Experimental study comparing the microscopic properties of a new borehole sealing material with ordinary cement grout

  • Zhang Chao
  • Chang Jie
  • Li Shugang
  • Liu Chao
  • Qin LeiEmail author
  • Bao Ruoyu
  • Liu Hua
  • Cheng Renhui
Original Article


To compare the differences between new CF drilling sealing materials and ordinary cement, the author considered to conduct experimental research from the aspects of permeability, pore size and fluidity. Based on experiments conducted on samples simulating coal in an underground coal mine, the permeability around sealed boreholes was studied using scanning electron microscopy and low field nuclear magnetic resonance. In addition, the pores in the two kinds of grout used were studied quantitatively by mercury injection porosimetry and carbon dioxide gas adsorption. The experimental results show that the new CF seal slurry has better fluidity, average pore size, porosity and permeability than ordinary cement. This indicates that the new CF drilling sealing material has better grouting performance than ordinary cement due to its microscopic pore structure. This experimental study provides a better choice of sealing material for coal seam gas extraction drilling, which can improve the sealing quality of the sealing hole, improve the extraction efficiency, avoid the emission of toxic and harmful gas, and provide guarantee for the safety production of coal mine.


Ordinary cement New sealing material Pore size Porosity Grouting performance 



This work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51504189), the Xi’an University of Science and Technology Excellent Youth Science and Technology Fund Project (2019YQ3-02). We thank David Frishman, PhD, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Group, for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.


  1. Daigle H, Johnson A (2016) Combining mercury intrusion and nuclear magnetic resonance measurements using percolation theory. Transp Porous Med 111(3):669–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erol S, Francois B (2014) Efficiency of various grouting materials for borehole heat exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 70(1):788–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Faure PF, Rodts S (2008) Proton NMR relaxation as a probe for setting cement pastes. Magn Reson Imaging 26(8):1183–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feyzullahoğlu E (2014) Abrasive wear, thermal and viscoelastic behaviors of rubber seal materials used in different working conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J J Eng Tribol 229(1):64–73Google Scholar
  5. Fujimoto K et al (2007) Borehole water and hydrologic Nojima fault, SW model around the Japan. Tectonophysics 443(3–4):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ge Z, Mei X, Lu Y, Tang J, Xia B (2015) Optimization and application of sealing material and sealing length for hydraulic fracturing borehole in underground coal mines. Arab J Geosci 8(6):3477–3490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giannoukos K, Hall MR, Rochelle CA, Milodowski AE, Rigby SP (2014) Preliminary investigation on the chemical response of cementitious grouts used for borehole sealing of geologically stored CO2. Energy Procedia 59:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guo R, Dixon D (2006) Thermohydromechanical simulations of the natural cooling stage of the tunnel sealing experiment. Eng Geol 85(3–4):313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hao Z, Lin B, Gao Y, Cheng Y (2012) Establishment and application of drilling sealing model in the spherical grouting mode based on the loosing-circle theory. Int J Min Sci Technol 22(6):895–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao C, Cheng Y, Dong J, Liu H, Jiang Z, Tu Q (2018) Effect of silica sol on the sealing mechanism of a coalbed methane reservoir: new insights into enhancing the methane concentration and utilization rate. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 56:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Javadpour F, McClure M, Naraghi ME (2015) Slip-corrected liquid permeability and its effect on hydraulic fracturing and fluid loss in shale. Fuel 160:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim C, Dixon D (2013) Evaluating hydro-mechanical interactions of adjacent clay-based sealing materials. Phys Chem Earth 65:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koenders EAB, Hansen W, Ukrainczyk N, Filho T, R.D., 2014. Modeling pore continuity and durability of cementitious sealing material. J Energ Resour-Asme. 136(0429044SI)Google Scholar
  14. Kurlenya MV, Serdyukov SV, Shilova TV, Patutin AV (2014a) Procedure and equipment for sealing coal bed methane drainage holes by barrier shielding. J Min Sci 50(5):994–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kurlenya MV, Shilova TV, Serdyukov SV, Patutin AV (2014b) Sealing of coal bed methane drainage holes by barrier screening method. J Min Sci 50(4):814–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li Z, Liu D, Cai Y, Yao Y, Wang H (2015) Pore structure and compressibility of coal matrix with elevated temperatures by mercury intrusion porosimetry. Energy Explor ExploitGoogle Scholar
  17. Li B, Zhang J, Wei J, Qiang Z (2018) Preparation and sealing performance of a new coal dust polymer composite sealing material. Adv Mater Sci EngGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Q et al (2014) A new effective method and new materials for high sealing performance of cross-measure CMM drainage boreholes. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 21:805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Molinda G (2008) Reinforcing coal mine roof with polyurethane injection: 4 case studies. Geotech Geol Eng 26(5):553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paillet F (2004) Borehole flowmeter applications in irregular and large-diameter boreholes. J Appl Geophys 55(1–2):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pusch R (2011) A technique to delay hydration and maturation of borehole seals of expansive clay. Eng Geol 121(1–2):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qin L et al (2016) Failure mechanism of coal after cryogenic freezing with cyclic liquid nitrogen and its influences on coal bed methane exploitation. Energ Fuel 30(10):8567–8578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qin L et al (2017) Changes in the petrophysical properties of coal subjected to liquid nitrogen freeze-thaw—a nuclear magnetic resonance investigation. Fuel 194:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qin L et al (2018a) Fractal dimensions of low rank coal subjected to liquid nitrogen freeze-thaw based on nuclear magnetic resonance applied for coalbed methane recovery. Powder Technol 325:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qin L, Zhai C, Liu S, Xu J (2018b) Mechanical behavior and fracture spatial propagation of coal injected with liquid nitrogen under triaxial stress applied for coalbed methane recovery. Eng Geol 233:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stroes-Gascoyne S (2010) Microbial occurrence in bentonite-based buffer, backfill and sealing materials from large-scale experiments at AECL’s Underground Research Laboratory. Appl Clay Sci 47(1–2):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang Z, Sun Y (2018) Swelling pressure of double-expansive material and its active support effect for coal seam gas drainage borehole. Adv Mater Sci EngGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang H et al (2016) Fault-sealing capability and its impact on coalbed methane distribution in the Zhengzhuang field, southern Qinshui Basin, North China. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 28:613–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xia T, Zhou F, Liu J, Kang J, Gao F (2014) A fully coupled hydro-thermo-mechanical model for the spontaneous combustion of underground coal seams. Fuel 125:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xiang X, Zhai C, Xu Y, Yu X, Xu J (2015) A flexible gel sealing material and a novel active sealing method for coal-bed methane drainage boreholes. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 26:1187–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yao Y et al (2010) Petrophysical characterization of coals by low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Fuel 89(7):1371–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhai C, Hao Z, Lin B (2011) Research on a new composite sealing material of gas drainage borehole and its sealing performance. Proc Eng 26:1406–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhai C, Xu J, Xiang X, Zhong C (2015) Flexible gel (FG) for gas-drainage drilling sealing material based on orthogonal design. Int J Min Sci TechnolGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhai C, Xiang X, Xu J, Wu S (2016a) The characteristics and main influencing factors affecting coal and gas outbursts in Chinese Pingdingshan mining region. Nat Hazards 82(1):507–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhai C, Xiang X, Zou Q, Yu X, Xu Y (2016b) Influence factors analysis of a flexible gel sealing material for coal-bed methane drainage boreholes. Environ Earth Sci. 75(5)Google Scholar
  36. Zhang S, Tang S, Li Z, Pan Z, Shi W (2016) Study of hydrochemical characteristics of CBM co-produced water of the Shizhuangnan Block in the southern Qinshui Basin, China, on its implication of CBM development. Int J Coal Geol 159:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zou M et al (2013) Classifying coal pores and estimating reservoir parameters by nuclear magnetic resonance and mercury intrusion porosimetry. Energ Fuel 27(7):3699–3708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zou Q et al (2015) Novel integrated techniques of drilling–slotting–separation-sealing for enhanced coal bed methane recovery in underground coal mines. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 26:960–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Safety Science and EngineeringXi’an University of Science and TechnologyXi’anChina
  2. 2.Key laboratory of Western Mine Exploitation and Hazard Prevention of the Ministey of EducationXi’an University of Science and TechnologyXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations