distortion of singlerock and constitutive relation. Rock Soil Mechanics 26:941–945Google Scholar
  10. Jiang Y, Luo Y, Lu Y, Qin C, Liu H (2016) Effects of supercritical CO2 treatment time, pressure, and temperature on microstructure. of shale Energy 97:173–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kivi IR, Ameri M, Molladavoodi H (2018) Shale brittleness evaluation based on energy balance analysis of stress-strain curves Journal of Petroleum Science & EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolle JJ, Coiled-Tubing Drilling with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. In: CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2000/1/1/ 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE.
  13. Li C, Caner FC, Chau VT, Bažant ZP (2017a) Spherocylindrical microplane constitutive model for shale and other anisotropic rocks. J Mech Phys Solids 103:155–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li H, Lu Y, Zhou L, Han S, Gou Y (2017b) A new constitutive model for calculating the loading-path dependent proppant deformation and damage analysis of fracture conductivity. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 46:365–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li X, Lei X, Li Q, Li X (2017c) Experimental investigation of Sinian shale rock under triaxial stress monitored by ultrasonic transmission and acoustic emission. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 43:110–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li Y, Jia D, Rui Z, Peng J, Fu C, Zhang J (2017d) Evaluation method of rock brittleness based on statistical constitutive relations for rock damage J Pet Sci Eng 153:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Likhtman VI, Shchukin ED, Rebinder PA (1964) Physicochemical mechanics of metals: adsorbtion phenomena in the process of deformation and failure of metalsGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu Y, Ao X, Tang J, Jia Y, Zhang X, Chen Y (2016) Swelling of shale in supercritical carbon dioxide. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 30:268–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyu Q, Long X, Ranjith PG, Kang Y (2016a) Unconventional gas: experimental study of the influence of subcritical carbon dioxide on the mechanical properties of black shale. Energies 9:516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyu Q, Ranjith P, Long X, Ji B (2016b) Experimental investigation of mechanical properties of black shales after CO2-water. Rock Inter Mater 9:663Google Scholar
  21. Lyu Q, Long X, PG R, Tan J, Zhou J, Wang Z, Luo W (2018a) A laboratory study of geomechanical characteristics of black shales after sub-critical/super-critical CO2 + brine saturation. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyu Q, Long X, Ranjith PG, Tan J, Kang Y (2018b) Experimental investigation on the mechanical behaviours of a low-clay shale under water-based fluids. Eng Geol 233:124–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyu Q, Long X, Ranjith PG, Tan J, Kang Y, Wang Z (2018c) Experimental investigation on the mechanical properties of a low-clay shale with different adsorption times in sub-/super-critical CO. 2 Energy 147:1288–1298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma T, Yang C, Chen P, Wang X, Guo Y (2016) On the damage constitutive model for hydrated shale using CT scanning technology. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 28:204–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meng F, Zhou H, Zhang C, Xu R, Lu J (2015) Evaluation methodology of brittleness of rock based on post-peak stress–strain curves. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:1787–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Middleton RS et al (2015) Shale gas and non-aqueous fracturing fluids: opportunities and challenges for supercritical CO2. Appl Energy 147:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyazaki K, Tenma N, Aoki K, Yamaguchi T (2012) A Nonlinear elastic model for triaxial compressive properties of artificial methane-hydrate-bearing. Sediment Samples Energies 5:4057–4075Google Scholar
  28. Munoz H, Taheri A, Chanda EK (2016) Fracture energy-based brittleness index development and brittleness quantification by pre-peak strength parameters in rock uniaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:4587–4606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parisio F, Laloui L (2017) Plastic-damage modeling of saturated quasi-brittle shales. Int J Rock Mech Min 93:295–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parisio F, Samat S, Laloui L (2015a) Constitutive analysis of shale: a coupled damage plasticity approach. Int J Solids Struct 75–76:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parisio F, Samat S, Laloui L (2015b) Constitutive analysis of shale: a coupled damage plasticity approach. Int J Solids Struct 75–76:88–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Profit M, Dutko M, Yu J, Cole S, Angus D, Baird A (2016) Complementary hydro-mechanical coupled finite/discrete element and microseismic modelling to predict hydraulic fracture propagation in tight shale reservoirs. Comput Part Mech 3:229–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ren W, Li G, Tian S, Sheng M, Geng L (2016) Analytical modelling of hysteretic constitutive relations governing spontaneous imbibition of fracturing fluid in shale. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 34:925–933. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rickman R, Mullen MJ, Petre JE, Grieser WV, Kundert DA (2008) Practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale plays are not clones of the barnett shale. In: Spe Technical Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogala A, Krzysiek J, Bernaciak M, Hupka J (2013) Non-aqueous fracturing technologies for shale gas recovery Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing 49Google Scholar
  36. Wang Z-l, Li Y-c, Wang JG (2007) A damage-softening statistical constitutive model considering rock residual strength. Comput Geosci-Uk 33:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang H, Li G, Shen Z (2012) A feasibility analysis on shale gas exploitation with supercritical carbon dioxide. Energy Source Part A 34:1426–1435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang H, Li G, Shen Z, Tian S, Sun B, He Z, Lu P (2015) Experiment on rock breaking with supercritical carbon dioxide jet. J Petrol Sci Eng 127:305–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White JA, Burnham AK, Camp DW (2017) A thermoplasticity model for oil shale. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:677–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xingang Z, Jiaoli K, Bei L (2013) Focus on the development of shale gas in China—Based on SWOT analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 21:603–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Y, Wang L, Fang Y, Mou C (2017) Integrated value of shale gas development: a comparative analysis in the United States and China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76:1465–1478. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin H, Zhou J, Xian X, Jiang Y, Lu Z, Tan J, Liu G (2017) Experimental study of the effects of sub- and super-critical CO2 saturation on the mechanical characteristics of organic-rich shales. Energy 132:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang D, Ranjith P, Perera M (2016) The brittleness indices used in rock mechanics and their application in shale hydraulic fracturing: a review. J Petrol Sci Eng 143:158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang S, Wang X, Wang C, Song R, Huo H (2017) Compressive behavior and constitutive model for roller compacted concrete under impact loading: considering vertical stratification. Constr Build Mater 151:428–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou J, Liu G, Jiang Y, Xian X, Liu Q, Zhang D, Tan J (2016) Supercritical carbon dioxide fracturing in shale and the coupled effects on the permeability of fractured shale: an experimental study. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 36:369–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Metallogenic Prediction of Nonferrous Metals and Geological Environment Monitoring (Central South University)Ministry of EducationChangshaChina
  2. 2.Hunan Key Laboratory of Nonferrous Resources and Geological Hazard ExplorationChangshaChina
  3. 3.School of Geosciences and Info-PhysicsCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  4. 4.Deep Earth Energy Lab, Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations