International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control blasting for

increased fracturing
Bingxiang Huang a,b,n, Changyou Liu a,b, Junhui Fu a,b, Hui Guan a,b
a
School of Mines, China University of Mining and Technology, South 3rd Ring Road, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Mine Safety, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221008, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Traditional hydraulic fracturing techniques generally form main hydraulic cracks and airfoil branch
Received 8 August 2010 fissures, but main hydraulic cracks are relatively few in number. Hydraulic fracturing after water
Received in revised form pressure control blasting can transform the structure of coal and rock mass. Experiments prove that it is
21 March 2011
an effective method for increasing the number and range of hydraulic cracks, as well as for improving
Accepted 12 June 2011
the permeability of coal seams. The technical principle is as follows. First, a hole is drilled in the coal
Available online 30 June 2011
seam and is injected with a gel explosive (a mining water-proof explosive). Then, water is injected into
Keywords: the hole to seal it, at low enough pressure to prevent cracks from forming. Third, water pressure
Hydraulic fracturing blasting is done by detonating the explosive. The water shock waves and bubble pulsations produced
Water pressure blasting
by the explosion cause a high strain rate in the rock wall surrounding the hole. When the stress
Crack propagation
imposed on the rock wall surrounding the hole exceeds its dynamic critical fracture strength, the
Shock waves
Crack number surrounding rock breaks and numerous circumferential and radial fractures propagate outward. Lastly,
water injection processes, such as general injection, pulse injection, and/or cyclic injection, are carried
out to promote hydraulic fracturing. Depending on the fissure water pressure, detonation fissures
continue to expand and additional hydraulic fractures with a wider range are formed. Under the effect
of detonation pressure, joints and fissures in the coal mass open and propagate, leading to reduced
adhesive forces on structural surfaces and thereby enhancing coal cutting. Therefore, this method
improves the permeability of the coal seam, effectively weakens the strength of the coal and rock mass,
and reduces the surrounding rock stress of the weakened area, effectively solving the problem of having
a small number of big cracks. It is a useful technical approach for improving top coal caving, preventing
rock burst, preventing coal and gas outbursts, and raising the gas extraction efficiency in colliery.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in number. In the case of homogeneous rock, a single hydraulic

Low-permeability coal-seam gas extraction; hard, thick coal-
seam fully mechanized top coal caving; and rock burst control are
technical challenges in colliery at present. Hydraulic fracturing is
an effective technical approach to resolve these challenges [1].
The structure of coal and rock mass is altered through hydraulic
fracturing, which can increase cracks in coal and rock mass,
improve permeability, and weaken strength to reduce any rock
bursting liability. After decades of development, more study on
hydraulic fracturing has been conducted both in China and else-
where [2–14]. Simulation experiments and field investigations of
hydraulic fracturing show that the traditional hydraulic fracturing
techniques mainly form water pressure main cracks and airfoil
branch fissures, but water pressure main cracks are relatively few
n
Corresponding author at: School of Mines, China University of Mining and
Technology, South 3rd Ring Road, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China.
Tel.: þ86 516 83885662.
E-mail address: huangbingxiang@cumt.edu.cn (B. Huang).
main crack is generally generated and cracks are mainly concen-
trated in a band around the hydraulic main crack, whose extent is
small. However, to improve hard, thick top coal cavability, handle
hard roof, prevent rock burst, increase permeability of gassy coal
seams, and prevent coal and gas outbursts, full re-formation of
the structure of coal and rock mass by hydraulic fracturing is
needed. This requires that hydraulic fracturing produce more
hydraulic cracks, i.e., increase the number of hydraulic cracks.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to study hydraulic control
fracturing technology to increase the number of hydraulic cracks,
which has important theoretical and practical significance in
guaranteeing efficient and safe colliery production.
Common explosives blasting for gassy coal seams has safety
risks, so they are not suitable. Water pressure blasting, developed
in the past century as a kind of controlled blasting method, can
effectively control the generation of blasting flying rocks, air shock
waves, blasting tremors, and detonation toxic gases [15–18]. Water
pressure blasting is a gun-hole blasting technology that uses water
as a coupling medium between the cartridge and the charge hole to

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.06.004
 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983
transfer the explosion pressure and energy at the moment of the
explosion to break up rock. The principal characteristics of water
are exploited as follows. Since water is difficult to compress,
deformation energy losses are low and energy transmission effi-
ciency becomes high. Water acts to deliver uniform pressure,
making the pressure on the surrounding medium relatively smooth
and evenly distributed, leading to even breaking of the surrounding
rock and greatly reducing the harmful effects of blasting. However,
the compression ratio of water exceeds that of rock under high
pressure and water also acts as the buffer layer between the
explosive products and the rock mass. Not only does this buffer
layer extend the interaction time of the shock wave on the rock,
but it also can reduce or eliminate the energy loss in the plastic
deformation zone generated in the rock mass. Water pressure
blasting is currently a more mature technology in fields such as
tunnel excavation and project demolition. In recent years, the
application of water pressure blasting to colliery has started in
China and elsewhere [19,20]. In the former Soviet Union, coal-seam
pre-injection internal explosions were conducted by using an 8-m-
deep hole of 40 mm diameter to prevent coal and gas outbursts in
a gently inclined thin coal seam and a medium thick coal seam. In
China attempts were made to create cracks by water pressure
blasting to improve the coal-seam gas drainage rate [21].
In view of the problems of existing technology, a preliminary
test has been conducted to exploit the advantages of water
pressure blasting and hydraulic fracturing. The test results show
that hydraulic fracturing after water pressure blasting can
increase the number and range of hydraulic cracks efficiently.
Based on preliminary studies and test results, the author has
proposed the use of water pressure control blasting for increasing
permeability and weakening strength as a result of hydraulic
fracturing.
2. Using water pressure control blasting to increase
permeability through hydraulic fracturing
Water pressure control blasting induces hydraulic fracturing in
the borehole of a coal-rock seam, which changes the structure of
the coal-rock mass and increases the number and range of
hydraulic cracks, thereby increasing permeability and weakening
strength. The technique involves the following steps:
(a) Drill a borehole for hydraulic fracturing weakening with a
drilling rig, inject an adequate amount of gel explosive (a
water-proof mine explosive), and pull the lead wire out of the
borehole.
(b) After sealing up the borehole orifice with hole packer or cement
mortar, inject water into the hole until it fills the hole or reaches
a pressure value below that which would generate water
pressure cracks. At this moment, the initial water pressure P0
in the borehole must be less than the orifice rupture water
pressure:
P0 o 3s3 s1 þ st ,
where s3 is the minimum principal stress of the crustal stress
field around the borehole, s1 is the maximum one, and st is the
tensile strength of the borehole rock.
(c) Detonate the explosive to carry out water pressure blasting. The
water shock waves and bubble pulsations produced by the
explosion will cause a high strain rate in the rock wall surround-
ing the hole. When the stress imposed on the surrounding rock
wall exceeds its dynamic critical fracture strength, the rock
ruptures and generates abundant circumferential and radial
fractures surrounding the borehole. Meanwhile, because of the
rock’s elasticity, the hole’s influence on the surrounding rock
977
stress distribution is about 3–5 times the borehole diameter.
Under the effect of subsequent water pressure, cracks are
initiated in the wall of the hole when the effective tangential
tensile stress of the wall exceeds the rock tensile strength.
However, for a given crustal stress field, the position of the
maximum effective tangential tensile stress of the borehole wall
is a constant. Therefore, to increase the difference of hydraulic
crack initiation between the follow-up borehole hall and the
blasting cracks and make the blasting cracks craze preferentially,
the length of blasting cracks must be greater than 3–5 times the
borehole diameter.
(d) Then, perform water injection processes such as general
injection, pulse injection, and cycle injection to carry out
hydraulic fracturing. Depending on the fissure water pressure,
blasting cracks continue to expand and more water pressure
fractures with a wider range are formed.
The surrounding rock loosing zone of colliery roadway or
grotto for constructing a borehole is generally 1.5–2.0 m. Because
the water pressure induced by water pressure blasting is great,
the sealing length in the complete surrounding rock section of the
borehole must be greater than 2 m. The borehole length for
installing the gel explosive must exceed 1 m. Thus, the under-
ground fracturing borehole depth in colliery should not be less
than 5 m.
The structure of coal and rock mass is re-formed by hydraulic
blasting control fracturing, leading to an increased number of
hydraulic cracks, an increase in the permeability of the coal seam,
an efficient weakening of the strength of coal and rock mass, and
a reduction in the surrounding rock stress of the weakened area.
This effectively solves the problem of having a small number of
big cracks. There are a number of beneficial effects from this
process. The weakening of the hard coal can improve top coal
cavability, reduce the risk of rock burst, increase the range of coal-
seam fracturing cracks, make gas extraction easier, and prevent
coal and gas outbursts, all of which are important in guaranteeing
efficient and safe colliery production.
3. Experimental scheme
3.1. Experimental system
We developed a 500  500  500 mm3 true triaxial hydraulic
fracturing experimental system. The system consists of an experi-
ment-bench framework, a loading system, and a monitoring
system. The main technical indicators are as follows: (1) the true
triaxial stress is loaded on cubic samples to simulate crustal
stress; the pressure from the loading plate in three directions can
reach 4000 kN. (2) The size of the cubic specimen is 300  300 
300 or 500  500  500 mm3. (3) The water pressure for borehole
fracturing can reach 70 MPa.
During borehole fracturing, parameters such as water (liquid)
pressure and flow are monitored by an Intelligent Vortex Flow-
ð1Þ meter connected to the computer, using established procedures
for data collection and storage. During the fracturing simulation,
the crack propagation process and geometric morphology are
monitored by a Disp-type 24-channel acoustic emission instru-
ment, an RSM acoustic instrument, and a TDS-6 Micro-seismic
acquisition system.
3.2. Experimental method
The simulation experiment adopts a side length of 500 mm for
the cubic specimen mixed with coal and briquette. (The original
coal size is about 27  40  20 cm3.) A parameter test of the
978 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983

mechanical properties of both coal and briquette of different
ratios has been conducted to ensure that the stiffness, strength,
and other properties of the briquette are as similar to coal’s as far
as possible. The quality ratio of the simulated sample is deter-
mined as coal powder:cement:plaster:water¼0.5:1:1:0.8 and its
mechanical properties are shown in Table 1. After the specimen
has naturally dried, a borehole of 30 cm in length is drilled at the
center of the upper surface of the specimen and then SHZ bar glue
is used to bond the device bond to the borehole wall to complete
the sealing while the sealing depth reaches 20 cm.
We originally planned to use electric detonators to carry out
the simulation experiment of hydraulic blasting control fractur-
ing. The explosive amount (1 g) in each electric detonator is
modest and the detonators can be detonated in water to achieve
the purpose of blasting after sealing under water pressure. Thus,
an electric detonator is the ideal blasting equipment for the
simulation experiment. However, because the public security
sector strictly controls electric detonators, it is hard to obtain
blasting electric detonators. Therefore, the large firecracker
shown in Fig. 1b was used as blasting equipment for the simula-
tion experiment. The hydraulic blasting control fracturing is
simplified into two stages to simulate (1) blasting in the borehole
and (2) hydraulic fracturing.
The simulated stress field condition is s1 ¼3.323376 MPa,
s2 ¼1.938636 MPa, and s3 ¼0.553896 MPa and the stress direc-
tion is shown in Fig. 1c. Red poster dye is added to the water tank
to make it easier to observe the hydraulic fracture morphology.
During the experiment, a microseismic instrument is used to
monitor microseismic information of the specimen; the trigger
threshold (STA/LTA ratio) of a microseismic event is 1.2, and the
amplitude range reaches 500 mA with an STA/LTA time window of
(0.1 s)/(1 s). At the same time, acoustic emission and electromag-
netic radiation are monitored during the experiment. An acoustic
emission probe (R.45) placed in the experimental framework
closely sticks to the specimen and an electromagnetic radiation
probe stays close to the outer steel ring of the experimental
framework. An acoustic emission instrument uses the acoustic
emission probe and the electromagnetic radiation probe to take

Table 1
Mechanical properties of coal and sample.

Lithology Compressive Elastic modulus Poisson’s Tensile Cohesion, c Internal

strength, sc E (GPa) ratio, m strength, st (MPa) friction angle,
(MPa) (MPa) j (deg)

Coal 6.3086 0.6170 0.2174 0.3014 0.8043 18.43

Briquette 5.0888 0.5247 0.2326 0.6570 1.0950 27.82

Briquette Coal

Blasting equipment
Drillhole

Microquake instrument
Test block

Microquake probe

σ2

σ1
σ3

Loading frame Microquake probe

Fig. 1. Photographs of the experiment. (a) Pouring of the coal, (b) Blasting in the borehole, (c) Simulation of crustal stress and (d) Microprobe arrangement during hydraulic
fracturing.
 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983
samples at the same time. The frequency domain f of the electro-
magnetic radiation probe is 30 kHz. The sampling frequency of
both the pre-amplifier (BP-SYS) and the acoustic emission probe is
5 MHz; the trigger threshold of the electromagnetic radiation
probe is 20 dB, the trigger threshold of the acoustic emission
probe is 39 dB, and the pre-amp gain is 60 dB for both. The high-
pass filter of the electromagnetic radiation probe is set to 20 kHz
and the high-pass filter of the acoustic emission probe is 1 kHz.
The low-pass filters for both are set to 400 kHz.
To compare with the results of common hydraulic fracturing in
coal and rock mass, one common hydraulic fracturing simulation
experiment of fissured coal and rock mass under the same
simulated crustal stress and quality ratio of sample has been
conducted.
4. Analysis of results
4.1. Crack propagation process of hydraulic fracturing after water
pressure control blasting
4.1.1. Blasting
After the large firecracker shown in Fig. 1b is lit, it is put at the
bottom of the drillhole and then the square iron pad of 70.2 kg
containing the experiment framework is set to cover the orifice
area of the specimen. The typical microquakes monitored during
the experiment are shown in Fig. 2, where the abscissa plots time,
every small division stands for 0.1 s, and the total time shown is
5 s. In the figure, the first event is the quake caused by the square
iron pad after lighting the firecracker; the second event is the
microquake event caused by blasting; the third event marks the
upward jump of the iron pad caused by the detonation gas after
the explosion.
After six blasts at the bottom of the drillhole, the specimen
surface shows no visible cracks and is still integrated. The speci-
men is then placed on the test desk for the hydraulic fracturing
experiment after sealing.
4.1.2. Hydraulic fracturing
The water pressure and acoustic–electric effect during hydrau-
lic fracturing after blasting are shown in Fig. 4. A total of seven
water injection fracturing experiments were conducted. For the
first two, the pressure was controlled manually; for the last five, a
high hydraulic pressure was pre-set by a stabilizer and water
injection fracturing with high flow was carried out by pressure
output switches. When the hydraulic pressure of the first water
Fig. 2. Microquake events induced by blasting in the drillhole.
979
injection fracturing reaches 1.1775 MPa, a turning point in the
hydraulic pressure curve appears (Fig. 3b). At this moment, both
the pulse number and the amplitude of the electromagnetic
radiation show a small peak (Fig. 3e and f), indicating that the
drillhole wall ruptures (or the original blasting cracks open and
burst), meaning that the hydraulic pressure of rupture is
1.1775 MPa. After the hydraulic pressure reaches 1.4775 MPa, it
then decreases, showing that the hydraulic fracture propagates at
this time. After the hydraulic pressure reaches a maximum of
1.5375 MPa, it falls to 1.4075 MPa with a relatively high speed,
meaning that the hydraulic fracture propagates with a large scale.
When the hydraulic pressure becomes about 1.40775 MPa, it
remains constant for 9 s and then sharply declines. Meanwhile,
both the pulse number and the amplitude of electromagnetic
radiation have significant peaks and the deformation and failure of
coal and rock mass are exacerbated. In the second water injection
by manual control, when the hydraulic pressure reaches
1.2575 MPa, the same situation as with the first injection fractur-
ing appears. The hydraulic pressure exhibits a turning point, which
indicates renewed opening of the hydraulic crack. Afterward, the
hydraulic pressure rises to 1.4075 MPa and it declines stably in
only 3 s. The hydraulic crack perforates through the specimen
surface fully; water comes out of the specimen orifice surface
(upper surface) and the hydraulic pressure decreases sharply.
During the subsequent fracturing of multiple injections, the
ratio of water filtration decreases relatively because of high flow.
So the hydraulic pressure reaches a maximum of 1.6775 MPa,
which is greater than the maximum pressure obtained by manual
control. Thus, when the filtration rate of the coal and rock seam is
large, a high flow of water injection fracturing should be used to
ensure higher water pressure on the crack tip to cause the
hydraulic fracture to propagate.
During the whole process of hydraulic fracturing, seven
microquake events were monitored; a typical example is shown
in Fig. 4. In comparison to blasting quakes, microquakes induced
by hydraulic fracture propagation are much weaker. Under
laboratory conditions, because the layout space of the probes is
small (2 m or less), the difference in time at which each probe
receives the microquake events is very small, leading to difficulty
in locating microquake events.
Just as microquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing in a
laboratory specimen can be monitored, large-scale microquakes
induced by hydraulic fracturing in the field also can be monitored.
And because the on-site monitoring region is large, the micro-
quake source (hydraulic fracturing point) can be located at the
same time. Therefore, microquake events induced by hydraulic
fracturing can be monitored by a microseismograph during
hydraulic fracturing in the field, leading to real-time monitoring
and research on hydraulic fracturing.
4.2. Crack propagation shape of hydraulic fracturing after water
pressure blasting
The crack shape on the porthole surface of the test block after
hydraulic fracturing is shown in Fig. 5. Along the direction of
maximum principal stress, sand-scouring occurs and two water
outlets are distributed on both sides of the drillhole. The normal
distances to the center line of maximum principal stress in the
test block are 75 and 85 mm, respectively; the width of the crack
band induced by hydraulic fracturing after water pressure blast-
ing reaches 160 mm. A total of 13 visible cracks along the
direction of maximum principal stress exist in the band of
hydraulic fracturing. Thence, hydraulic fracturing after water
pressure blasting can form more hydraulic cracks theoretically
and expand the crack band along the main hydraulic fracture
980 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983

1.8 80 1.8

Hydraulic pressure/MPa
Acoustic emission count
Acoustic emission count rate
Hydraulic pressure/MPa

1.6 70 1.6
Hydraulic pressure
1.4 60 1.4
1.2

rate/times
1.2 50
1 1
40
0.8 0.8
30 0.6
0.6
20 0.4
0.4
0.2 10 0.2
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Time/s Time/s

30 1.8

Hydraulic pressure/MPa
80 1.8

Acoustic emission energy

Hydraulic pressure/MPa
Acoustic emission count rate Acoustic emission energy rate
Acoustic emission count

70 Hydraulic pressure 1.6 Hydraulic pressure 1.6

25
1.4 1.4
60
1.2 20 1.2

rate/mV
rate/times

50
1 1
40 15
0.8 0.8
30 10 0.6
0.6
20 0.4 0.4
5
10 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time/s Time/s

300 1.8 4000 1.8

Electromagnetic radiation
Electromagnetic radiation

Electromagnetic radiation amplitude

Hydraulic pressure/MPa

Electromagnetic radiation pulse number

Hyraulic pressure/MPa
1.6 3500 Hydraulic pressure 1.6
pulse number/times

250 Hydraulic pressure

1.4 3000 1.4
amplitude/mV

200 1.2 1.2

2500
1 1
150 2000
0.8 0.8
1500
100 0.6 0.6
0.4 1000 0.4
50 500
0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time/s Time/s

Fig. 3. Hydraulic pressure and acoustic electricity effect of hydraulic fracture after drill blasting.

intensifies, the sound speed in coal and rock mass also decreases
significantly. The square ratio of the average speed of sound in rock
(Vp-rock) and average speed of sound in coal and rock mass (Vp-mass)
is the integrity coefficient (Ko). Thus, Ko ¼(Vp-mass/Vp-rock)2 is
applied to indicate the integrity of coal and rock mass.
Before the experiment of hydraulic fracturing, the sound speed
of the integrated test block was measured. Then the same speed
test is conducted after fracturing. Measuring points 2 cm apart are
laid out on both sides parallel to the hydraulic crack surface and a
total of 625 measuring points are obtained. Because the corners of
test block get damaged, only 504 measuring points are actually
available. The distance between corresponding measuring points
on the two sides is 50 cm, so a total of 504 data points are
obtained. The sound propagation speed of each point is acquired
by measurement.
Using the upper right corner of the test block as the coordinate
Fig. 4. Microquake events induced by hydraulic fracturing. origin, the vertical downward direction as the positive X-axis, the
horizontal direction as the positive Y-axis, and the integrity rate of
the test block as the Z-axis gives the integrity distribution of coal and
surface under the combined effects of the blasting shock wave rock mass along the main fracturing surface induced by hydraulic
and hydraulic pressure. pressure shown in Fig. 6. In the figure, the failure trend of the test
Structural planes such as joints, fractures, and faults in coal and block from the upper right corner to the lower right corner is
rock mass can refract and reflect acoustic waves. As the develop- relatively integrated. Intermediate coal affected by the blasting
ment degree of the various structural planes in coal and rock mass makes cracks propagate and develop further, leading to the most
 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983 981

and splits the entire test block (Fig. 7b). The weakening effects on
the structures around the drillhole induced by blasting are
1
basically consistent; in other words, blasting cracks propagate
along the radial direction all around and their lengths are about
12.8 cm, but the main cracks induced by the hydraulic pressure

Hydraulic fractures
extend along the direction perpendicular to the minimum princi-
pal stress mainly under the control of the stress field. Below the
3 bottom of the drillhole, the hydraulic fracture propagates along
3 the blasting cracks, leading to formation of two failure surfaces
induced by hydraulic fracturing. However, as the cracks extend,
the distance between the two cracks increases gradually; in other
words, the follow-up hydraulic fracture parallels the direction of
minimum principal stress as the central sector. Thus, the effi-
1 ciency of hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control blast-
ing is limited by the principal stress difference of the crustal
stress field. The smaller the difference is, the greater the effect is.
The propagation starts from the coal mass in the bottom of
drillhole and then forms two macroscopic hydraulic fractures.
Crack band of hydraulic The hydraulic fracture is not deflected at the interface between
fracturing the coal and the analog coal.
Initiation and propagation of multiple cracks lie at the frontier
of international hydraulic fracturing research at present [22]. The
Hydraulic main cracks

development of defects such as joints and fissures around the

Fig. 5. Crack shape on the porthole surface of the test block.
drillhole is a favorable condition for forming multiple cracks and a
fracturing crack band in the propagation direction of the main
cracks induced by hydraulic pressure.
The shock effect of the blasting shock wave causes primary
joints and fissures to extend and open further. The fissures of coal
and rock mass around the drillhole develop, breaking up coal and
rock mass (Fig. 7c). Under the effects of hydraulic fracturing,
primary joints and fissures open via hydraulic pressure and there
is an obvious red color on joint surfaces (Fig. 7c). As a result, the
cohesive force of the structural surfaces such as joints and fissures
decreases and the extension of fissures cuts the coal and rock
mass further. The collaborative action of the two weakens the
overall strength of the coal and rock mass, increasing the perme-
ability of the coal and rock mass.

4.3. Contrast between and analysis of hydraulic fracturing after

water pressure control blasting and common hydraulic fracturing

The simulation results of common hydraulic fracturing in coal

Fig. 6. Integrity coefficient distribution of the test block induced by hydraulic
fracturing after water pressure blasting.
serious failure at the center. Because of the water injection drillhole,
the water pressure generates weak planes in the upper part of the
text block and thus it breaks more easily in comparison to the lower.
The test block naturally splits along the main rupture surface
induced by hydraulic pressure under the lighter shock, and the
crack propagation shape of hydraulic fracturing after water
pressure blasting is shown in Fig. 7. Under the fracturing effect
of seven water injections, the hydraulic fracture propagates fully.
Cracks appear on both sides, which on the bottom and top of the
test block extend to 1–2 cm away from the surface. The main
rupture surface induced by the hydraulic pressure is oval in shape
show that there is only one overall failure surface induced by
hydraulic pressure in the coal and rock mass (Fig. 8). The contrast
between hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control blast-
ing and common hydraulic fracturing is listed in Table 2. Because
of more blasting cracks, the follow-up hydraulic fracturing gen-
erates multiple main cracks induced by hydraulic pressure, and
the propagation rate of these hydraulic fractures is higher than
that in common hydraulic fracturing. Blasting cracks guide the
expansion direction of subsequent water pressure cracks.
Although influenced by the crustal stress field, subsequent water
pressure cracks veer spatially while expanding. The width of the
band of water pressure cracks in the test is 0.32 times the side
length of the test block and obviously wider than in common
hydraulic fracturing. Owing to this size effect and the boundary
effect in the simulation test, the practical width of water pressure
cracks is much greater than 160 mm in the field. Because of the
effect of blasting cracks on the propagation direction of follow-up
hydraulic fractures, the width of the hydraulic fracture band is
larger than that found in common hydraulic fracturing. Affected
by the blasting shock wave and pulse injection, the hydraulic
fracturing induced by water pressure control blasting changes the
traditional hydraulic fracturing from a static into a dynamic
effect, which helps original joints and fissures open and extend.
Through hydraulic control blasting, the stress cage induced by the
982 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983

Fig. 7. Crack shape of hydraulic fracturing after water pressure blasting.

Fig. 8. Crack shape of common hydraulic fracturing.

 B. Huang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 976–983
Table 2
The contrast between hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control blasting and common hydraulic fracturing.
Common hydraulic fracturing
Water pressure of orifice rupture 0.69 MPa
Maximum rupture water pressure 1.43 MPa
Number of main cracks One
Crack propagation direction Perpendicular to the direction of
minimum principal stress
Width of crack band Single crack width, about 1 mm
Opening degree of original joints and fissures Advertising color in joints and fissures;
opening and propagation
Improving permeability effect Common
Weakening strength effect Common
pressure in the surrounding rock around the drillhole (well) can
be avoided. Even if the stress cage forms, the propagation of
follow-up cracks induced by hydraulic fracturing can eliminate
the influence of the stress cage. Therefore, the effects of improv-
ing permeability and weakening strength of hydraulic fracturing
after water pressure control blasting are much stronger than in
common hydraulic fracturing.
5. Conclusions
In combination with the advantages of water pressure blasting
and hydraulic fracturing, the structure of coal and rock mass is re-
formed by hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control
blasting. Experiments prove that this is an effective method for
increasing the number and range of hydraulic cracks, as well as
for improving the permeability of coal seams. Under the com-
bined effects of the blasting shock wave and water pressure,
multiple main hydraulic cracks and a fracturing crack band along
the main fracturing surface have formed in fissured coal and rock
mass. Under the blasting pressure, joints and fissures open and
propagate, resulting in a decreased adhesion force of the struc-
tural planes and cutting the coal mass more severely. As a result,
the overall mechanical properties of coal and rock mass are
weakened.
The coupling relationship between hydraulic blasting cracks
and the propagation of follow-up hydraulic fractures and the
influence of subsequent injection technology on crack propaga-
tion shape are in need of further research. These research results
will be published successively. With further theoretical research
and improvement in technical equipment and monitoring tools,
water pressure control blasting in coal and rock mass to induce
hydraulic fracturing and thereby increase permeability will be
widely applied to areas such as coalbed methane drainage,
weakening top coal in top coal caving of hard and thick (high-
gas) coal seams, hard roof treatment, and rock burst prevention.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work, provided by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51004104) and the
National Basic Research Program of China (no. 2007CB209400),
is gratefully acknowledged.
983
Hydraulic fracturing after water pressure control
blasting
1.1775 MPa
1.5375 MPa
Two or more
Radial propagation of blasting cracks; fan-shaped
propagation of follow-up hydraulic fractures
according to the direction of minimum principal
stress
160 mm
Advertising color in joints and fissures; obvious
opening and propagation
Better
Better
References
[1] Huang BX, Deng GZ, Liu CY. Hydraulic fracturing weakening technology of
coal and rock mass and its progress. Eng Sci 2007;9(4):83–8.
[2] Rahman MK, Suarez YA, Chen Z, Rahman SS. Unsuccessful hydraulic fractur-
ing cases in Australia: investigation into causes of failures and their remedies.
J Petrol Sci Eng 2007;57:70–81.
[3] Zhang GQ, Chen M. Dynamic fracture propagation in hydraulic re-fracturing.
J Petrol Sci Eng 2010;70:266–72.
[4] Alekseenko OP, Vaisman AM, Zazovsky AF. A new approach to fracturing test
interpretation using the PKN model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(3–4):
356–68.
[5] Mofazzal HMd, Rahman MK. Numerical simulation of complex fracture
growth during tight reservoir stimulation by hydraulic fracturing. J Petrol
Sci Eng 2008;60:86–104.
[6] Papanastasiou PC. A coupled elastoplastic hydraulic fracturing model. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(3–4):240–54.
[7] Lenoach B. The crack tip solution for hydraulic fracturing in a permeable
solid. J Mech Phys Solids 1995;43(7):1025–43.
[8] Takatoshi I. Effect of pore pressure gradient on fracture initiation in fluid
saturated porous media: rock. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:1753–62.
[9] Ruiting W. Some fundamental mechanisms of hydraulic fracturing. PhD
thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2006.
[10] Rahman MK, Joarder AH. Investigating production-induced stress change at
fracture tips: implications for a novel hydraulic fracturing technique. J Petrol
Sci Eng 2006;51:185–96.
[11] Wang XL, Gao CN, Wang YK, Zhang ZH, Yan HL, An MS. Coupled relationship
between created and natural fractures and its implication to development.
J Geomech 2009;15(3):245–52.
[12] Chertkov VY, Ravina I. Networks originating from the multiple cracking of
different scales in rocks and swelling soils. Int J Fracture 2004;128(1–4):
263–70.
[13] Tsuyoshi I. Acoustic emission monitoring of hydraulic fracturing in labora-
tory and field. Constr Build Mater 2001;15:283–95.
[14] Sasaki S. Characteristics of microseismic events induced during hydraulic
fracturing experiments at the Hijiori hot dry rock geothermal energy site,
Yamagata, Japan. Tectonophysics 1998;289:171–88.
[15] Donze FV, Bouchez J, Magnier SA. Modeling fractures in rock blasting. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(8):1153–63.
[16] Wang L. A spread regular of impact waves in the water and applies in water
pressure blasting. Blasting 1994;4:45–8.
[17] Schmidt MFC, Lane B, Worsey P. Hydraulic boulder fragmentation using small
explosive charges. In: Proceedings of the conference on rock breaking.
Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy publication series, vol. 5,
1999. p. 255–61.
[18] Ma GW, An XM. Numerical simulation of blasting-induced rock fractures. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45:966–75.
[19] Chen SH, Lin CM. Features of rock fragmented by water blasting. J Chin Coal
Soc 1996;21(1):24–9.
[20] Schmidt MFC, Worsey PN. Use of hydraulic coupling for powder factor
reduction in secondary blasting. In: Proceedings of the 1st world conference
on explosives & blasting technique. p. 235–40.
[21] Zhang YH, Ni W, Yin GC. Study on improving the penetrability of coal seam
with the water pressure blasting in the through beds hole. J Chin Coal Soc
2004;29(3):298–302.
[22] Luo TY. The study on the mechanism of multiple fractures in hydraulic
fracturing. PhD thesis, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, China, 2006.