Journal of Seismology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 109–121 | Cite as

Fully coupled hydro–mechanical controls on non-diffusive seismicity triggering front driven by hydraulic fracturing

  • Murad AbuAishaEmail author
  • David Eaton
  • Jeffrey Priest
  • Ron Wong
  • Benjamin Loret
  • Alana H. Kent


The spatio–temporal evolution of fluid-injection-induced seismicity is often bounded by a triggering front that expands away from the injection point in space and time. For some injection scenarios, the triggering front is thought to be directly linked to pore pressure diffusion, but in the case of hydraulic fracturing, the stress interaction of the growing tensile fracture with natural joints may be more significant. In order to explore the concept of a triggering front in this context, we use a fully coupled hydro–mechanical finite-discrete element (FDEM) approach to simulate microseismicity induced by hydraulic fracture growth. The medium contains a network of randomly oriented pre-existing fractures that are activated based on the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. As expected, the primary triggering front is defined by the envelope of microseismicity that tracks the hydraulic fracture, although more distal events are triggered by mechanical stress changes beyond the bounds of the triggering front. However, these distal events are approximately synchronous with initiation of the hydraulic fracture and are attributed to far-field elastic perturbations associated with the stress wave spread in the medium. A field example indicates that patterns of seismicity that emerge from our simulations have characteristics similar to observed microseismicity during hydraulic fracturing.


Finite-discrete element method (FDEM) Hydraulic fracturing (HF) Pre-existing joints Induced microseismicity Proximal triggering front Coulomb plasticity criterion 



All plots where drawn using Matlab M-files, simulations can be reproduced using the IRAZU code of Geomechanica, Inc. ConocoPhillips Canada is thanked for providing access to the field data used in this study.

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the sponsors of the Microseismic Industry Consortium and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (grant CRDPJ/474748).


  1. AbuAisha M, Eaton D, Priest J, Wong R (2017) Hydro-mechanically coupled FDEM framework to investigate near–wellbore hydraulic fracturing in homogeneous and fractured rock formations. J Pet Sci Eng 154:100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AbuAisha M, Loret B, Eaton D (2016) Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): hydraulic fracturing in a thermo–poroelastic framework. J Pet Sci Eng 146:1179–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AbuAisha M, Loret B (2016a) Influence of hydraulic fracturing on impedance and efficiency of thermal recovery from HDR reservoirs. Geomechanics Energy Environ 7:10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AbuAisha M, Loret B (2016b) Stabilization of forced heat convection: applications to enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Transp Porous Media 112:229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adachi J, Siebrits E, Peirce A, Desroches J (2007) Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:739–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech 7:55–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boroumand N (2015) Energy–based hydraulic fracture numerical simulation: parameter selection and model validation using microseismicity. Geophysics.
  8. Bruel D (2007) Using the migration of the induced seismicity as a constraint for fractured Hot Dry Rock reservoir modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:1106–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chou Q, Gao J, Somerwil M (2011) Analysis of geomechanical data for Horn River basin gas shales, NE British Columbia, Canada. In: The SPE Middle East unconventional gas conference and exhibition, Paper SPE 142498, Muscat, Oman, 31 January – 2 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  10. Cipolla LC, Williams JM, Weng X, Mack M, Maxwell S (2010) Hydraulic fracture monitoring to reservoir simulation: maximizing value. In: The SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Paper SPE 133877, Florence, Italy, 19–22 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornet F (2000) Comment on ‘Large-scale in situ permeability tensor of rocks from induced microseismicity’ by S. A. Shapiro, P. Audigane and J.-J. Royer. Geophys J Int 140:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinske C, Shapiro SA, Rutledge JT (2010) Interpretation of microseismicity resulting from gel and water fracturing of tight gas reservoirs. Pure Appl Geophys 167:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damjanac B, Cundall P (2016) Application of distinct element methods to simulation of hydraulic fracturing in naturally fractured reservoirs. Comput Geotech 71:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duan K, Kwok CY, Wu W, Jing L (2018) DEM modeling of hydraulic fracturing in permeable rock: influence of viscosity, injection rate and in situ states. Acta Geotechnica.
  15. Eaton DW (2018) Passive seismic monitoring of induced seismicity: fundamental principles and application to energy technologies. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaton D, Davidsen J, Pedersen KP, Boroumand N (2014) Breakdown of the Gutenberg–Richter relation for microearthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing: influence of stratabound fractures. Geophys Prospect 62(4):806–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Economides JM, Nolte GK (2003) Reservoir stimulation. Wiley, 3rd editionGoogle Scholar
  18. Fjaer E, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risnes R (2008) Petroleum related rock mechanics, 2nd. Elsevier B.V., AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Fu P, Johnson SM, Carrigan R (2013) An explicitly coupled hydro–geomechanical model for simulating hydraulic fracturing in arbitrary discrete fracture networks. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:2278–2300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lisjak A, Grasselli G, Vietor T (2014) Continuum–discontinuum analysis of failure mechanisms around unsupported circular excavations in anisotropic clay shales. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 65:96–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lisjak A, Kaifosh P, He L, Tatone BSA, Mahabadi OK, Grasselli G (2017) A 2D, fully–coupled, hydro–mechanical, FDEM formulation for modelling fracturing processes in discontinuous, porous rock masses. Comput Geotech 81:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahabadi O, Lisjak A, Munjiza A, Grasselli G (2012) Y–geo: a new combined finite–discrete element numerical code for geomechanical applications. Int J Geomech 12(6):676–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sousani M, Ingham D, Pourkashanian M, Sheng Y, Eshiet KII (2015) Simulation of the hydraulic fracturing process of fractured rocks by the discrete element method. Environ Earth Sci 73:8451–8469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayerhofer MJ, Lolon E, Warpinski NR, Cipolla CL, Walser DW, Rightmire CM (2010) What is stimulated reservoir volume? SPE Prod Oper 25(1):89–98. Google Scholar
  25. Munjiza A (2004) The combined finite-discrete element method. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munjiza A, Owen DRJ, Bicanic NA (1995) A combined finite–discrete element method in transient dynamics of fracturing solids. Eng Comput 12:145–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahm D (2011) Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: the case of Texas. Energy Policy 39:2974–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reynolds MM (2010) Development upyear for an emerging shale gas giant field–Horn River basin, British Columbia, Canada. In: The SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Paper SPE 130103, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23–25 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  29. Roche V, Van der Baan M (2017) Modeling of the in situ state of stress in elastic layered rock subject to stress and strain–driven tectonic forces. Solid Earth 8:479–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers S, Elmo D, Dunphy R, Bearinger D (2010) Understanding hydraulic fracture geometry and interactions in the Horn River basin through DFN and numerical modeling. In: The Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Paper SPE 137488, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–21 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  31. Rutledge TJ, Phillips SW, Schuessler KB (1998) Reservoir characterization using oil–production–induced microseismicity, Clinton County, Kentucky. Tectonophysics 289:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shapiro SA, Dinsk C (2009a) Scaling of seismicity induced by nonlinear fluid–rock interaction. J Geophys Res 114:B09307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shapiro SA, Dinske C (2009b) nFluid-induced seismicity: pressure diffusion and hydraulic fracturing. Geophys Prospect 57:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapiro SA, Dinske C, Rothert E (2006) Hydraulic–fracturing controlled dynamics of microseismic clouds. Geophys Res Lett 33:L14312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapiro SA, Rothert E, Rath V, Rindschwentner J (2002) Characterization of fluid transport properties of reservoirs using induced microseismicity. Geophys 67:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tatone BSA, Grasselli G (2015) A calibration procedure for two–dimensional laboratory–scale hybrid finite–discrete element simulations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 75:56–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Der Baan M, Eaton D, Dusseault M (2013) Microseismic monitoring developments in hydraulic fracture stimulation. In: ISRM International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Brisbane, Australia, 20–22 MayGoogle Scholar
  38. Yan C, Zheng H, Sun G, Ge X (2016) Combined finite-discrete element method for simulation of hydraulic fracturing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:1389–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yew CH, Weng X (2014) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Gulf Professional Publishing, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murad AbuAisha
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Eaton
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Priest
    • 3
  • Ron Wong
    • 3
  • Benjamin Loret
    • 4
  • Alana H. Kent
    • 2
  1. 1.École Nationale Supérieure des Mines, Centre de GéosciencesPSL UniversityFontainebleauFrance
  2. 2.Department of GeoscienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Institut National Polytechnique de GrenobleUniversité de GrenobleSaint-Martin-d’HèresFrance

Personalised recommendations