Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

A coupled hydro-mechanical analysis for prediction of hydraulic fracture

propagation in saturated porous media using EFG mesh-less method
Mohammad Norouz Oliaei a,⇑, Ali Pak b, Kenichi Soga c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-143, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11365-9313, Iran
c
Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

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

Article history: The details of the Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method are presented with the method being applied to a
Received 30 October 2012 study on hydraulic fracturing initiation and propagation process in a saturated porous medium using
Received in revised form 15 July 2013 coupled hydro-mechanical numerical modelling. In this EFG method, interpolation (approximation) is
Accepted 3 September 2013
based on nodes without using elements and hence an arbitrary discrete fracture path can be modelled.
Available online 12 October 2013
The numerical approach is based upon solving two governing partial differential equations of equilib-
rium and continuity of pore water simultaneously. Displacement increment and pore water pressure
Keywords:
increment are discretized using the same EFG shape functions. An incremental constrained Galerkin weak
Hydraulic fracture
Propagation
form is used to create the discrete system of equations and a fully implicit scheme is used for discretiza-
Initiation tion in the time domain. Implementation of essential boundary conditions is based on the penalty
Mesh-less method. In order to model discrete fractures, the so-called diffraction method is used.
EFG Examples are presented and the results are compared to some closed-form solutions and FEM approx-
Coupled hydro-mechanical analysis imations in order to demonstrate the validity of the developed model and its capabilities. The model is
able to take the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the material into account. The applicability of the
model is examined by simulating hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation process from a borehole
by injection of fluid. The maximum tensile strength criterion and Mohr–Coulomb shear criterion are used
for modelling tensile and shear fracture, respectively. The model successfully simulates the leak-off of
fluid from the fracture into the surrounding material. The results indicate the importance of pore fluid
pressure in the initiation and propagation pattern of fracture in saturated soils.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction hydraulic fracturing, namely ground deformation, fluid flow and

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) refers to the parting of geomaterials
due to excessively high fluid pressure. The most common applica-
tion of HF is enhance oil recovery, in which increase in functional
permeability of the ground is achieved by the formation of perme-
able fractures. In geotechnical engineering, HF is one of the causes
of cracks in earth and rockfill dams. It is also used for grouting to
create impermeable barriers or to control ground settlements.
In spite of the significant advances in the technique of in situ
hydraulic fracturing, its design still requires a good deal of engi-
neering judgment and practical experience. That is, the ability to
determine the fracture path, shape, dimensions and fracture con-
ductivities is still not fully developed. This is due to the complex
interaction among the different mechanisms that are involved in
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 82884395; fax: +98 21 82884914.
E-mail addresses: M.Olyaei@modares.ac.ir, norooz2222@yahoo.com
(M.N. Oliaei).
fracturing process. As a result, a numerical model capable of ana-
lysing different aspects of hydraulic fracturing can be a valuable
tool to overcome some uncertainties in the design of hydraulic
fracturing in soils. Since capturing the pattern of arbitrary fracture
growth is an essential ingredient in HF modelling, a numerical
scheme for modelling the hydraulic fracturing path is developed
in this research using a fully coupled hydro-mechanical element
free Galerkin (EFG) mesh-less method.
The FEM for modelling complex problems in engineering sci-
ence is well established. However, it is not without shortcomings.
One of them is crack propagation problems. The use of a mesh in
modelling these problems creates difficulties in the treatment of
discontinuities and large distortions that do not coincide with
the original mesh lines. This is an inherent weakness of FEM, which
is related to its element-based shape functions.
One solution for such a problem is remeshing the domain using
adaptive computational algorithm. However, projection of field
variables between the meshes used in successive stages of an

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.001
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266
analysis leads to degradation of the accuracy. For large three-
dimensional problems, the computational cost of remeshing at
each step of an analysis becomes prohibitively expensive. Further-
more, it is almost impossible to automatically remesh finite ele-
ments for an arbitrarily growing crack. Therefore most of the
FEM methods developed to date involve interactive analysis where
the user guides the remeshing after each step of analysis [1].
An effective solution to avoid mesh dependency is to use a
mesh-less method. This method does not require any element for
shape function construction and hence provides no connectivity
between elements and nodes. The principle attractions of mesh-
less methods are their simplified adaptability and ability to cope
with moving boundaries and discontinuities. There are a number
of mesh-less (or mesh-free) methods that have been proposed in
the past (e.g. [2]).
Among these methods some of them are well known and
achieved remarkable success in recent years. These methods can
be classified into two major categories based on the shape function
construction approach:
i Finite integral representation methods, i.e. Smooth Particle
Hydrodynamics or SPH [3,4].
ii Finite series representation methods, i.e. the Element Free
Galerkin (EFG) method [5] based on MLS (Moving Least
Squares) and the Point Interpolation Method (PIM) [6].
The MLS shape functions adopted in EFG are both consistent
and compatible; the PIM shape functions, however, are consistent
but not compatible. The SPH shape functions are compatible but
not consistent near the boundary of the problem domain. Consis-
tency is the capability of the field function approximation method
to reproduce the fields of lowest orders of complete polynomials at
any point in the problem domain. Compatibility refers to the con-
tinuity of the approximation on the boundaries between subdo-
mains, based on which shape the functions are constructed. Both
consistency and compatibility affect the accuracy and convergence
of the numerical results [2].
The first attempt to apply mesh-less strategies to a soil–water
coupled problem was made by Modaressi and Aubert [7] using
the coupled EFG–FEM technique. In their work, displacements of
solid skeleton are modelled by the standard FEM, whereas fluid
pressures are determined by element–free nodes. This attempt
was followed by Murakami et al. [8] with an elasto-plastic consti-
tutive relation within the infinitesimal strain theory and by Mura-
kami and Arimoto [9] and Arimoto et al. [10] in finite strain with
the aim to capture the localization phenomenon in saturated soil.
Murakami et al. [11] also used EFG in the analysis of a punch prob-
lem for a soft soil foundation which has stress singularity prob-
lems. They used the forward difference approximation (fully
explicit scheme) for discretization in time domain. Wang et al.
[12] proposed to use the backward difference approximation (fully
implicit scheme) in time domain to avoid spurious ripple effect.
Oliaei et al. [13] further examined the stability criteria for coupled
soil deformation and pore fluid flow problems.
Generally, two major approaches are possible for modelling of
fracture: one is considering discrete fractures and the other is the
use of smeared cracking. Discrete fracture modelling is the pre-
ferred technique for simulating the propagation of a small number
of individual fractures over the use of smeared cracking since it
does not suffer from stress locking, spurious modes and directional
bias [14]. Among available mesh-free methods, the EFG method
developed by Belytschko et al. [5] is adopted in this study for mod-
elling of discrete hydraulic fracture propagation.
The EFG method has been used for the simulation of growing
crack problems, both static and dynamic [1,15]. Its key advan-
tage for modelling this class of problems using the EFG method
255
is that it does not require any element connectivity data and
does not suffer much degradation in accuracy when nodal
arrangements are irregular [15]. Because of the gridless character
of the method, a growing crack can be modelled simply by
extending the free surfaces in the domain which correspond to
the crack. This dramatically simplifies the modelling of moving
cracks, since it eliminates the need for remeshing. Another
advantage of the EFG method compared with the FEM is the
dependent variable and its gradient are continuous in the entire
domain, and hence post processing to obtain smooth gradient
fields is unnecessary [15]. The shape functions obtained by the
EFG approximation based on nodes (not elements) are both con-
sistent and compatible. They are of a higher order compare to
those used in the ordinary FEM, which effectively induces more
accurate approximations compared to solutions obtained by a
distorted mesh in FEM.
The main objective of this paper is to investigate the validity
and capability of the EFG formulation developed in this study in or-
der to predict hydraulic fracture propagation. The coupled analysis
of soil deformation and fluid flow in inhomogeneous/anisotropic
saturated porous media is conducted. In Section 2, the EFG shape
function construction and the MLS approximation are briefly de-
scribed. In Section 3, the weak forms are developed through a glo-
bal equilibrium at each time-step. Then spatial variables (i.e.
displacement and pore water pressure increments) are discretized
by the same EFG shape functions. A fully implicit scheme in time
domain is used to avoid spurious ripple effect. An algorithm for
numerical solution is proposed to solve hydraulic fracture initia-
tion and propagation problems based on EFG. The (so-called) dif-
fraction technique [16] is introduced for the construction of
mesh-less approximation with discontinuities and nonconvex
boundaries. Section 4 presents the numerical analysis of 2D cou-
pled consolidation problem and crack propagation problem using
fracture mechanics. Hydraulic fracture initiation pressure and the
pattern of hydraulic fracture propagation are computed and results
are compared to the closed-form and/or numerical (FEM) solutions
to examine the accuracy of the new algorithm. Conclusions are gi-
ven in the final section.
2. Element Free Galerkin (EFG) shape function and Moving Least
Squares (MLS) approximation
The Element Free Galerkin (EFG) method establishes system of
equations for the whole problem domain without the use of a pre-
defined mesh. To represent (not discretize) the problem domain
and its boundaries, a set of nodes are scattered within the problem
domain as well as on the boundaries. Therefore, the construction of
shape functions is only based on the nodes as shown in Fig. 1.
The EFG method employs the MLS approximation to construct
the shape function and approximate the desired function as given
by Eq. (7) in Fig. 1. As shown in Eqs. (3) and (8) through Eq. (15) of
Fig. 1, the EFG shape function and its spatial derivatives within the
problem domain are constructed from two_ components: (i) a
weight function associated with each node-ðW ðX  XI ÞÞ; and (ii) a
basis function usually consisting of a polynomial-(PT(X)). The
weight function is nonzero over a small subdomain around a node,
which is called its support. The support of the weight function de-
fines a node’s influence domain, which is the area (or volume) over
a particular node contributing to the approximation. The overlap of
the nodal influence domains defines the nodal connectivity. P(X) –
Eqs. (2) and (3) in Fig. 1 – is a vector of basis functions that contains
most often of monomials of the lowest orders to ensure minimum
completeness.
Most mesh-less weight functions are bell-shaped and the fol-
lowing equations have been proposed in the past [2].
256 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Fig. 1. EFG shape function and its derivatives construction flow chart in the presented EFG code. based on the work of Belytschko et al. [5].
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 257

(a) Cubic spline weight function (W3): (2) Continuity equation of fluid flow
@ðnqÞ
8
2 2 3
r:ðqv Þ  G ¼  ð20Þ
< 3  4r þ 4r
> for r 6 12 @t
_ _
W ðX  XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ 43  4r þ 4r 2  43 r 3 for 1
<r61 ð16Þ where q is the density of fluid, v is the Darcy’s velocity vector of
>
:
2
0 for r > 1 fluid flow, G is the fluid mass flux from sink or source, n is the poros-
ity of soil mass and t is time.
(b) Quadratic spline(weight function (W4): In this derivation, the pore fluid is considered to be water with
_ _ 1  6r 2 þ 8r 3  3r 4 for r 6 1 constant density. This assumption is the same as the incompress-
W ðX  XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ ð17Þ
0 for r > 1 ibility equation of solid–water mixture in Biot’s consolidation the-
e
ory [22]. Considering that sink or source term can be considered
(c) Exponential weight
( function (W ): later as a boundary condition, Eq. (20) is written in the following
2
_ _ eðr=aÞ for r 6 1 form.
W ðX  XI Þ ¼ W ðrÞ ¼ ð18Þ
0 for r > 1
@n
r:ðv Þ ¼  ð21Þ
where a is constant (a = 0.3 has been recommended by Liu [2]). In @t
Eqs. (16)–(18), r = kX  XIk/(Rid)I where kX  XIk is the distance be- The soil deformation is governed by Terzaghi’s effective stress
tween the evaluation point and the node I and (Rid)I is the radius of principle.
the influence domain of the Ith node. These weight functions have
been tested and have proved to work very well for many applica-
Dr0ij ¼ Drij  aDpdij ð22Þ
tions and have basically been adopted for various kinds of problems
[2]. where r is the effective stress tensor, a is Biot’s coefficient (1 for
0
ij
MLS, which is originated by mathematicians for data fitting and soils), Dp is the pore water pressure increment, and dij is kronecker
surface construction, is often termed local regression and loss [17]. delta.
Nayroles et al. [18] were the first to use MLS procedure to construct The constitutive law for soil skeleton in incremental form is
shape functions for the Diffuse Element Method (DEM). DEM was written as
modified by Belytschko et al. [5], as the EFG method, where the
MLS approximation is also employed. The MLS approximation – 1
with a bell-shaped weight function – has two major features that
Dr0ij ¼ Dijkl ðDekl  cs dkl DpÞ ð23Þ
3
make it popular: (1) the approximated field function is continuous
where Dijkl is the soil skeleton stiffness matrix, Dekl is the total strain
and smooth in the entire problem domain; and (2) it is capable of
increment tensor, and cs is the compressibility of solid particles of
producing an approximation with the desired order of consistency.
soil.
One attractive property of the MLS approximants is that their con-
The constitutive relationship for water flow in porous media is
tinuity is related to the continuity of the weight function; there-
Darcy’s law.
fore, a low order polynomial basis, e.g., a linear basis – which has
used in this study – can be used to generate highly continuous  
p
approximations by choosing an appropriate weight function [5]. v i ¼ K ij zþ ð24Þ
c ;j
The shape functions of this method are global and can be used
all over the domain. where Kij is the permeability tensor of soil skeleton, z is the eleva-
Although the MLS approximation is both consistent and com- tion head, p is the pore water pressure, and c is the unit weight of
patible, the use of the MLS approximation produces shape function water.
that do not possess the Kronecker delta function property, which Boundary conditions for soil skeleton boundary and fluid
implies that one cannot impose essential boundary conditions in boundary can be written as follows
the same way as in conventional FEM. In order to solve this prob-

lem, the penalty method proposed by Liu and Yang [19] is used in i
ui ¼ u on Cu  ½0; 1Þ
this study to create constrained Galerkin weak form for imposing for soil skeleton boundary ð25Þ
rij nj ¼ ti on Ct  ½0; 1Þ
essential boundary conditions. The use of the penalty method pro-
duces equation systems of the same dimensions such that the con- 
p¼p  on  ½0; 1Þ
ventional FEM produces for the same number of nodes, and the for fluid boundary ð26Þ
modified stiffness matrix is still positive definite, banded, and sym-
v i ¼ v i on  ½0; 1Þ
metric. The treatment of boundary conditions is as simple as it is in where ui is the displacement vector, u  i is the boundary value of dis-
conventional FEM. However, the disadvantage of penalty method is placement, Cu is the displacement boundary, nj is the unit normal
the way of selection a suitable large positive number for each set of vector at the boundary, t i is the boundary value of traction, Ct is
the equations. the traction boundary, p is the pore pressure, p  is the boundary va-
lue of pore pressure, Cp is the pore pressure boundary, vi is Darcy’s
3. Formulation velocity vector, v i is the boundary value of Darcy’s velocity, and Cv
is the velocity (flux) boundary.
3.1. Strong and weak forms The initial conditions can be written as

For soil deformation–water flow coupled problems, there are ui ¼ ui jt¼0 on X 0
ð27Þ
two sets of governing equations [20,21]: p ¼ pjt¼0 on X 0
where X is the domain.
(1) Equilibrium equation in incremental form
By applying the weighted residual method on Eq. (19) and
inserting Eqs. (22), (23), and (25) into Eq. (19), the following con-
Drij;j þ Dbi ¼ 0 ð19Þ
strained Galerkin weak form of the equilibrium equation is
where rij is the total stress tensor, and bi is the body force vector. obtained.
258 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

R R R R
dðLDuÞT Dijkl Dekl dX  X dðDuÞT Dbi dX  Ct dðDuÞT Dt i dC þ X dðLDuÞT adij DpdX
X the Ith node. The procedure of constructing uI and its spatial deriv-
R R
 X dðLDuÞT ð1=3Þcs Dijkl dkl DpdX  d Cu ð1=2ÞðDu  Du ÞT apu ðDu  Du
 ÞdC atives is given in Fig. 1.
R T Differential operator matrices L and Lp are given by
d Cs ð1=2ÞðDu  þ  Du  Þ bpu ðDu
 þ  Du  ÞdC ¼ 0
2 3
ð28Þ @=@x 0 0 @=@y 0 @=@z
6 7
where d(Du) is the test function, L is the differential operator, Du is
LT ¼ 4 0 @=@y 0 @=@x @=@z 0 5 ð33Þ
the incremental displacements, Du  is the prescribed incremental 0 0 @=@z 0 @=@y @=@x
displacements on the essential boundary, apu is the penalty factor
for the weak form of equilibrium equation to penalize the difference LTp ¼ ½ @=@x @=@y @=@z  ð34Þ
between the incremental displacements of the MLS approximation
and the prescribed incremental displacements on the essential By using Eqs. (31)–(34), the products of LDuh and LoDph become
boundary, Cs is the interface of the different materials in an inho- 2 3
uI;x 0 0
mogeneous body, Du  þ and Du  are the incremental displacements 6 0
6 uI;y 0 7 78 9
in the different materials but on the two sides of interfaces and n 6 7>
< DuxI >
= X
X 6 0 0 uI;z 7
7 n
bpu is the penalty factor for the weak form of equilibrium equation h
LDu ¼ 6 DuyI ¼ BI DuI ð35Þ
6u uI;x 0 7>7 >
to penalize the difference between Du  þ and Du
 . I 6 I;y : ; I
6 7 DuzI
According to the time domain discretization methods, the fol- 4 0 uI;z uI;y 5
lowing relation can be used for a field function f in the time interval uI;z 0 uI;x
of [t, t + Dt]:
2 3
f ¼ ð1  hÞft þ hftþDt ¼ ft þ hDf ð29Þ uI;x
X
n
6u 7 X
n
Lp Dph ¼ 4 I;y 5DpI ¼ BpI DpI ð36Þ
where h can vary from zero (fully explicit scheme) to 1.0 (fully im- I
plicit scheme). The approximation is unconditionally stable when
uI;z I

h P 0:5, but for any value of h – 1 the numerical solution can exhi- where uI,x, uI,y, uI,z are the MLS shape function spatial derivatives of
bit a spurious rippling effect [12]. This time integration is applied to the Ith node.
Eq. (24). As Eq. (30) is discretized, app is a scalar, where as apu in Eq. (28)
By using the weighted residual method and inserting Eqs. (24) is a diagonal matrix of penalty factors.
and (26) into Eq. (21), the weak form for the continuity equation 2 3
of pore water is expressed as apux 0 0
R R R apu ¼ 6
4 0 apuy 7
0 5 ð37Þ
Cv dðDpÞT ðv i ni ÞdC þ T
X dðLp DpÞ ðK ij =cÞpt;j dX
K i3 dX þ X dðLp DpÞ
T

R T R T R
ÞT app ðDp  Dp
þ X dðLp DpÞ hðK ij =cÞDp;j dX þ X dðDpÞ ð@n=@tÞdX  d Cp ð1=2ÞðDp  Dp ÞdC
0 0 apuz
R
d Cs ð1=2ÞðDp þ  Dp ÞT bpp ðDp
 þ  Dp
 ÞdC ¼ 0 The penalty factors can be functions of coordinates and they can
ð30Þ be different from each other, but in practice an identical constant
of a large positive number is assigned for each set of the equations
where d(Dp) is the test function, Lp is the differential operator, Dp is [19]. bpp and bpu have the same form of app and apu, but their values
the pore water pressure increment, Dp  is the prescribed pore water may be different. The appropriate selection of the penalty factors is
pressure increment on the essential boundary, app is the penalty given in Oliaei et al. [13] for coupled soil deformation and pore
factor for the weak form of continuity equation to penalize the dif- fluid flow problems.
ference between the pore water pressure increment of MLS approx- Substituting Eqs. (31), (32), (35), and (37) into Eq. (28), the first
imation and the prescribed pore water pressure increment on the system equation can be obtained for the equilibrium equation.
essential boundary, Cs is the interface of the different materials in Similarly, by substituting Eqs. (32) and (36) into Eq. (30), and with
an inhomogeneous body, Dp þ and Dp  are the pore water pressure consideration of
increments in the different materials but on the two sides of inter- 8 9
faces and bpp is the penalty factor for the weak form of continuity > DuxI >
X
n
 < = X
n
equation to penalize the difference between Dp þ and Dp  . Dev ¼ uI;x uI;y uI;z DuyI ¼ C I DuI ð38Þ
I
>
: >
; I
DuzI
3.2. Numerical discretization
the second system equation can be obtained for the continuity
Displacement increments Du and pore water pressure incre- equation.
ment Dp at any time and at any point are approximated using These two equations constitute the final system of discrete
Eq. (7) in Fig. 1. equations for the entire problem domain in the EFG method. These
equations should be solved simultaneously for a fully coupled
8 9h 2 38 9
< Dux >
> = X
n
uI 0 0 < DuxI >
> = X
n
analysis. The matrix equation in coupled form is therefore written
h 6 7 ð31Þ as
Du ¼ Duy ¼ 4 0 uI 0 5 DuyI ¼ UI DuI
>
: >
; > > " # ( )
Duz I
0 0 uI : DuzI ; I
K 11 þ K au þ K bu K 12 DU

DF u þ DF au
¼ ð39Þ
K 21 K 22 þ K ap þ K bp DP DF p þ DF ap
X
n
Dph ¼ /I DpI ð32Þ where DU and DP are the global displacement increments parame-
I
ter vector and the global pore pressure increment parameter vector,
where Duh is the approximated displacement increments, Dph is the respectively. K11, K12, K21 and K22 are the parts of global coefficient
approximated pore water pressure increment, DuI is the displace- matrix. The non-diagonal terms in the matrix [K] of Eq. (39) repre-
ment increments of the Ith node, DpI is the pore water pressure sent the coupling terms in the analysis; K12 represents force
increment of the Ith node, n is the number of nodes in the neigh- induced by pore pressure and K21 represents fluid flow caused by
bourhood of the point of interest (Gauss point) which the point is the ground deformation. DFu and DFp are the global force incre-
in the influence domain of node, uI is the MLS shape function of ments vector and the global fluid flux increment vector,
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 259

respectively. They are the standard terms in the conventional soil– The procedure sequence for the numerical algorithm of the
water coupled problem derivations. developed EFG code is illustrated in Fig. 2.
In EFG method the nodal matrices and vectors can, in fact, be
viewed as the basic components for assembling the global matrices 3.3. Discontinuities in approximations
and vectors. It has been clearly shown that EFG method operates
on nodes, in contrast to the operation on elements in the FEM, With the use of node-based interpolation techniques, mesh-less
where the element matrices and vectors are the basic components methods offer great opportunities to handle problems of complex
for assembling. geometries. However, since there is no connectivity between
The nodal matrices and vectors for the above mentioned terms nodes, difficulties arise in determining the domain of influence of
can be written as a node. The influence domain usually takes a simple shape, for
Z
example circular, for simple geometries of problems. The influence
K 11ij ¼ BTi DBj dX ð40Þ of a node on any other point is directly computed by the distance
X
between the node and the point via the use of the weight functions
Z Z
such as Eq. (16) through Eq. (18). When a domain involves discon-
K 12ij ¼ BTi ð1=3Þcs Dm/j dX  BTi am/j dX ð41Þ
X X
tinuities such as cracks, an influence domain may contain irregular
boundary fragments. Hence the computation of nodal weights sim-
Z
ply based on physical distance can be erroneous as the discontinu-
K 21ij ¼ /i C j dX ð42Þ
X
ity of the field variables caused by the complex boundary is not
accounted for (Fig. 3).
Z
A number of techniques have been reported on the construction
K 22ij ¼ hDt BTpi ðK w =cÞBpj dX ð43Þ
X
of mesh-less approximation with discontinuities and nonconvex
boundaries. There are three typical methods: the visibility, diffrac-
Z Z
tion and transparency methods [16]. These methods have been
DF u i ¼ UTi DbdX þ UTi DtdC ð44Þ
X Ct used for defining the profile of the influence domain and comput-
ing the weight of influence in mesh-less approximations with
Z Z Z
irregular boundaries.
DF pi ¼ Dt BTpi K w3 dX  Dt BTpi ðK w =cÞBpi pi dX  Dt /i v Ti ni dC The visibility method is simple, but the weight function by vis-
X X Cv
ibility criterion is discontinuous within the influence domain
ð45Þ
around the tip of a discontinuity line. As a consequence the shape
where ‘m’ represents dij in a vector form i.e. functions constructed are also discontinuous, which is undesirable
m ¼ h 1 1 1 0 0 0 iT , Kw represents the permeability tensor in a mesh-less approximation. Moreover, the visibility criterion
and K Tw3 ¼ ½ 0 0 K z  introduces the datum effect. In DF pi the first may not be very easy to adapt to concave boundaries such as holes.
and second terms are the flows due to changes in velocity, while The transparency method was developed to smooth a mesh-less
the third term indicates the effect of specified flux on the approximation around the tip of a discontinuity line with a varying
boundaries. degree of transparency, from completely transparent at the tip of
In Eq. (39), K au and K ap are the global penalty matrices assembled discontinuity to completely opaque at a distance away from the
using the nodal penalty matrices, whereas DF au and DF ap are the glo- tip. As a consequence, the shape functions constructed are de-
bal penalty increments vectors assembled using the nodal penalty pended to degree of transparency, which is undesirable in a
increments vectors. The nodal matrices and vectors for these terms mesh-less approximation.
are defined as follows. The diffraction method was used in the EFG code developed for
Z this study. The development of this method has been motivated by
K auij ¼ UTi apu Uj dC ð46Þ the way light diffracts around a sharp corner, such as crack tip, but
Cu
the equations used in constructing the domain of influence and the
Z weight function bear almost no relationship to the equations of dif-
K apij ¼ /i app /j dC ð47Þ fraction. This technique applies only to polar-type weight func-
Cp tions, such as Eq. (16) through Eq. (18), where the weights are
Z defined as a function of a single distance-related weight parameter.
DF aui ¼ UTi apu Du dC ð48Þ The mechanism of the diffraction method is illustrated in Fig. 4,
Cu where the straight line represents a crack. By the diffraction meth-
Z od, the crack line is treated as opaque; therefore, the length of the
DF api ¼ /i app Dp
 dC ð49Þ ray is evaluated by a path that passes around the crack tip. Accord-
Cp ing to Belytschko et al. [16], the weight parameter s associated
with point P is computed by
Furthermore, in Eq. (39), K bu and K bp are the global penalty matrices
assembled using the nodal penalty matrices in other to connect the  k
s1 þ s2 ðxÞ
different materials in an inhomogeneous body. The nodal matrices sðxÞ ¼ s0 ðxÞ ð52Þ
s0 ðxÞ
for these terms are defined as follows.
Z where s0, s1, and s2 are shown in Fig. 4, and k is a user-defined
b T
K uij ¼ ½Uþi  Ui  bpu ½Uþj  Uj dC ð50Þ parameter. The domain of influence is determined by the condition
Cs
that the weight function vanishes. As a result, the domain of influ-
Z ence, as given by the criterion w(s) > 0, contracts around the crack
b
K pij ¼ ½/þi  /i bpp ½/þj  /j dC ð51Þ tip (see Fig. 4).
Cs
The diffraction method has been applied to nonconvex bound-
where /þ 
i and /i are the shape functions created using the nodes in aries such as hole. Fig. 5 illustrates such an example, where the
different materials that have influence on the quadrature points parameter s is constructed from the lengths of two line segments
along the interfaces by a nonpenetration rule [23]. that just graze the boundary.
260 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266
Fig. 2. The procedure sequence for the numerical algorithm of the developed EFG code.
The major benefit of the diffraction method is that the weight
function and shape function are continuous within the influence
domain but are discontinuous across the crack line. The derivatives
of the shape function are multiple valued at the crack tip but this
should cause no difficulties. However, it results in the cost of lower
efficiency in computing the derivatives of shape functions. Care
should also be exercised because when node and point are very
close, i.e., s0(x) is close to zero, the weight parameter s becomes
infinite, causing difficulty in computation. Therefore, it is required
that all nodes have a minimum distance to the crack surface.
4. Numerical results
Two examples were used to verify the developed EFG code. The
first example considered the numerical validity of the EFG mesh-
less method by solving fully coupled hydro-mechanical problem
[24] and the second example evaluated the numerical capability
of the method to model discrete fracture growth in rock [25].
The last one was considered as an example of interaction between
ground deformation and fracturing process.
To investigate the numerical stability and the desired level of
accuracy of the EFG solution for coupled hydro-mechanical prob-
lems, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the numer-
ical parameters that influence the solutions [13]. Based on the
findings, the parameters are chosen to guarantee the accuracy of
the EFG solution for soil deformation–fluid flow coupled problems.
A summary of recommended parameters is listed in Table 1.
Then, the application of the developed EFG code to determine
hydraulic fracture initiation pressure and to predict hydraulic frac-
ture propagation path in homogeneous and inhomogeneous satu-
rated soils will be conducted and complex interactions among
ground deformation, fluid flow and fracturing process will be
examined.
4.1. Prediction of hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated soils
Hydraulic fracture propagation from a hole inside a saturated
cemented soil sample for low permeability (undrained) and high
permeability (drained) conditions using tensile and shear criteria
is simulated. The maximum tensile strength criterion and Mohr–
Coulomb shear criterion are used for modelling tensile and shear
fracture, respectively. This example is designed to compare the
EFG results with analytical, experimental and field results and to
investigate the capability of the developed EFG code.
However, the shear criterion in the developed EFG code can pre-
dict very good the hydraulic fracture initiation pressure (similar to
tension criterion), using shear fracture criterion for modelling of
hydraulic fracture propagation in saturated soils by the developed
EFG code has been shown that the rate of extension in plastic shear
failure zone in the sample with respect to the rate of crack propa-
gation is extremely high; which means the shear band cannot
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266
Fig. 2 (continued)
Fig. 3. Highly irregular influence domain [2].
created properly. It coincides to the field and laboratory test results
for boreholes in cemented soils which the propagation of tensile
fracture is almost dominant with respect to shear fracture. There-
fore, tensile fracture criterion has been presented in this study.
(i) Homogeneous soil
Fig. 6 shows the geometry of the problem simulating laboratory
testing of hydraulic fracturing. A plane strain analysis is
261
considered. The characteristic parameters for the problem are as
follow: The initial total outside and inside confining pressures of
the sample r = 200 kPa, The initial pore pressure in the sample
P = 100 kPa, Young’s modulus E = 10 MPa and Poisson’s ratio
v = 0.45. The permeability is K = 1010 m/s for the low permeability
case and K = 105 m/s for the high permeability case. The borehole
radius is a = 1 cm and the dimension of the sample is W = 10 cm.
The tensile strength of cemented soil ðr0t  rt Þ is 100 kPa. It is as-
sumed that the shear strength of the cemented soil is very large
compared to the tensile strength and hence the soil always fracture
in tension.
When the initial stresses on the homogeneous sample are iso-
tropic, increasing the pressure of the injected fluid in the borehole
up to hydraulic fracture initiation pressure, causes tensile crack to
propagate from the borehole in any radial directions. However, in
reality, deformation around the borehole is not uniform and the
fracture initiates at a localized point or zone. Therefore, in this
example, after fracturing, a microcrack (1 mm length) is considered
at the borehole wall in positive x direction to initiate hydraulic
fracture propagation from this point due to hydraulic pressure
and leak-off from crack and also borehole.
The nodal arrangement of the EFG model is shown in Fig. 7(a). It
consists of (i) a regular arrangement in the domain, (ii) a radial–
tangential arrangement on the borehole wall, (iii) a radial arrange-
ment at the crack tip which is progressive with the crack tip [1]
and (iv) an arrangement on crack surfaces after propagation. The
arrangement of the background integration mesh is shown in
262 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266
Fig. 4. The diffraction method to determine the influence domain [2] (a) Definition
of parameters (b) Domain of influence.
Fig. 5. The diffraction method applied to concave boundary [2].
Fig. 7(b). The Gauss points arrangement is 3  3 for each cell, ex-
cept in three rows and three columns in the middle of the model,
which is 5  5 for each cell.
After applying initial stresses and pore pressures on the sample,
a constant fluid flux is applied on the borehole wall such that the
flow rate to the borehole is Q = 1  109 m3/s. Nodal displacements
and nodal pore pressures are calculated in each time step; then the
pore pressure calculated on the borehole wall is applied as fluid
traction on the borehole wall in the next time step together with
the constant flux on the borehole wall. For the outer boundary,
the flow boundary conditions are zero flux for the low permeability
(undrained) case and constant pressure (P = 100 kPa) for the high
permeability (drained) case. After fracturing, constant flux on the
borehole wall and crack surfaces is applied in each time step. Then,
Table 1
Guidelines to guarantee the accuracy of the EFG solution for coupled hydro-
mechanical problems [13].
2 2
h =ðcv DtÞ 6 2 for 1D, h =ðcv DtÞ 6 3 for 2D
612
app = 10 (K/c)
apu = 1048E
Dimension (radius) of influence domain = (1.25–1.75) average local diagonal
nodal spacing
Number of Gauss points = at least about 5 times the number of nodes
(It reflects the number of integration cells and the order of integration. These
two have to be balanced)
Type of weight function
Cubic spline weight function
Quadratic spline weight function
Exponential weight function (with constant parameter P 0:3Þ
Type of weight function has not much effect on results
Fig. 6. Geometry of the model for the problem of hydraulic fracture initiation
pressure determination and propagation path prediction.
nodal displacements and nodal pore pressures are calculated at the
end of each time step and the procedure will be repeated as men-
tioned above. Although a constant flux is assumed around the
crack for simplicity, more investigation in this area is required to
study the effect of bulk fluid flow inside the crack.
The applied flux on the borehole wall acts as traction on the
wall until the domain around the borehole reaches to tensile fail-
ure as shown in Fig. 8(a) for the low permeability soil case. The ex-
cess pore pressure does not generate inside the domain and hence
the pore pressure in the domain is approximately constant over
time as shown in Fig. 8(b). Therefore, it is essentially an undrained
cavity expansion in elastic medium. Using cylindrical cavity expan-
sion theory, the hydraulic fracture pressure for tensile fracture in
undrained condition can be obtained as follows [26]:
Pf ¼ 2r3i  u0 þ r0t ð53Þ
where Pf is hydraulic fracture pressure, r3i is initial applied mini-
mum principle stress, u0 is initial pore pressure and r0t is tensile
strength of soil.
The fracture initiation pressure of the high permeability soil
case was smaller than that of the low permeability soil case as
shown in Fig. 9(a). This is due to leak-off of fluid to the soil sample
when the soil is permeable. The pore fluid pressure around the
borehole is increasing due to fluid injection in the borehole as
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 263

Undrained Condition - Tension Criterion

200
175

Pore Pressure (Kpa)

150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
time (s)

Fig. 8(b). The variation of pore pressure around the cavity due to fluid injection for
undrained condition under tensile failure criterion.

Drained Condition - Tension Criterion

Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

400 H.F.

300

200

Fig. 7(a). Nodal arrangement of the EFG model (half of the model). 100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
time (s)

Fig. 9(a). The variation of cavity surface traction due to fluid injection for drained
condition under tensile failure criterion.

Drained Condition - Tension Criterion

400
Pore Pressure (Kpa)

300

200

100

Fig. 7(b). The arrangement of the background integration mesh (a quarter of the
0
model). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
time (s)

Undrained Condition - Tension Criterion Fig. 9(b). The variation of pore pressure around the cavity due to fluid injection for
drained condition under tensile failure criterion.
Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

500
H.F.

400 pore pressure in the soil will cause tensile failure on the borehole
wall.
300
Bjerrum et al. [27] have evaluated hydraulic fracture pressure at
a cylindrical cavity in permeable soil to interpret the fracturing
200
conditions around a driven piezometer. Vertical cracks in the radial
100 direction from the piezometer develop when the circumferential
effective stress reduces to the negative sign of the tensile strength
0 of the soil. Hence, the hydraulic fracture pressure for tensile frac-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ture in drained condition can be obtained as follows:
time (s)  
1
Pinj ¼ u0 þ  1 ½rt þ ð1  aÞr0h0  ð54Þ
Fig. 8(a). The variation of cavity surface traction due to fluid injection for undrained v
condition under tensile failure criterion.
where Pinj is injection pressure, u0 is the initial pore pressure, v is
shown in Fig. 9(b), which reduces the effective stress of the soil. Poisson’s ratio, rt is the tensile strength, r0h0 is the initial horizontal
Increasing of the traction on the borehole wall together with the effective stresses and a is a disturbance factor for the changes in
264 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266

Table 2 Tension Criterion

The comparison between hydraulic fracture initiation pressures for analytical 500
solutions and EFG results, using tensile failure (facture) criterion and under different Drained Condition
permeability (drainage) conditions (U: undrained, D: drained, T: tensile). Undrained Condition

Crack Pressure (Kpa)

400
Pf (kPa) EFG Analytical
U–T 425 400 300
D–T 323 344
200

100

Undrained Condition - Tension Criterion

Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

0
450 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
X (m)
440
Fig. 11. The fluid pressure variation along the crack axis and in the time step before
430 the last time step for tensile failure criterion.

420

410 Drained Condition - Tension Criterion

350
400
51 52 53 54 55 300

Pore Pressure (Kpa)

time (s)
250

Fig. 10(a). Fluid pressure at crack entrance during hydraulic fracture propagation 200 t=264
for undrained condition under tensile failure criterion. t=272
150
t=280
100
Drained Condition - Tension Criterion
Hydraulic Fracture Pressure (Kpa)

50
350
0
340 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
X (m)
330
Fig. 12(a). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (I
320 axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion.

310

300 Drained Condition - Tension Criterion

264 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 280 350
time (s) 300
Pore Pressure (Kpa)

Fig. 10(b). Fluid pressure at crack entrance during hydraulic fracture propagation 250
for drained condition under tensile failure criterion. t=264
200
t=272
150
t=280
circumferential effective stress due to piezometer installation. a 100
varies between 0.4 and 1.1 based on soil compressibility.
50
The comparison of hydraulic fracture initiation pressure for
analytical/semi-analytical solutions and EFG results, using tensile 0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
failure (fracture) criterion and under different permeability (drain-
age) conditions, are presented in Table 2. The computed fracturing X (m)
pressures are obtained from Fig. 8(a) and 9(a), whereas the theo-
Fig. 12(b). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (J
retical values are calculated from Eqs. (53) and (54). The EFG re- axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion.
sults are very good agreement with closed form analytical
solutions.
Figs. 10(a) and 10(b) shows the fluid pressure at node A – Fig. 7 for the high permeability soil case, there is pore pressure gradient
– during HF propagation for low and high permeability soil cases. due to infiltration of fluid from crack to the surrounding material.
Node A is separated into nodes A1 and A2 at the entrance of crack The progress of infiltration (leak-off) is illustrated in Figs. 12(a)–(c)
after fracturing. The figure shows variation of fluid pressure during in which the pore pressures along the three lines (I, J and K) in
hydraulic fracture propagation until reaching to the outer bound- Fig. 7(a) are plotted at three different times (at the beginning of
ary of the sample. The propagation of crack is faster and takes place crack propagation or crack initiation, at the middle of crack propa-
under higher stresses in low permeability soil than in high perme- gation and at the end of crack propagation) for darined case. As ex-
ability soil. pected, the pore pressure is rising with time and the magnitude of
Fig. 11 shows the fluid pressure variation inside the crack, along the increase is greater at locations close to the crack axis and the
the crack propagation axis at one step before the crack reaches to borehole.
the outer boundary. For the low permeability soil case, the fluid
pressure is approximately constant along the crack axis, whereas (ii) Heterogeneous soil
 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266 265

Drained Condition - Tension Criterion selected to be 0.001 times of its Young’s modulus. The confining
350 pressures for this problem are as the same as the homogeneous soil
300 in (i). The initial nodal arrangement of the EFG model is shown in
Pore Pressure (Kpa)

Fig. 14 by black circles. A radial nodal arrangement at the crack tip

250
(progressive with the crack position) and also an arrangement on
200 t=264 crack surfaces after crack propagation are added after fracturing
t=272 takes place. The arrangement of the background integration mesh
150
t=280 is 10  10, and the Gauss points arrangement is 5  5 for each cell.
100 The hydraulic fracture propagation path for the heterogeneous
50 soil problem is presented in Fig. 14 by white triangular markers.
After hydraulic fracture initiation, the crack propagates from the
0
borehole towards the weaker layers. During crack propagation,
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
when the crack reaches to a new layer, crack deviates from the pre-
X (m)
vious path. The amount of deviation depends on the difference be-
Fig. 12(c). The pore pressure in domain during hydraulic fracture propagation (K tween characteristic parameters (strength and stiffness) of two
axis) for drained condition under tensile failure criterion. different layers. When the crack reaches to a very stiff layer with
high strength, the crack cannot propagate through this layer and
it grows parallel to the layer toward the outer boundary.
5

4
E = 50 MPa 5. Conclusions
E = 30MPa
3
In this paper, the details of the Element Free Galerkin (EFG)
2 mesh-less method and its numerical implementation have been
presented to study the hydraulic fracture initiation and propaga-
1 tion using coupled hydro-mechanical numerical modelling in geo-
E = 20MPa
0
technical engineering. EFG is an effective method to approximate
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 and numerically determine the field variables (displacement and
-1 pore water pressure). Unlike other mesh-less methods, the EFG
has a simple approach for construction of shape functions and its
-2
spatial derivatives. This is due to nature of its polynomial basis
-3
E = 5MPa and weight function. The weak forms are developed through a glo-
bal equilibrium at each time-step using the coupled expression.
E = 10MPa -4
Essential boundary conditions can be easily implemented using
-5 penalty method. A fully implicit scheme in time domain is used
to achieve stability and accuracy and avoid spurious ripple effect.
E = 100MPa
The validity, feasibility and capability of the EFG method are illus-
Fig. 13. Geometry of the model for the problem of prediction of hydraulic fracture trated by examples of hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation
propagation path in inhomogeneous domain. in saturated soils.
While the EFG method is attractive in many problems because
of the simplicity of discretization (only nodes in and on boundaries
are needed) and avoidance of post-processing (results are already
smooth), its greatest appeal is in problems with large change in
geometry, such as progressive fracture, where finite element meth-
ods require considerable remeshing. Hence, by using the EFG
method, the arbitrary discrete fracture path can be simulated
elegantly.
Finally, the involved fluid response in crack is hard to describe,
i.e. around the crack tip. Although a constant flux is assumed in this
paper around the crack for simplicity, more investigation in this
area is required to study the effect of bulk fluid flow inside the
crack. Research is currently under way by the authors.

References

[1] Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L. Crack propagation by element free Galerkin

Fig. 14. The prediction of hydraulic fracture propagation path in inhomogeneous
domain.
Fig. 13 shows the geometry of the heterogeneous soil. Tensile
fracture criterion was adopted in high permeability soil. The do-
main consists of six types of materials having a range of stiffnesses
from 5 MPa to 100 MPa. The tensile strength of each layer is
methods. Eng Fract Mech 1995;51(2):295–315.
[2] Liu GR. Mesh Free Methods-Moving beyond the finite element method 2003.
CRC Press.
[3] Lucy L. A numerical approach to testing the fission hypothesis. Astron J
1977;82:1013–24.
[4] Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smooth particle hydrodynamics: theory and
applications to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 1977;181:375–89.
[5] Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L. Element free Galerkin methods. Int J Numer Meth
Eng 1994;37:229–56.
[6] Liu GR, Gu YT. A point interpolation method. In: Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific
conference on computational mechanics, Singapore; December, 1999. p. 1009–
14.
[7] Modaressi H, Aubert P. Element-free Galerkin method for deforming
multiphase porous media. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1998;42:313–40.
266 M.N. Oliaei et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 254–266
[8] Murakami A, Kawabata H, Aoyama S. EFGM analysis for saturated soil. In:
Desai CS, et al., editors. Computer methods and advances in geomechanics, vol.
1; 2001. p. 153–6.
[9] Murakami A, Arimoto S. Localized behaviour of saturated soil via element-free
strategy. In: Proc. 12th Asian regional conference on soil mechanics and
geotechnical engineering, 1, Balkema; 2003. p. 925–8.
[10] Arimoto S, Murakami A, Setsuyasu T, Nishiyama T. Numerical analysis of
saturated soil by EFG within finite strains. Trans JSME 2004;70(691):442–8. in
Japanese.
[11] Murakami A, Setsuyasu T, Arimoto S. Mesh-free method for soil-water coupled
problem within finite strain and its numerical validity. Soils Found
2005;45(2):145–54.
[12] Wang JG, Liu GR, Lin P. Numerical analysis of Biot’s consolidation process by
radial point interpolation method. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:1557–73.
[13] Oliaei M, Soga K, Pak A. Some numerical issues using Element Free Galerkin
mesh-less method for coupled hydro-mechanical problems. Int J Numer Anal
Meth Geomech 2009;33(7):915–38.
[14] Lim IL, Johnston IW, Choi SK. A finite element code for fracture propagation
analysis within elasto-plastic continuum. Eng Fract Mech
1996;53(2):193–211.
[15] Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L, Tabbara M. Element free Galerkin methods for static
and dynamic fracture. Int J Solids Struct 1995;32(17–18):2547–70.
[16] Belytschko T, Krongauz Y, Organ D, Fleming M, Krysl P. Meshless methods: an
overview and recent developments. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng
1996;139:3–47.
[17] Lancaster P, Salkauskas K. Surfaces generated by moving least squares
methods. Math Comput 1981;37:141–58.
[18] Nayroles B, Touzot G, Villon P. Generalizing the finite element method: diffuse
approximation and diffuse elements. Comput Mech 1992;10:307–18.
[19] Liu GR, Yang KY. A penalty method for enforce essential boundary conditions
in element free Galerkin method. In: Proc. 3rd HPC Asia’98, Singapore; 1998. p.
715–21.
[20] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1982. p. 114–94 [chapter 4].
[21] Thomas GW. Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir simulation. Tabir Publishers;
1977.
[22] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys
1941;12:155.
[23] Liu GR, Yang KY. A new meshless method for stress analysis for solids and
structure. In: Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific conference on computational mechanics,
Singapore; 1999.
[24] Gibson RE, Schiffman RL, Pu SL. Plane strain and axially symmetric
consolidation of a clay layer on a smooth impervious base. Q J Mech Appl
Mech 1970;23(4):505–20.
[25] Ingraffea AR. Theory of crack initiation and propagation in rock. In: Atkinson
BK, editor. Fracture mechanics of rock. Academic Press Geology Series; 1987.
[26] Mitchell JK, Soga K. Fundamentals of soil behaviour. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc; 2005.
[27] Bjerrum L, Nash JKTL, Kennard RM, Gibson RE. Hydraulic fracturing in field
permeability testing. Geotechnique 1972;22(2):319–32.