energies

Article
A Two-Dimensional Partitioning of Fracture–Matrix Flow in
Fractured Reservoir Rock Using a Dual-Porosity
Percolation Model
Jinhui Liu 1,2,3 , Yuli Zhou 1,2,3 and Jianguo Chen 1,2,3, *

1 Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; ljh_200610@163.com (J.L.);
yulizhou@tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.Z.)
2 Institute of Public Safety Research, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
3 Beijing Key Laboratory of City Integrated Emergency Response Science, Beijing 100084, China
* Correspondence: chenjianguo@tsinghua.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-10-62792881

Abstract: Fractures and micropores have varying contributions to the gas permeability of fractured
reservoirs. The quantification of the contribution of fractures and micropores that form a dual-
porosity system for gas permeability is critical when attempting to accurately evaluate gas production.
However, due to insufficient knowledge of fracture–matrix flow partitioning in such dual-porosity
systems, it is challenging for previous models to quantitatively characterize the fracture heterogeneity
and accurately evaluate the gas flow and permeability in fractured rocks. In this study, we propose a
dual-porosity percolation model to quantitatively investigate the contributions of fractures and matrix
micropores towards the gas permeability of fractured rocks. Using percolation theory, we establish
fracture networks with complex heterogeneity, which are characterized by various fracture densities



and percolation probabilities within a porous matrix with various fracture/matrix permeability ratios.


The compressible Navier–Stokes and Brinkman equations were adopted to describe the gas flow in
Citation: Liu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, J. A
the fractures and porous matrix, respectively. The simulation results indicate that the gas permeability
Two-Dimensional Partitioning of
of the dual-porosity system has an exponential relationship with the fracture density and matrix
Fracture–Matrix Flow in Fractured
permeability. The contribution of fractures and matrix micropores toward gas permeability can be
Reservoir Rock Using a Dual-Porosity
classified by establishing a two-dimensional partitioning of the fracture–matrix flow related to the
Percolation Model. Energies 2021, 14,
2209. https://doi.org/10.3390/
fracture heterogeneity and fracture/matrix permeability ratio. The contribution of matrix micropores
en14082209 cannot be neglected if the fracture density is lower than a critical value.

Academic Editor: Manoj Khandelwal Keywords: gas permeability; fractured reservoir rocks; porous matrices; dual-porosity model; perco-
lation theory; fracture density
Received: 2 March 2021
Accepted: 12 April 2021
Published: 15 April 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs are characterized by low porosity and per-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
meability [1,2]. Fracturing stimulations create a complex fracture network that connects
published maps and institutional affil-
numerous micropores in rock matrices, which dramatically increases the gas permeability
iations.
of unconventional tight hydrocarbon reservoirs [3,4]. In general, hydraulic fractures and
micropores in rock matrices contribute differently to the gas permeability in fractured
reservoir rocks. Previous studies have shown that gas flows in fractures and porous matri-
ces behave differently and have effects on each other [5–7]. The quantification of fracture
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. and micropore contributions in the formation of dual-porosity systems in terms of gas
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. permeation capabilities is critical to accurately evaluate unconventional gas production [6].
This article is an open access article
However, due to insufficient knowledge of fracture–matrix flow partitioning in such dual-
distributed under the terms and
porosity systems, previous studies have been unable to accurately quantify the gas flow
conditions of the Creative Commons
and permeability of fractured rocks [5,8,9].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Hydraulic fractures connect the natural microfractures, micropores, and nanopores
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
within a rock matrix in fractured reservoir rocks. They form the flow channels for fractured
4.0/).

Energies 2021, 14, 2209. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082209 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 2209 2 of 23

reservoir rocks after methane desorption from the organic nanopores and micropores [10–12].
Figure 1 shows a sketch map of the fractures and micropores within fractured reservoir
rocks. Since hydraulic fractures are much larger than both micropores and nanopores
in tight reservoir rocks, most of the previous studies have ignored the contributions of
micropores to the gas permeability of reservoir rocks [13–15] and have mainly consid-
ered the fracture fluid flow when investigating the permeability of fractured rocks [16,17].
These studies assume that the reservoir medium is impermeable before fracture reconstruc-
tion, whereas fracture networks mainly dominate the permeability after fracturing. For
nanopores and micropores, most previous studies have focused on the processes of gas
adsorption, desorption, and diffusion in such structures [18–21]. However, gas flow in
fractures and gas diffusion in matrices are different and have effects on each other in real
fractured reservoirs. Rasmussen et al. [22] made several improvements by considering
fluid flow in the rock matrix and discussed the effects of vertical fracture/matrix perme-
ability ratios on fluid flow using the boundary element method (BEM). They considered
fractures as a separate system from the matrices without taking into account the fluid flow
from fractures to the matrix. Lough et al. [23] and Lee et al. [24] further improved the
method suggested by Rasmussen et al. [22] and extended it to medium-sized fractures or
larger fractures using the BEM. The influence of short fractures on matrix permeability was
considered, while the effect of long fractures was not taken into account. Teimoori et al. [5]
calculated the effective permeability in fractured reservoirs and concluded that the matrix
permeability, fracture density, size, aperture, and interconnectivity all contribute to the
effective permeability of an individual grid block. Recent studies [6,20,25] also suggested
that these factors, especially the hydraulic fracture interconnections with micropores in the
matrices, will directly affect the quantitative calculation of gas permeability of fractured
rocks. Bai et al. [26] studied the dual-porosity behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs,
taking into account the transient flow in the matrix blocks. Cai et al. [27] introduced a
new modeling concept to numerically investigate the fracture–matrix interactions in shale
gas reservoirs. The applications of new models are restricted to a few shape blocks and
the universality of such models requires more tests and verifications. Wang et al. [28]
formulated an analytical model to simulate real gas transport in nanopores and complex
fractures in shale gas reservoirs and discussed the effect of multiple physics on the shale
gas production, however the impact of fracture heterogeneity was not considered in their
model. Abbasi et al. [29] proposed an analytical solution for fluid flow in a transient
dual-porosity model and focused on investigating the influence of rock matrix block size
in fractured formations. These studies attempted to simulate fracture–matrix interactions
in tight fractured reservoirs from a variety of perspectives, but did not fully recognize or
quantify fracture–matrix flow partitioning and its dependence on hydraulic fractures [3,30].
Nevertheless, Matthäi et al. [31] investigated numerical fluid flow partitioning between
fractures and matrices based on field data and revealed the critical fracture aperture values
that mark the transition from the matrix to fracture-dominated flow. Actually, the gas
permeability in fractured rocks is not only related to the fracture aperture, but it intrinsi-
cally depends on the relative value of the fracture permeability to the matrix permeability.
The three characteristic flow regimes were divided by their respective fracture–matrix
permeability ratios (kf /km ), named fracture-dominated flow, fracture-perturbed flow, and
fracture-negligible flow. Sanaee et al. [32] also numerically simulated fracture core flood-
ing test data to investigate the flow partitioning between fracture and matrix systems,
which is affected by the in situ stress regime in the reservoir. The results also revealed
a flow transition of higher fluid permeability under the lower stress magnitudes and a
negligible impact of fracture distribution when the fractures are compressed under higher
loading pressure. The respective fracture–matrix permeability ratio changes with the
fracture closure due to the increase of loading pressure. Although the flow transition
was observed in the abovementioned dual-porosity model with fractures and micropores,
the partitioning of fracture–matrix flow is ambiguous and there is a lack of quantitative
parameters to accurately distinguish the contributions of fractures and matrix flow. It has
 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

Energies 2021, 14, 2209 3 of 23

abovementioned dual-porosity model with fractures and micropores, the partitioning of
fracture–matrix flow is ambiguous and there is a lack of quantitative parameters to
accurately distinguish the contributions of fractures and matrix flow. It has been
been demonstrated
demonstrated that that reservoir
reservoir rockrock hasa acomplex
has complex heterogeneous
heterogeneous and and discontinuous
discontinuous
structure,
structure, which plays a vital role in fluid flow through fractured geologicalmedia
which plays a vital role in fluid flow through fractured geological media[33,34].
[33,34].
Therefore,
Therefore, it is inaccurate to describe and classify the flow transition in the fracturedrocks
it is inaccurate to describe and classify the flow transition in the fractured rocks
using
usingonly
onlyone-dimensional
one-dimensional partitioning
partitioning of the fracture/matrix
of the fracture/matrixpermeability
permeabilityratioratiokfk/kf /k m.
m. To
To intuitively characterize the impacts of discontinuity heterogeneity
intuitively characterize the impacts of discontinuity heterogeneity and reveal the and reveal the con-
trolling mechanism
controlling mechanismof fluid
of flow
fluidinflow
porous fracture–matrix
in porous media, itmedia,
fracture–matrix is crucial to crucial
it is establishto
two-dimensional partitioning of the fracture–matrix flow regarding
establish two-dimensional partitioning of the fracture–matrix flow regarding the the contributions of
the gas flow in the matrix. Additionally, previous studies have often ignored Klinken-
contributions of the gas flow in the matrix. Additionally, previous studies have often
berg effects and gas compressibility when calculating the gas permeability of fractured
ignored Klinkenberg effects and gas compressibility when calculating the gas
reservoirs [5].
permeability of fractured reservoirs [5].

Figure1.1.Sketch
Figure Sketchof
ofthe
thefractures
fracturesand
andmicropores
microporeswithin
withinfractured
fracturedreservoir
reservoirrocks.
rocks.

Sinceunconventional
Since unconventionaloil oiland
andgas gasreservoirs
reservoirsare areoften
oftenburied
buriedatatdepthsdepthsof ofmore
morethan than
3000mm[35],
3000 [35], it extremely
it is is extremely difficult
difficult to detect
to detect and analyze
and analyze gas flow gasin flow in fractures
fractures and microp- and
micropores
ores in the utilizing
in the matrix matrix utilizing fieldAdditionally,
field tests. tests. Additionally,
it is alsoit is alsodifficult
quite quite difficult
to obtain to obtain
rock
rocksamples
core core samples and measure
and measure gas flow gas during
flow during the fracturing
the fracturing process process with exposure
with exposure to realto
real geological
geological environments
environments in theinlaboratory.
the laboratory.
Although Although the development
the development of numerous
of numerous labo-
ratory methods
laboratory has led
methods to attempts
has to obtaintothe
led to attempts real dual-porosity
obtain structure in
the real dual-porosity fracturedin
structure
reservoir
fracturedrocks and discuss
reservoir rocks and its discuss
influence itson rock permeability,
influence such as X-ray
on rock permeability, suchcomputed
as X-ray
tomography (CT) [36–38](CT)
computed tomography and [36–38]
scanning andelectron
scanning microscopy
electron (SEM)
microscopytechniques
(SEM)[39,40],
techniquesit is
nearly
[39,40],impossible
it is nearlytoimpossible
obtain a certain regular
to obtain fracture
a certain system
regular via experiments
fracture system viaand quantita-
experiments
tively determine thedetermine
and quantitatively statistical the
relationships between the pore
statistical relationships betweenspace, the fracture distribution,
pore space, fracture
and equivalent permeability of fractured rocks using these methods.
distribution, and equivalent permeability of fractured rocks using these methods. Another Another challenge to
investigations of fractured reservoir permeability is that the
challenge to investigations of fractured reservoir permeability is that the fracture fracture apertures and pore
sizes are at various
apertures and pore scales,
sizeswhich
are at results in difficulties
various scales, whichwhen attempting to quantitatively
results in difficulties when
describe
attempting bothtothe fluid flow in describe
quantitatively micropores both and thehydraulic
fluid flow fractures in fractured
in micropores and rock sam-
hydraulic
ples. Quantitative
fractures in fractured evaluation studies still
rock samples. face numerous
Quantitative obstacles,
evaluation suchstill
studies as understanding
face numerous
the contributions
obstacles, such asofunderstanding
fractures and the pores in matricesof
contributions tofractures
gas flowand at the coreinscale
pores matricesin theto
laboratory. Therefore, previous studies have adopted probabilistic
gas flow at the core scale in the laboratory. Therefore, previous studies have adopted methods and numerical
simulation
probabilistic as alternatives,
methods and which are time-saving
numerical simulation andasflexible techniques
alternatives, which thatareallow the con-
time-saving
struction of a pore–fracture system and an analysis of both
and flexible techniques that allow the construction of a pore–fracture system and the fluid flow in the pores andan
fractures of the fractured rock mass. Among them, the Monte Carlo
analysis of both the fluid flow in the pores and fractures of the fractured rock mass. method [41] is a widely
used
Among technique
them, the to simulate the fracture
Monte Carlo methodnetworks
[41] is a of rocks used
widely through a seriesto
technique of simulate
physical the or
geometrical statistical parameters. Combined with percolation
fracture networks of rocks through a series of physical or geometrical statistical theory, it is often used to
investigate fluid flow through disordered porous media and tight
parameters. Combined with percolation theory, it is often used to investigate fluid flow reservoirs [42–47]. These
studies
throughmostly used simple
disordered porouslinemedia segments
and tight to obtain a graph
reservoirs of the
[42–47]. fracture
These networks.
studies mostly used The
generation of most fracture networks requires large amounts of time, and few models accu-
simple line segments to obtain a graph of the fracture networks. The generation of most
rately reconstruct the fracture while the heterogeneity, fracture length, fracture aperture,
fracture networks requires large amounts of time, and few models accurately reconstruct
and random azimuth are simutaneously taken into account [25,45,48]. The complicated
the fracture while the heterogeneity, fracture length, fracture aperture, and random
pattern of fracture networks is mainly determined by the number of fractures in a rock
core, namely the fracture density. Zhang et al. [49] developed and extended the percolation
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 4 of 23

theory to generate heterogeneous fracture networks with various fracture densities, fracture
apertures, and random azimuths, which is applied in this study.
Intending to quantitatively investigate fracture–matrix flow partitioning in fractured
rocks, in this study we developed a dual-porosity model to evaluate the gas permeability of
tight rocks. The percolation theory was used to establish fracture networks with complex
heterogeneity, which were characterized by various fracture densities and percolation
probabilities. The facture networks were coupled with a porous matrix featuring various
permeabilities, thereby leading to reconstructed structures with various fracture/matrix
permeability ratios. We considered that gas flow not only occurs through connected
fractures but also through the matrix micropores. Fractures and matrices were divided into
two solution domains to simulate gas flow in fractured rocks using the compressible Navier-
stokes (N–S) and Brinkman equations, respectively. The coupling flow in the matrix and
fractures was simulated using the variable exchanges between the velocity and pressure
fields. We adapted the methods reported by Zhang et al. [49] to build five sets of random
fracture models with varying fracture densities using Monte Carlo simulation technology.
The fracture connectivity was quantitatively studied using the percolation theory. A single-
phase flow simulation was performed to mimic methane flow and calculate the equivalent
gas permeability values of fractured rock models, considering gas compressibility and
Klinkenberg effects. The same fracture networks (but with three matrix properties) were
studied to quantitatively analyze the impacts of the fracture density and fracture/matrix
permeability ratio on the equivalent permeability of fractured rocks. The contributions
of fractures and matrix micropores to the gas permeability were classified through two-
dimensional partitioning of fracture–matrix flow in porous media, considering the fracture
heterogeneity and fracture/matrix permeability ratio. This study provides a modeling
basis for evaluation of the permeability of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs.

2. Materials and Methods

This study used MATLAB to generate 2-D-connected fracture networks. The proce-
dures included three steps: (1) five groups of fracture models with identical fracture densi-
ties but different fracture distributions were generated using the Monte Carlo method in
MATLAB; (2) the fracture connectivity was analyzed based on percolation theory, whereby
for fracture densities lower than the critical density, the permeable probability was zero; (3)
for networks with a fracture density near or above the critical density, the system was con-
sidered to be permeable and we performed a compressible flow simulation to compute the
methane flow in pores and fractures and determine the equivalent permeability according
to Darcy’s law.

2.1. Fracture Network Generation

Fluid flow in fractured rocks refers to the fluid flow in both porous (matrix and
micropores) and fractured media (fractures and faults). Microporous structures have low
hydraulic conductivity and their permeability is directly related to porosity. The fracture
permeability not only depends on the fracture density but is also determined by the
fracture distribution characteristics (i.e., fracture length, fracture apertures, and azimuths).
In this study, we built five series of fracture models with varying fracture densities and
distributions. While this approach can be expanded for applications to real geological
formations, we made the following assumptions to construct the fracture systems: (1)
Each system is a two-dimensional (2-D) square domain with sides of length L. Fluid flows
into the system from the top of the system. (2) Fractures are randomly positioned. (3)
Fractures follow a power law distribution for length, a normal distribution for aperture,
and a random distribution for orientation. (4) Only connected fractures are considered. The
details of the approach used to generate the fracture models are discussed in the following
section.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 5 of 23

2.2. Fracture Length Distribution

The geometric parameters for real reservoir fractures generally have statistical rules
and obey one or several types of probability distribution. Referring to the work by Zhang
et al. [49], the power law distribution was used to characterize the fracture length in this
study, which is the most widely used model to describe the fault length distribution of
reservoir rocks [50–54]. The power law distribution of a fracture system is expressed as:

n(l ) = αl − a , (1)

where n(l)dl refers to the fracture number that has a length interval [l, l+dl], α is a pro-
portional coefficient that reflects the fracture density and depends on the fracture system
size, and a is an exponent varying from one to three. The fracture density is defined as
the cumulative fracture length per unit area in a fracture system, which can be can be
calculated as [55]:
ρ = ∑ nl/L2 , (2)
where ρ means the fracture density (mm−1 ), n is the total number of fractures with a length
of l in a fracture system, and L is the system size (mm).

2.3. Determining Hydraulic Connections for a Given Fracture Network

The connectivity of individual fractures determines numerous fundamental properties
for a fracture network to determine system connectivity. Compared with previous studies,
we only needed to perform the network generation process once and the fracture density
of the connected networks could be accurately controlled to generate fracture networks
with varying connectivity. The connected networks not only satisfied geometric continuity
but also conformed to the average degree of connectivity. Here, a percolation parameter,
p, which is related to the fracture density, is used as the critical value below which the
fracture system is not connected, whereas the fracture system is, on average, connected,
i.e., we also consider that the matrix is permeable. For a 2D square fracture system (size L)
with N fractures of constant length l, p is calculated as:

p = Nl 2 /L2 (3)

To generate a fracture network, we must determine three parameters to characterize

the individual fracture geometry, i.e., the location, orientation, and length. The fracture
center is randomly located in the system. The fracture orientation is also random, i.e.,
uniformly sampled from all directions. The fracture length (l) is sampled from its power
law distribution. We use four geometry parameters to generate the fracture networks, i.e.,
the normalized system size, Ls = L/lmin ; the normalized maximum length of the fracture,
Lmaxs = lmax /lmin (lmin and lmax refer to the minimum and maximum fracture lengths in a
fracture system, respectively); the exponent a; and the ratio of r = as /asc . We refer to the
fracture generation details reported by Zhang et al. [49]. For a given fracture system, the
critical parameter, asc , is calculated and compared with the actual parameter, as . When
as is much less than asc , i.e., r < 1, the system is viewed as non-connected. For systems
with as near or above asc , i.e., r ≥ 1, the system is viewed as connected (the matrix is also
considered to be permeable) and the steps described in the following section must be
performed.
The fracture apertures in coal rock follow a normal distribution based on statistical
data [9]. Based on their experiments, Wang et al. calculated the fracture apertures in coal
rock, which ranged from 0.028 to 0.315 mm, with an average fractal aperture of 0.142 mm
in a circular sectional area of 25 mm2 . Therefore, in this study, we used an average fractal
aperture, Wav , of 0.284 mm for a square system with a size of L = 50 mm and a standard
deviation of σ = 0.1 to generate the fracture networks. We controlled the fracture apertures
between 0.03 and 0.63 mm. The fracture azimuths followed a random distribution, such
that they were applicable to real geologic formations. The three fracture networks in
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 6 of 23

each group had identical fracture densities. Table 1 lists the initial geometric parameters
for the fracture networks. Figure 2 shows the fracture networks, while Figures 3 and 4
show the fracture aperture and model length distributions with various fracture densities,
respectively. These geometry parameters for the fracture networks correspond to real
geological cases and lay a good foundation for experimental studies in the next step to
improve the predictive capability of the numerical methods developed in this study.

Table 1. The initial geometric parameters of the fracture networks.

Model ρ Fracture Aperture (mm)

r lmax lmin Nfr
No. (mm−1 ) wav σ wmin wmax
A1 0.07 0.57
A2 1.1 55.29 25 0.30 0.03 0.47
A3 0.07 0.51
B1 0.08 0.58
B2 1.3 56.84 29 0.35 0.09 0.42
B3 0.08 0.45
C1 0.08 0.46
C2 1.5 58.89 20 32 0.39 0.284 0.1 0.10 0.50
C3 0.09 0.56
D1 0.05 0.51
D2 3.2 66.00 58 0.75 0.03 0.47
D3 0.04 0.49
E1 0.08 0.48
E2 5.1 67.3 92 1.20 0.04 0.52
E3 0.04 0.55
 Energies 2021, 14, 2209 7 of 23
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Connected
Connected fracture
fracture networks
networks with
with various
various fracture
fracture densities
densities and
and fracturenumbers.
fracture numbers.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

Figure 3. Figure
Fracture apertureaperture
3. Fracture frequency distribution
frequency for models
distribution with various
for models fracture
with various densities.
fracture The The
densities. horizontal a
representshorizontal
the fractureaxis
aperture, whilethe
represents thefracture
verticalaperture,
axis represents
whilethe
thefracture
verticalfrequency with athe
axis represents certain aperture
fracture fre- for mod
with variousquency with a certain aperture for models with various fracture densities. The data were obtained mm , N
fracture densities. The data were obtained from three models at each fracture density: (a) ρ = 0.30 −1

25; (b) ρ = from

0.35 mm −1, Nfr = 29; (c) ρ = 0.39 mm−1, Nfr = 32; (d) ρ = 0.75 mm−1, Nfr = 58; (e) ρ =1.20 mm−1, Nfr = 92.
− 1
three models at each fracture density: (a) ρ = 0.30 mm , N = 25; (b) ρ = 0.35 mm , N = 29; − 1
fr fr
(c) ρ = 0.39 mm− 1 , Nfr = 32; (d) ρ = 0.75 mm− 1 , Nfr = 58; (e) ρ = 1.20 mm− 1 , Nfr = 92.
Energies 2021,14,
Energies2021, 14,2209
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 23
23

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Fracture
Fracture length
length frequency
frequencydistribution
distributionof
ofmodels
modelswith
withvarious
variousfracture
fracturedensities.
densities.The
Thehori-
horizontal axis represents the fracture aperture, while the vertical axis represents the fracture
zontal axis represents the fracture aperture, while the vertical axis represents the fracture frequency at
frequency at a certain length for models with various fracture densities. The data are the average
a certain length for models with various fracture densities. The data are the average results measured
results measured from three models at each fracture density.
from three models at each fracture density.
2.4. Dual-Porosity
2.4. Dual-Porosity Model Model for for Gas
Gas Flow Flow Simulation
Simulation and and Permeability
Permeability (κ) ( ̅ )Calculations
Calculations
Here, we
Here, we developed
developed aa 2-D 2-D dual-porosity
dual-porosity model model to to simulate
simulate the
the gas
gas flow
flow in
in fractured
fractured
rocks. The model treats matrix and pore structures
rocks. The model treats matrix and pore structures as one component and couples the as one component and couples the
flow in matrix pores and fractures to compute the equivalent
flow in matrix pores and fractures to compute the equivalent permeability. To study the permeability. To study the
influences of
influences of pore–fracture
pore–fracture structures structures on on the
the permeability
permeability properties
properties of of fractured
fractured rocks,
rocks,
we used an identical fracture network with three rock
we used an identical fracture network with three rock rank matrix properties from mining rank matrix properties from mining
areastotosimulate
areas simulategas gasflow flow
andand computecompute permeability.
permeability. The ranks
The three three of ranks
rocksoffrom
rocks from
mining
mining
areas, i.e.,areas,
Irock , i.e.,
II rock,Irock
and, IIIIIrock,
rock
and
, wereIIIrock, were
used to set used
the to
matrixset the matrix
properties. properties.
The properties The
of
Iproperties
rock , II rock of
, I
and ,
rockIIIII ,
rockfor
rock andthe III rock for permeability,
matrix the matrix permeability,
k m , and ,
porosity, andε mporosity,
, were taken , were
from
taken
the from the
sandstone used sandstone used in ourcoal
in our experiments, experiments,
[56], and oilcoal [56], and
reservoirs [57],oilrespectively.
reservoirs [57],
respectively. 
 0.01 mD, Irock
0.01 ,I
km = 6.46 mD, ,IIIIrock ,, (4)
= 6.46 (4)
303.98
303.98 mD, III , III
rock

0.04,Irock
I

 0.04,
εm = = 0.1, II
0.1, IIrock (5)
(5)
 0.25, III
0.25, IIIrock, ,

Since fractures
Since fractures have
have much
much larger
larger permeability
permeability than
than the
the matrices
matrices inin tight
tight reservoirs,
reservoirs,
solving such
solving such aa nonlinear
nonlinear problem
problem using
using traditional
traditional numerical
numerical methods poses difficulties.
In this
In this study,
study, wewedivided
divided the
thefractures
fracturesand
andmatrix
matrixinto
intotwo
twodomains
domains to tocalculate
calculate the
the gas
gas
flow
flow in
in aa rock
rock system.
system. Variable
Variable exchanges
exchanges between
between the
the velocity
velocity and
and pressure
pressure fields
fields were
were
used
used toto simulate
simulate thethe coupling
coupling flows
flows in
in the
thematrix
matrixand
andfractures.
fractures. The
The compressible
compressible N–SN–S
equation
equation waswas used
used to
to simulate
simulate methane
methane flowflowin
infractures
fractures[58]
[58]as
asfollows:
follows:

+ ( ∙ ∇) = −∇ + ∇ ∙ (∇u + (∇u) ) − 2 (∇ ∙ u) ,
 
∂u (6)
ρ0 + ρ0 (u·∇)u = −∇p + ∇· µ ∇u + (∇u)T − µ(∇·u) I , (6)
∂t 3
+∇∙( )=0 (7)
∂ρ
For the matrix, we used the compressible + ∇·(ρuBrinkman
)=0 equation, as follows: (7)
∂t
For the matrix, we 0= used
−∇the ∇ ∙ (∇ + ∇ Brinkman
+ compressible )− (∇ ∙ ) − as follows:
equation, , (8)
µ   2 1 µ
0 = −∇p + ∇· +∇∇∙u(T )−= 0,
∇u + µ (∇·u) − u, (8)
(9)
εp 3 εp km
where p is the pressure, u is the flow velocity, μ is the dynamic viscosity, is the
porosity, and is the matrix permeability. The gas flows into the domain from the top
 Energies 2021, 14, 2209 10 of 23

∂ρ
+ ∇·(ρu) = 0, (9)
∂t
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWwhere p is the pressure, u is the flow velocity, µ is the dynamic viscosity, ε p is the porosity,
10 of 23
and k m is the matrix permeability. The gas flows into the domain from the top of the system.
The fluid velocity was initially zero and flow was driven by a hydraulic head between the
bottom (y = 0) and top (y = L) of the system. The velocities at the grain boundaries equaled
of the system. The fluid velocity was initially zero and flow was driven by a hydraulic
zero, i.e., “no slip” conditions.
head between the bottom (y = 0) and top (y = L) of the system. The velocities at the grain
We ensured that the flow was in a laminar regime by checking if the permeability
boundaries equaled zero, i.e., “no slip” conditions.
remained constant. According to Darcy’s law, the absolute permeability of the fractured
We ensured that the flow was in a laminar regime by checking if the permeability
rocks was computed using the following equation:
remained constant. According to Darcy’s law, the absolute permeability of the fractured
rocks was computed using the following k = equation:
µQL/∆p· A, (10)
Z = /∆ ∙ n , (10)
Q= v·ds = lim ∑∑ vi si , (11)
= s ∙ = nlim
→∞ , (11)
→ i =1

where kisisthe
where the absolute permeability, Q
absolute permeability, Qisisthe
thetotal
totalfluid
fluidflux,flux,L Lis is
the system
the system length, A is
length, A the
is
cross-sectional
the cross-sectional areaarea
of flow (i.e., here
of flow (i.e., we
hereusewetheuse
system size L), ∆p
the system the∆pressure
sizeisL), is the difference
pressure
at the inlets
difference at and outlets,
the inlets respectively;
and vi and si are the
outlets, respectively; and sectionarevelocity and section
the section velocityareaandat
the outlets, respectively.
section area at the outlets, respectively.
Due to
Due to Klinkenberg’s
Klinkenberg’seffects,
effects,gasgaspermeability
permeability is usually greater than
is usually liquid
greater thanpermeabil-
liquid
ity in tight reservoirs
permeability in tight [59]. This is[59].
reservoirs especially
This is theespecially
case whenthe the case
pressurewhendifference is low,
the pressure
and therefore
difference is low,the rock
and permeability
therefore the rock measured by gas
permeability is muchby
measured larger than
gas is muchthat measured
larger than
that measured by water [60]. In this study, the following corrected formula was used the
by water [60]. In this study, the following corrected formula was used to calculate to
equivalent
calculate thegas permeability
equivalent κ g , which considers
gas permeability ̅ , which Klinkenberg effects basedeffects
considers Klinkenberg on previous
based
studies
on [60–62]:
previous studies [60–62]:
κ g = k[1 + (b/pav )], (12)
̅ = 1+( / ) , (12)
where p av represents the average gas pressure and b refers to the coefficient of Klinkenberg
where
effects, whichrepresents
is modified theusing
average gas pressure
the following equation:and b refers to the coefficient of
Klinkenberg effects, which is modified using the following equation:
b = 0.15 × k−0.37 .
, (13)
= 0.15 , (13)
Figure55illustrates
Figure illustratesthe
thedomain
domainsettings
settingsand
andsimulation
simulationboundary
boundaryand
andTable
Table22lists
liststhe
the
model data used in this study. The fluid properties at normal temperature and pressure
model data used in this study. The fluid properties at normal temperature and pressure are
used in the simulations.
are used in the simulations.

Domainsettings
Figure5.5.Domain
Figure settingsand
andsimulation
simulationconditions.
conditions.The
Theblue
bluedomains
domainsdenote
denotethe
thefractures,
fractures, while
while the gray
the gray domains
domains represent
represent the matrices
the rock rock matrices with micropores.
with micropores. Methane
Methane flowsflows into
into the the from
system
system from the top and flows out from the bottom; the flow conditions
the top and flows out from the bottom; the flow conditions are “no slip”.are “no slip”.

Table 2. Simulation model data.

Parameters Value Description

0.67 kg/m3 Methane density
μ 1.1 × 10−5 (Pa·s) Methane dynamic viscosity
H 50 mm Hydraulic head
 Energies 2021, 14, 2209 11 of 23

Table 2. Simulation model data.

Parameters Value Description

Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
ρg 0.67 kg/m3 Methane density
µ 1.1 × 10−5 (Pa·s) Methane dynamic viscosity
H 50 mm Hydraulic head
2.5. Dual-Porosity Model Verification
2.5.WeDual-Porosity
performedModel Verification of a series of simple fracture networks to verify the
flow simulations
accuracyWe of the dual-porosity
performed model.ofWe
flow simulations compared
a series ourfracture
of simple numerical resultstowith
networks verifythe the
theoretical solutions and numerical solutions from previous studies
accuracy of the dual-porosity model. We compared our numerical results with the theoret- [63]. The previous
studies assumed
ical solutions that
and the single
numerical fracturefrom
solutions flow previous
follows the cubic[63].
studies law The
and previous
used the studies
flow-
equivalent
assumed that principle to calculate
the single the follows
fracture flow equivalent fracture
the cubic lawpermeability
and used the [64], which is
flow-equivalent
expressed
principle with the following
to calculate equation:
the equivalent fracture permeability [64], which is expressed with the
following equation:
= ( ), (14)
k f eq = le 3 (γw), (14)
where is the element length of a square, w is the fracture aperture, and is the
where le is the element length of a square, w is the fracture aperture, and γ is the coefficient
coefficient related to the roughness of the fracture surface, i.e., when the fracture is straight
related to the roughness of the fracture surface, i.e., when the fracture is straight and
and smooth
smooth = 1/12,otherwise
γ = 1/12, otherwiseγ < <1/12.1/12. This
This formula
formula reflects
reflects the
theeffects
effectsthat
thatthe
thefracture
fracture
aperture,
aperture, fracture surface roughness, and numerical method (element size) haveon
fracture surface roughness, and numerical method (element size) have onthethe
equivalent permeability of the fractures.
equivalent permeability of the fractures.
The
Theverification
verificationfracture
fracturesystem
systemusesusesananidentical
identicalfracture
fracturestructure
structuretotothat
thatreported
reported
inin[63]
[63] to compare the numerical results with their numerical solutions. Thedomain
to compare the numerical results with their numerical solutions. The domainisisa a
square
square(20 (20mm× ×2020m),
m),asas
shown
shown ininFigure
Figure6a. 6a.ForFora asingle
singlefracture
fracturenetwork,
network,we weset
setnine
nine
sets
sets of single fractures with different slopes ranging from 50 to 90 , with an interval ofof5◦ .
of single fractures with different slopes ranging from 50°
◦ to 90°,
◦ with an interval
5°.AAsingle
singlefracture
fracturepasses
passesthrough
throughthe thecoordinate
coordinate(0,(0,0)0)andandthe
thefracture
fractureaperture
apertureisisequal
equalto
to55mm.
mm.

Figure
Figure6.6.
Sketch
Sketch ofof
the simple
the simplefracture
fracturenetworks
networksand
andhydraulic
hydraulicboundary
boundaryconditions
conditions[63]:
[63]:(a)(a)single
single
fracture
fracture network: nine sets of single fractures with different slopes ranging from 50 to90°,
network: nine sets of single fractures with different slopes ranging from 50° to
◦ 90◦with, with an
aninterval
intervalofof5◦5°; (b)intersecting
; (b) intersectingfracture
fracture network:
network: four
four cracks
cracks with
with through
through fracture
fracture 1 and
1 and non-
non-through
through fractures 2, 3, and 4, with fractures 2, 3, and 4 being connected to form a hydraulic
fractures 2, 3, and 4, with fractures 2, 3, and 4 being connected to form a hydraulic conduit. A
conduit. A hydraulic head (H1 = 30 m at the top and H2 = 10 m at the bottom) drives the flow, with
hydraulic head (H1 = 30 m at the top and H2 = 10 m at the bottom) drives the flow, with vertical
vertical hydraulic gradients of 1 m/m at the left and right boundaries of the fracture system.
hydraulic gradients of 1 m/m at the left and right boundaries of the fracture system.
A hydraulic head (H1 = 30 m at the top and H2 = 10 m at the bottom) drives the flow,
A hydraulic head (H1 = 30 m at the top and H2 = 10 m at the bottom) drives the flow,
with a vertical hydraulic gradient of 1 m/m at the left and right boundaries of the fracture
with a vertical hydraulic gradient of 1 m/m at the left and right boundaries of the fracture
system (Figure 6). To compare our results with numerical solutions from [63], we
system (Figure 6). To compare our results with numerical solutions from [63], we initialized
initialized
the matrixthe matrix
with with a minimum
a minimum permeability
permeability of−1.0
of 1.0 × 10 20 m× 210
andm
−20 2 and a porosity of 1.0
a porosity of 1.0 × 10−10
× to
10ensure
−10 to ensure
that flow only occurred in the fractures. The theoretical solution of solution
that flow only occurred in the fractures. The theoretical downstreamof
downstream outlet flow through a single fracture is given by the
outlet flow through a single fracture is given by the following equation:following equation:
=ρ /( )( − )/ , (15)
qa = ρw gle 3 /(γµ)( H2 − H1 )/l f , (15)
where is the water density (i.e., = 998.4 kg/m3), is the gravitational acceleration
(i.e., = 10 m/s2, μ is equal to 1.005 × 10−3 Pa·s. We also assume that the fracture surface
is smooth, with a value for of 1/12. Table 3 lists the simulation results.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 12 of 23

where ρw is the water density (i.e., ρw = 998.4 kg/m3 ), g is the gravitational acceleration
(i.e., g = 10 m/s2 , µ is equal to 1.005 × 10−3 Pa·s. We also assume that the fracture surface
is smooth, with a value for γ of 1/12. Table 3 lists the simulation results.

Table 3. Comparison of the simulation results for different simple fracture networks with analytical
solutions.

qa (m2 /s)
Fracture Azimuth
(º) Numerical
Analytical Solutions Deviation (%)
Simulation
50 0.0793 0.0826 4.16
55 0.0848 0.0848 0.00
60 0.0896 0.0882 −1.56
65 0.0938 0.0928 −1.07
70 0.0972 0.0937 −3.60
75 0.0999 0.0997 −0.20
80 0.1019 0.1002 −1.67
85 0.1031 0.1008 −2.23
90 0.1035 0.1010 −2.42

Table 4 lists a comparison of our numerical results for nine single fractures with
different dip angles with the analytical solutions. Our model’s numerical solutions are
slightly smaller than the theoretical solutions, whereby the deviation fluctuates within 5%.
Table 5 provides a comparison of our numerical results with the corresponding results
from the study by Wang et al. [63] and indicates that our calculation results are slightly
smaller than the corresponding results reported in the latter, whereby deviations fluctuate
within 6.5%. This is because different from the quadrilateral mesh used in the modified
equivalent permeability model (MEPM) of Wang et al. [63], our model uses a free triangle
mesh. The fracture and matrix were divided into two domains for meshing and the fracture
area was meshed with a size ratio of fracture apertures to mesh elements that was larger
than 0.5 [65] (see Figure 7). This type of meshing can ensure that each fracture is accurately
characterized by the fractured mesh, such that the actual flow paths are very close to the
fracture length. Although the meshing accuracy is directly related to the actual flow paths,
results with different mesh accuracies all fluctuate around the theoretical solution, which
indicates the accuracy of the proposed dual-porosity model.

Table 4. Parameters for the intersecting fractures and downstream outlet flow rate.

Endpoint Endpoint Fracture qa (m2 /s)

No. Coordinates Coordinates Aperture Analytical Numerical
(x, y) (x, y) (m) Solutions Simulation
1 (0.7500, −10.0) (−0.2500, 10.0) 0.004
2 (−2.8750, 5.0) (−5.7500, 10.0) 0.005
0.1426 0.1417
3 (1.4375, −2.5) (−2.8750, 5.0) 0.005
4 (5.7500, −10.0) (1.4375, −2.5) 0.005
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 13 of 23

Table 5. Comparison of the simulation results for different simple fracture networks with numerical
solutions from the MEPM [63].

qa (m2 /s)
Fracture Azimuth (º) Numerical
MEPM Solutions Deviation (%)
Simulation
50 0.0811 0.0826 1.85
55 0.0868 0.0848 −2.30
60 0.0919 0.0882 −4.03
65 0.0964 0.0928 −3.73
70 0.1000 0.0937 −6.30
75 0.0984 0.0997 1.32
80 0.1002 0.1002 0.00
85 0.1011 0.1008 −0.30
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23
90 0.1040 0.1010 −2.88

Figure7.7.Fracture
Figure Fractureelements
elementsofofthe
theintersecting
intersectingfractures
fracturesusing
usingthe
thefree
freetriangle
trianglemeshing:
meshing:(a)
(a)fracture
fracture elements after space discretization [63]; (b) free triangle meshes used
elements after space discretization [63]; (b) free triangle meshes used in this study. in this study.

Figure6b6bshows
Figure shows thethe intersecting
intersecting fracture
fracture network.network.
There are There are 4namely
4 cracks, cracks,through
namely
through fracture 1 and non-through fractures 2, 3, and 4, however fractures
fracture 1 and non-through fractures 2, 3, and 4, however fractures 2, 3, and 4 are connected 2, 3, and 4 are
connected
and form a and form aconduit.
hydraulic hydraulicWhen conduit. When calculating
calculating the theoreticalthe theoretical
fracture flow fracture flow
solution,
solution,
the the downstream
downstream flow flux flow
is theflux is flow
total the total flow
in two in two
single single through
through fractures.fractures.
The model The
model parameter
parameter settings settings and boundary
and boundary conditions conditions are identical
are identical to those
to those used used fracture
in single in single
fractureTable
studies. studies. Tablethe
4 shows 4 shows the intersecting
intersecting fracture parameters
fracture parameters and downstream and downstream
outlet flow
outlet
flux. flow
The flux.demonstrate
results The results demonstrate that theoutlet
that the downstream downstream outlet
flow (0.1417 2 /s) is
mflow (0.1417 m2/s) is
quite similar
to the MPEM 2
quite similar numerical
to the MPEM solution (0.1424
numerical m /s) (0.1424
solution from the mstudy
2 by Wang
/s) from the study et al.by[63],
Wangas well
et al.
as theas
[63], theoretical
well as the solution (0.1426
theoretical m2 /s).(0.1426
solution Our model
m2/s). can
Ouralso achieve
model goodachieve
can also simulation
good
results for intersecting
simulation results for fractures and fractures
intersecting non-through andfractures,
non-through verifying the validity
fractures, verifyingof the
the
dual-porosity
validity of themodel.
dual-porosity model.

3.3.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussions
Discussions
3.1. Flow Velocity and Pressure Profile
3.1. Flow Velocity and Pressure Profile
Figure 8 demonstrates the COMSOL© Multiphysics results predicted using the methane
Figure 8 demonstrates the COMSOL© Multiphysics results predicted using the
velocity and pressure distribution values of the three rocks with fracture densities of
methane velocity and pressure distribution values of the three rocks with fracture
0.30/mm and 1.20/mm. We observed that as the fracture density increased, the fracture
densities of 0.30/mm and 1.20/mm. We observed that as the fracture density increased, the
connectivity improved, the main flow paths increased, and the flow velocity gradually
fracture connectivity improved, the main flow paths increased, and the flow velocity
increased. The maximum flow velocity in the A1 model was 3.89 mm/s, while the flow ve-
gradually increased. The maximum flow velocity in the A1 model was 3.89 mm/s, while
locity in the E model increased to 6.24 mm/s, i.e., 0.65-fold. The fracture number increased
the flow velocity in the E model increased to 6.24 mm/s, i.e., 0.65-fold. The fracture number
3-fold and the main flow paths also significantly increased. The flow had clear hydraulic
increased
paths, 3-fold
which and the
consisted ofmain flow
several paths also
connected significantly
fracture increased.
clusters. The flow
Less or even flowhad
did clear
not
hydraulic paths, which consisted of several
occur in the majority of connected fractures. connected fracture clusters. Less or even flow
did not occur in the majority of connected fractures.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Figure 8. Velocity fields (top row) and pressure profiles (bottom row) in the selected fracture systems
Figure 8. Velocity
from threefields (topmatrix
different row) and pressure(a)
properties: profiles
Irock ; (bottom
(b) IIrockrow) in the. selected
; (c) III fracture systems from three differ
rock The high-velocity branches plot
matrix properties: (a) I ; (b) II ; (c) III . The high-velocity branches plot the clear hydraulic paths, which consis
the clear hydraulic paths, which consist of several connected fracture clusters. The pressure profiles
several connected fracture clusters. The pressure profiles show a slight pressure gradient in the fractures and matrices d
show a slight pressure gradient in the fractures and matrices due to different fracture distributions
to different fracture distributions and matrix properties.
and matrix properties.
The fracture permeability values were much larger than the matrix perm
The fracture permeability values were much larger than the matrix permeability values,
4 9 values, i.e., 104–109-fold larger (see the velocity at the bottom of models A1 an
i.e., 10 –10 -fold larger (see the velocity at the bottom of models A1 and E1 in Figure 9). For
Figure 9). For the low-density fracture model A1, the gas flow velocity and p
the low-density fracture model A1, the gas flow velocity and pressure gradient changed
gradient changed slightly with increasing matrix permeability. For the high-
slightly with increasing matrix permeability. For the high-density fracture model E1, there
fracture model E1, there were no significant changes in the gas flow velocity or p
were no significant changes in the gas flow velocity or pressure gradient. The matrix
gradient. The matrix flow velocity of IIIrock increased, i.e., approximately 103–
flow velocity of IIIrock increased, i.e., approximately 103 –106 -fold larger than that of Irock
larger than that of Irock and IIrock. The low fracture density model A1 had a small n
and IIrock . The low fracture density model A1 had a small number of fracture outlets at
of fracture outlets at the bottom and the matrix contribution to the rock permeabi
the bottom and the matrix contribution to the rock permeability was relatively large. In
relatively large. In contrast, the high fracture density model E1 had a large num
contrast, the high fracture density model E1 had a large number of fracture outlets at the
fracture outlets at the bottom and the matrix made nearly no contribution
bottom and the matrix made nearly no contribution to rock permeability relative to fracture
permeability relative to fracture flow. We suggest that for rocks with low
flow. We suggest that for rocks with low fracture densities, the matrix will significantly
densities, the matrix will significantly contribute to rock permeability. These
contribute to rock permeability. These results indicate that the proposed dual-porosity
indicate that the proposed dual-porosity model is capable of quantitatively and v
model is capable of quantitatively and visually predicting the flow velocity paths and the
predicting the flow velocity paths and the pressure distribution of tight fracture r
pressure distribution of tight fracture rocks.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 15 of 23
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 9. Fracture flow velocity (a) and matrix flow velocity (b) values at the outlets of the model A1
Figure 9. Fracture flow velocity (a) and matrix flow velocity (b) values at the outlets of the model A1 (i) and model E1 (
(i) and model E1 (ii).

3.2. Estimation of3.2. Estimation

Fractured RockofPermeability
Fractured Rock Permeability
Based analysis,
Based on a qualitative on a qualitative
flow pathsanalysis,
increaseflow
withpaths increase
the fracture with the
number, andfracture
rock numb
rock permeability
permeability increases increases
as the fracture density as the fracture
becomes larger. density becomes
Table 6 lists larger. Table 6 l
the simulation
simulationpermeability
results for the equivalent results for the
andequivalent permeability and total porosity.
total porosity.

Table6.6.Equivalent
Table Equivalentpermeability
permeabilityand
andtotal
totalporosity
porosityofof rocks
rocks with
with three
three different
different matrix
matrix properties.
properties.

EquivalentEquivalent Gas Permeability

Gas Permeability Total Porosity Total Porosity
FractureFracture
Density ¯
Density (µm2 ) (μm2) εp εp
ρ (mm −1) κg
ρ (mm−1 ) Irock Irock
II rock II
IIIrock IIII rock
II rockIrock II rock
IIIrock I
rock rock
0.300.30 24.91
24.9124.96
24.96
26.53
26.53
0.081
0.081
0.138 0.282
0.138 0
0.350.35 30.96 30.9631.00 31.00
32.65 32.65
0.088 0.088
0.145 0.2870.145 0
0.390.39 71.13 71.1371.17 71.17
72.75 72.75
0.094 0.094
0.151 0.2920.151 0
0.750.75 133.01 133.03
133.01 134.08
133.03 0.140
134.08 0.194
0.140 0.3280.194 0
1.20 242.35 242.6 242.97 0.190 0.239 0.366
1.20 242.35 242.6 242.97 0.190 0.239 0

Figure 10a,b plotFigure

the variations
10a,b plotinthe
equivalent permeability
variations in equivalentandpermeability
total porosity with
and theporosity w
total
fracture densityfracture
and different rock rank types, respectively. Here, the total porosity refers
density and different rock rank types, respectively. Here, the total porosit
to the total volume fraction
to the of poresfraction
total volume and fractures in and
of pores the fracture
fracturessystem. The permeability
in the fracture system. The perm
and porosity of and
fractured rocks increased with increases in the fracture density,
porosity of fractured rocks increased with increases in the fracture ρ, which density,
was consistent with field examples [66]. Based on Figure 10c, one can
was consistent with field examples [66]. Based on Figure 10c, one observe thatcan
theobserve t
permeability of permeability
the three rockofranks has the
the three rocksame
ranksvariation
has the trend
same as with antrend
variation increase in an incr
as with
fracture density.fracture
Elevated fracture
density. densities
Elevated result densities
fracture in larger result
increases in the increases
in larger equivalent in the equ
permeability withpermeability with the growth of the fracture density. With 0.30/mm,
the growth of the fracture density. With a fracture density ρ of a fracture densit
the fracture density increases
0.30/mm, by 16.7%density
the fracture and theincreases
equivalent by permeability
16.7% and the increases by perm
equivalent
approximately 24.3%. The fracture density increases by 3-fold at a ρ of 1.2 (mm−1 ) and the
increases by approximately 24.3%. The fracture density increases by 3-fold at a
equivalent permeability increases by approximately 8.73-fold.
(mm−1) and the equivalent permeability increases by approximately 8.73-fold.
Energies 2021,Energies
14, 22092021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23 16 of

Figure 10. Variations of κ g (a), ε p (b), ∆κ g, ρ /κ g,ρ=0.30 (c), and κ gm /κ g (d) with fracture density ρ for
Figure 10. Variations
different ̅ (a), The(b),
of rocks. ∆ ̅ , / ̅ axis
horizontal , .in (c),
eachand ̅ / ̅ denotes
subfigure (d) withthefracture density ρρ,for
fracture density different
while rocks. The
the vertical
horizontal axis in each subfigure denotes the fracture density ρ，while the vertical axis represents
axis represents the ratio of the gas permeability variation ∆κ g, ρ = κ g,ρ − κ g,ρ=0.30 in (c), which the ratio of is
the gas
permeability variation ∆ ̅ , = ̅ , − ̅ , . in (c), which is the change of gas permeability with increasing fracture
the change of gas permeability with increasing fracture density to the value of rocks with ρ = 0.30,
density to the value of rocks with ρ = 0.30, ̅ , . , i.e., ∆ ̅ , / ̅ , . = ( ̅ , − ̅ , . )/ ̅ , . . The vertical axis
κ g,ρ=0.30 , i.e., ∆κ g, ρ /κ g,ρ=0.30 = (κ g,ρ − κ g,ρ=0.30 )/κ g,ρ=0.30 . The vertical axis represents the ratio of
represents the ratio of the matrix contribution ̅ / ̅ in (d), which is the gas permeability of matrix domains ̅ to the
the matrix contribution κ gm /κ g in (d), which is the gas permeability of matrix domains κ gm to the
total gas permeability of rocks ̅ . Note: The numerical results at each point represent the average values calculated from
three models withtotal gas permeability
identical of rocks κ g . Note: The numerical results at each point represent the average
fracture density.
values calculated from three models with identical fracture density.
At the same time, we can observe that the equivalent permeability of fractured rock
At the same time, we can observe that the equivalent permeability of fractured rocks
varies little with increases in the porosity and matrix permeability relative to th
varies little with increases in the porosity and matrix permeability relative to the influences
influences of the fracture density, which is consistent with field examples [66]. Howeve
of the fracture density, which is consistent with field examples [66]. However, for low-
for low-density fracture networks, our results indicate that there is a considerable chang
density fracture networks, our results indicate that there is a considerable change in
in the equivalent permeability due to matrix properties. Figure 10d compares the matr
the equivalent permeability due to matrix properties. Figure 10d compares the matrix
contribution ratios of flow with various fracture densities. For Irock and IIrock, there is a ver
contribution ratios of flow with various fracture densities. For Irock and IIrock , there is a
small
very small matrix matrix contribution,
contribution, whichwhich is neariszero,
near butzero,thebut the matrix
matrix contribution
contribution from IIIfrom IIIrock ca
rock
can reach reach
nearlynearly
6.5% of6.5% of the
the total totalAsflow.
flow. As the fracture
the fracture density increases,
density increases, the permeabilit
the permeability,
which first increases, then gradually decreases with the matrix permeability. When the When th
which first increases, then gradually decreases with the matrix permeability.
fracture
fracture density wasdensity
1.2/mm, wasthe1.2/mm,
matrix the matrix contribution
contribution to rock permeability
to rock permeability was nearlywas nearly zer
zero.
Our results also indicate that the matrix contribution in
Our results also indicate that the matrix contribution in model A3 can reach 11.98% (see model A3 can reach 11.98% (se
Figure 11). This is mainly due to the fact that despite the
Figure 11). This is mainly due to the fact that despite the good fracture connectivity, there good fracture connectivity, ther
are both
are both fewer mainfewer mainand
flow paths flow paths and
fractures at thefractures at the bottom
bottom boundary boundary
(see Figure (see Figure 12
12), which
which ultimately led to a weakened fracture flow and
ultimately led to a weakened fracture flow and a relative increase in the matrix contribution a relative increase in the matr
contribution to the equivalent permeability. The− 3 matrix
to the equivalent permeability. The matrix velocity (10 m/s) of IIIrock was 3–5 orders velocity (10 −3 m/s) of IIIrock was 3

of magnitude5 orders
largerofthan
magnitude
that of Ilarger
rock (10
than that ofand
−12 m/s) IrockII(10 −12 m/s)
rock (10
and IIrock
−9 m/s). (10−9 m/s). Additionall
Additionally, the
the matrix contribution to the total flow, despite
matrix contribution to the total flow, despite being approximately 4 orders of magnitude being approximately 4 orders o
magnitude
less than the less than
fracture flow the(10
velocity −
fracture
3 m/s),flow
wasvelocity
relatively (10significant.
−3 m/s), was relativelywesignifican
Therefore,
can concludeTherefore,
that whenwe can conclude that when
the fracture/matrix the fracture/matrix
permeability ratio, i.e., kpermeability
/k
f m , is less ratio,ori.e., kf/km,
than
less
4 than or equal to 10 4 for low fracture density rocks
equal to 10 for low fracture density rocks (i.e., ρ ≤ 0.35 (mm ), wav ≤ 0.284 mm), the − 1 (i.e., ≤ 0.35 (mm −1), wav ≤ 0.28

matrix canmm), the matrix

contribute can contribute
significantly to the significantly
total flow. Here, to the total flow.
fracture Here, fracture
permeability referspermeabilit
to
 Energies2021,
Energies 14,Energies
2021,14, x2209 2021,REVIEW
FOR PEER 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1717ofof23
23 17

refers refers
of to
to the permeability
the permeability theof
a singlepermeability
andofisacalculated
a single fracture
fracture single
and isfracture
as k f and
= was2is/12,
calculated calculated
=where wasis
/12, the=single
where /12, where
w is
fracture
the the
singleaperture. single fracture
fracture aperture. aperture.

Figure11.
Figure Figure
Variation
11.Variation 11.̅ κVariation
of of / /κ
gm ̅ for
g for
rocks ̅ with
ofrocks /with
̅ low
forlow
rocks with
fracture
fracture low fracture
densities:
densities: densities:
(a) (a) mm(a)
= 0.30
= ρ0.30 mm
−1 −1 0.30
and=(b)
and mm
(b)
=
−1 and (b

ρ = mm
0.35 0.35−1mm − 1 0.35
. Themm
. The horizontal
−1 . axis
The indicates
horizontal horizontal axis
axis indicates
the indicates
matrix the permeability
matrix permeability
thepermeability
matrix k mthe
, while , while ,the
while
vertical the vertical
vertical
axis axis axis
represents the represents
ratio of the the
matrix ratio of the matrix
contribution ̅ contribution
/ ̅ , which is̅ /
the ̅
represents the ratio of the matrix contribution κ gm /κ g , which is the gas permeability of matrix of matrix
,
gas which is the
permeability gasof permeability
matrix
domains κ̅ gm to
domains todomains
the total
the total gas ̅ permeability
gas to the total gas
permeability of permeability
of rocks κ g̅ . .
rocks of rocks ̅ .

Figure Flow
12.(a) paths
flow (a) and flow velocity values (b) at the outlets of with
modelvarious
A3 with various matrix
Figure 12. FlowFigure 12. and
paths (a) Flow paths
flow andvalues
velocity velocity
(b) at thevalues
outlets(b)
ofatmodel
the outlets
A3 with of model
variousA3 matrix
matrix permeabilities. permeabilities.
(b) (b)
The permeabilities.
horizontal axis and (b) The
vertical horizontal
axis indicate axis
the and vertical
x-coordinate axis
andindicate
methanethe x-coordinate
flow velocity
The horizontal axis and vertical axis indicate the x-coordinate and methane flow velocity magnitude at each outlet and methane
magnitude flow
at each outlet
boundary, respectively.
boundary, respectively. velocity magnitude at each outlet boundary, respectively.

3.3. The Quantitative Relationship

3.3. TheRelationship
Quantitative between Pore–Fracture
Relationship Distribution and
between Distribution
Pore–Fracture Permeability
Distribution and Permeability
3.3. The Quantitative between Pore–Fracture and Permeability
To better understand
To better the impacts
understand that coupled
thecoupled
impactsflow flow
that in in
coupleda matrix
flow and fractures
infractures andhas
a matrix has fractures ha
To better understand the impacts that a matrix and on
on rock permeability, we calculated
rock permeability, the variations in permeability regarding the fracture
rock permeability, we calculatedwe thecalculated
variationsthe variations in regarding
in permeability permeabilitytheregarding
fracture the fra
density and matrix
density permeability
and matrix to to quantitatively
permeability analyze the permeability
to quantitatively analyze the of of fractured of fract
permeability
density and matrix permeability quantitatively analyze the permeability fractured
rocks. We found that the
rocks. equivalent permeability κ g of fractured̅ rocks obeys the linear
rocks. We found thatWethefound that the
equivalent equivalent permeability
permeability ̅ of fractured rocks of fractured
obeys the rocks obeys the li
linear
exponential function of the fracture density, ρ, and matrix permeability, k m , which is shown
exponential exponential
function function of the fracture density, ρ, and
of the fracture density, ρ, and matrix permeability, matrix permeability,
, which is , whi
in the following equation:
shown in the
shown in the following equation:following equation:
ρ km 2
κ ̅g =
= −109.83 +̅ 106.69exp
−109.83 + = −109.83+
106.69 + 106.69
+3.71exp
3.71 ; ;R+ 3.71
==0.97
0.97 ; = 0.97(16)
(16)

Figure13
Figure Figure the
13illustrates
illustrates 13
theillustrates the 3-Dbetween
3-Drelationship
3-D relationship relationship
between between permeability,
permeability,
permeability, ̅ (μm2), fra
(µm22),), fracture
κ̅ g (μm fracture
−1 ), and (mm
density, −1), and matrix permeability,2 ). According
km (μmto2). According to this relationship
density, ρ (mm
density, −1 matrix
), and matrix permeability,
permeability, kmk(μm
m (µm
2). According to this
this relationship,
relationship, for
afor a given
given a given
fractured
fractured fractured
rockrock rock
structure,
structure, structure,
thethe the can
permeability
permeability permeability
can can be
bebeestimated
estimated byestimated
by thestatistical
the by the statis
statistical
Energies 2021,
Energies 14, x14,
2021, FOR PEER REVIEW
2209 18 of1823of 23

distribution characteristics
distribution of the
characteristics fractures
of the andand
fractures matrix. This
matrix. relationship
This provides
relationship data
provides data
references when evaluating fracturing effects.
references when evaluating fracturing effects.

Figure
Figure 13. Equivalent
13. Equivalent permeability̅ as
permeability κ as a linearexponential
a linear exponentialfunction
functionofoffracture
fracturedensity
density ρ and
andmatrix
permeability k . Note: The numerical results at each point represent the mean values
matrix permeability km. Note: The numerical results at each point represent the mean values
m calculated from
three models with identical fracture densities.
calculated from three models with identical fracture densities.

SinceSince
the the contribution
contribution of the
of the matrix
matrix flow flow to the
to the total
total flowflow is weaker
is weaker thanthan
thatthat of the
of the
fracture structures, we observed that the permeability increases
fracture structures, we observed that the permeability increases with matrix permeability. with matrix permeability.
However,
However, using
using Equation
Equation (16),
(16), we we speculated
speculated thatthat
thethe matrix
matrix contribution
contribution to the
to the totaltotal
flow flow
increases with a decrease in the fracture density. When the fracture
increases with a decrease in the fracture density. When the fracture density, , is less than density, ρ, is less than
or equal
or equal to 0.30
to 0.30 andandthethe
ratioratio of the
of the fracture–matrix
fracture–matrix permeability,
permeability, kf/kkfm/k , is less
, ismless than than or equal
or equal
to4 10 4
to 10 for for
thethe fracture
fracture system
system developed
developed in this
in this study
study (wav(w=av0.284
= 0.284 mmmm for for
thethe random
random
fracture orientation, while the matrix permeability is between 0.01 and 1000 mD), matrix
fracture orientation, while the matrix permeability is between 0.01 and 1000 mD), the the
contribution
matrix contribution to the
to rock permeability
the rock permeability can be cansignificant. In contrast,
be significant. In contrast, whenwhenthe fracture
the
density,
fracture ρ, is greater
density, than or equal
ρ, is greater than or to 1.2,
equal thetomatrix contribution
1.2, the is nearly negligible.
matrix contribution is nearly
negligible.Fluid flow partitioning between the matrix and fractures in fractured rocks is pro-
posed
FluidinflowFigure 14. Compared
partitioning with the
between the study
matrixbyand Matthäi et al.in
fractures [31], a two-dimensional
fractured rocks is
partitioning of fracture–matrix flow concerning the fracture heterogeneity
proposed in Figure 14. Compared with the study by Matthäi et al. [31], a two-dimensional and the fracture–
matrix permeability
partitioning ratios (kf /k
of fracture–matrix m ) was
flow established
concerning the for characteristic
fracture heterogeneity flow regimes.
and the This
indicated that critical behavior exists when the flow is either dominated by the matrix
fracture–matrix permeability ratios (kf/km) was established for characteristic flow regimes.
or fractures. Similar to the results of Matthäi et al. [31], a critical behavior was observed
This indicated that critical behavior exists when the flow is either dominated by the matrix
around k /km ≈ 104 . For matrix permeability of 0.01 mD ≤ kf ≤ 1000 mD and a ratio of
or fractures. f Similar to the results of Matthäi4 et al. [31], a critical behavior was observed −1
fracture–matrix
around kf/km ≈ 104.permeability of kf /km ≤ 10 ,of
For matrix permeability the0.01
critical
mDbehavior
≤ kf ≤ 1000occurs mDnear andρ a= 0.35
ratiomm of
(w = 0.284 mm). However, when the fracture density
fracture–matrix permeability of kf/km ≤ 10 , the critical behavior occurs near
av 4 reaches a critical value,
= 0.35 mmthe flow
−1
is mainly dominated by fracture flow. This consists of three zones: (i) when the fracture
(wav = 0.284 mm). However, when the fracture density reaches a critical value, the flow is
density is extremely low (ρ ≤ 0.35 mm−1 , wav ≤ 0.284 mm), the matrix contributes signifi-
mainly dominated by fracture flow. This consists of three zones: (i) when the fracture
cantly to the total flow; (ii) when the fracture density is low or medium, the matrix slightly
density is extremely low (ρ ≤ 0.35 mm−1, wav ≤ 0.284 mm), the matrix contributes −1
affects the total flow; (iii) when the fracture density is sufficiently high (ρ ≥ 1.2 mm ,
significantly to the total flow; (ii) when the fracture density is low or medium, the matrix
wav ≤ 0.284 mm), fracture flow completely dominates the total flow.
slightly affects the total flow; (iii) when the fracture density is sufficiently high ( ≥ 1.2
mm−1, wav ≤ 0.284 mm), fracture flow completely dominates the total flow.
 Energies2021,
Energies 2021,14,
14,2209
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of
19 of2323

Figure14.
Figure 14.Two-dimensional
Two-dimensionalfluid
fluidflow
flowpartitioning
partitioning between
between the
the fractures
fractures and matrix of fractured
rockswith
rocks with various
various fracture
fracture densities
densities(w(wavav= 0.284 mm).
= 0.284 Three
mm). flowflow
Three regimes werewere
regimes classified to
classified to
demonstratefracture–matrix
demonstrate fracture–matrix flow
flow partitioning
partitioning using
usingthe
thepermeability ratiokf//k
permeabilityratio m and fracture
kf //k and fracture
m
density . (i) The matrix significantly contributes to the flow: kf//km < 1 × 10− −4 and
4 and ρ ≤ ≤ 0.35 mm−1−;1
density ρ. (i) The matrix significantly contributes to the flow: kf //k m < 1 × 10 0.35 mm ;
(ii) the matrix contributes slightly to the flow: 0.35 mm−1 <−1 ≤ 1.2 mm−1; (iii) > 1.2 mm−1:
(ii) the matrix contributes slightly to the flow: 0.35 mm < ρ ≤ 1.2 mm−1 ; (iii) ρ > 1.2 mm−1 :
fractures dominate the flow.
fractures dominate the flow.

4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Inthis
In thisstudy,
study,we we developed
developed aa dual-porosity
dual-porosity model model to toinvestigate
investigatethe thepermeability
permeabilityof
tight fractured rocks, with a special focus on the quantitative
of tight fractured rocks, with a special focus on the quantitative analysis of the analysis of thecoupling
coupling
contributions of
contributions offractures
fracturesand andmicropores
microporestotothe theequivalent
equivalentpermeability
permeabilityofoffractured
fractured
reservoirsusing
reservoirs usingvariable
variableexchanges
exchangesbetween
betweenthe thevelocity
velocityandandpressure
pressurefields.
fields.Percolation
Percolation
theorywas
theory wasusedusedtoto establish
establish fracture
fracture networks
networks withwith complicated
complicated fracture
fracture heterogeneity
heterogeneity via
via self-developed codes, characterized by fracture density
self-developed codes, characterized by fracture density and percolation possibility. and percolation possibility.
The
The permeability
rock rock permeability calculationscalculations
considered considered gas compressibility
gas compressibility and Klinkenberg and Klinkenberg
effects. The
effects. The two-dimensional
two-dimensional partitioning partitioning
schemes for schemes
three flow forregimes
three flow were regimes
proposed weretoproposed
further
to further demonstrate
demonstrate the fracture–matrix
the fracture–matrix flow partitioning
flow partitioning in fractured in fractured
reservoirsreservoirs
with various with
variousdensities
fracture fracture densities and fracture/matrix
and fracture/matrix permeabilitypermeability
ratios. Theratios.
mainThe main of
results results of this
this study
study
are are as follows:
as follows:
(i)As
(i) Asthethefracture
fracture density
density increases,
increases, the the fracture
fracture connectivity
connectivity gradually
gradually improves.
improves. The
gas
Thepermeability
gas permeability significantly increases
significantly withwith
increases an increase in the
an increase fracture
in the density,
fracture density,whichwhichis
due to increases
is due to increases in the fluid
in the velocity
fluid andand
velocity flow paths;
flow paths;
(ii)
(ii)The
Thegasgasflow
flowininfractured
fracturedrocksrockshashasclear
clearhydraulic
hydraulicpaths,
paths,which
whichconsist
consistofofseveral
several
connected
connected fracture
fractureclusters.
clusters. Lower
Lower or or even
even flow
flow did
did not
not occur
occur in inthe
themajority
majorityofofthe the
connected
connectedfractures;
fractures;
(iii)
(iii)Three
Threeflowflowregions
regionswere weredivided
dividedtotodemonstrate
demonstratefracture–matrix
fracture–matrixflow flowusing
usingthe the
two-dimensional partitioning method. The contribution
two-dimensional partitioning method. The contribution of fractures and matrix of fractures and matrix micropores
toward
micropores gas permeability
toward gascan be determined
permeability canusing
be the fracture/matrix
determined using permeability
the fracture/matrix ratios
and the fracture
permeability density.
ratios Thefracture
and the contribution
density.of matrix microporesofcannot
The contribution matrixbe neglectedcannot
micropores if the
fracture density is lower than a critical value;
be neglected if the fracture density is lower than a critical value;
(iv)
(iv)We Wederived
derivedthe thequantitative
quantitativerelationships
relationshipsbetween
betweenthe thefracture
fracturedensity,
density,porosity,
porosity,
and
and equivalent permeability for the three ranks of rocks. Permeability is characterizedby
equivalent permeability for the three ranks of rocks. Permeability is characterized by
exponential
exponentialgrowth growth with increases
with increasesin fracture density
in fracture and rock
density andporosity. This study
rock porosity. Thisintends
study
intends to provide a research basis and numerical reference for the quantitative analysis
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 20 of 23

to provide a research basis and numerical reference for the quantitative analysis and visual
description of the relationships between rock permeability and pore–fracture structures.
It is noteworthy that although we were able to validate the dual-porosity model based
on the tests of a series of single-fracture and cross-fracture models, there is still a lack of
direct experimental verification of the proposed dual-porosity model. To overcome this,
we intend to used three-dimensional printing (or additive manufacturing) technology [67]
to fabricate a transparent dual-porosity model for future experimental investigations and
to improve the predictive capability of the current numerical model. Moreover, because
of the extremely high heterogeneity and anisotropy of the fracture structures in the real
rocks, more factors need to be considered to better characterize the real rock structures and
describe the 3D flow behavior in future studies and to explore the controlling mechanism of
rock permeability in a dual-porosity model with micropores and fractures. Considering the
primary purpose of this study and the limited length of research articles, we will discuss
this issue in our follow-up studies.

Author Contributions: Methodology, software, and validation, J.L.; formal analysis, investigation,
resources, and data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and
editing, J.C. and Y.Z.; supervision and funding acquisition, J.C. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors acknowledge financial support provided by the National Key R&D Program
of China [grant No. 2019YFC0810704], and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant
No. 71861167002).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

n(l)dl fracture number that has a length interval of [l, l+dl]

α proportional coefficient that reflects the fracture density
a an exponent varying from one to three
l fracture length (m)
n total number of fractures with a length of l in a fracture system
L system size (m)
p percolation parameter
lmin minimum fracture lengths in a fracture system (m)
lmax maximum fracture lengths in a fracture system (m)
as actual parameter
asc critical parameter
r ratio of as to asc
Wav average facture aperture (m)
kf fracture permeability (m2)
km matrix permeability (m2 )
εm matrix porosity
εp porosity
ρ fracture density
ρ0 fluid density (kg/m3 )
ρg methane density (kg/m3 )
µ dynamic viscosity (Pa·s)
u fluid velocity (m/s)
p pressure (Pa)
g gravity vector (m/s2 )
k absolute permeability (m2 )
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 21 of 23

Q total fluid flux (m3 )

A cross-sectional area of flow (m2 )
∆p pressure difference between inlets and outlets (Pa)
vi section velocity (m/s)
si section area at outlets (m2)
pav average gas pressure (Pa)
b coefficient of Klinkenberg effects
k f eq equivalent fracture permeability (m2 )
le element length of a square (m)
w fracture aperture (m)
γ coefficient related to the roughness of the fracture surface
qa downstream outlet flow rate (m2 /s)
ρw water density (kg/m3 )
H1 hydraulic head at the top (m)
H2 hydraulic head at the bottom (m)
κg equivalent gas permeability (m2 )

References
1. Chen, X.L.; Tang, X.M.; Qian, Y.P. Propagation characteristics of multipole acoustic logging in cracked porous tight formations.
Chin. J. Geophys. 2014, 57, 2961–2970.
2. Zhi, Z.W.; Cheng, W.Z.; Jun, W.H.; Jin, C.M. Research Advances and Exploration Significance of Large-area Accumulation of Low
and Medium Abundance Lithologic Reservoirs. Acta Geol. Sin. 2008, 82, 463–476.
3. Fu, P.; Johnson, S.M.; Carrigan, C.R. An explicitly coupled hydro-geomechanical model for simulating hydraulic fracturing in
arbitrary discrete fracture networks. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. 2014, 37, 2278–2300. [CrossRef]
4. Hu, X.; Xie, J.; Cai, W.; Wang, R.; Davarpanah, A. Thermodynamic effects of cycling carbon dioxide injectivity in shale reservoirs.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2020, 195, 107717. [CrossRef]
5. Teimoori, A.; Chen, Z.; Rahman, S.S.; Tran, T. Effective Permeability Calculation Using Boundary Element Method in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. Liq. Fuels Technol. 2005, 23, 693–709. [CrossRef]
6. Abdelazim, R.; Rahman, S.S. Estimation of Permeability of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs by Pressure Transient Analysis: An
Innovative Reservoir Characterisation and Flow Simulation. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2016, 145, 404–422. [CrossRef]
7. Park, Y.C.; Sung, W.M.; Kim, S.J. Development of a FEM Reservoir Model Equipped with an Effective Permeability Tensor and its
Application to Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Energy Sources 2002, 24, 531–542. [CrossRef]
8. Gang, T.; Kelkar, M.G. Efficient History Matching in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, USA, 22–26 April 2006.
9. Wang, C.; Zhai, P.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Wu, X.; Jiang, Y. Careful features of lithotype cracks based on Micro-CT
technology. Coal Sci. Technol. 2017, 45, 137–142. [CrossRef]
10. Peng, P.; Ju, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Gao, F. Numerical analysis of the effect of natural microcracks on the supercritical CO2
fracturing crack network of shale rock based on bonded particle models. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. 2017, 41, 1–23. [CrossRef]
11. Cheng, H.; Ju, Y.; Xu, T.; Yue, S.; Jia, T.; Neupane, B.; Han, K.; Yu, Q.; Zhu, H.; Cai, J. Full-Scale and Multi-Method Combined
Characterization of Micro/Nano Pores in Organic Shale. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2017, 17, 6634–6644.
12. Hu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, X.; Li, Z.; Xie, Z.; Li, M. Characterization of micro-nano pore networks in shale oil reservoirs of
Paleogene Shahejie Formation in Dongying Sag of Bohai Bay Basin, East China. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 2017, 44, 720–730. (In Chinese)
[CrossRef]
13. Chen, M.; Bai, M.; Roegiers, J.C. Permeability Tensors of Anisotropic Fracture Networks. Math. Geol. 1999, 31, 335–373. [CrossRef]
14. Min, K.B.; Jing, L.; Stephansson, O. Determining the equivalent permeability tensor for fractured rock masses using a stochastic
REV approach: Method and application to the field data from Sellafield, UK. Hydrogeol. J. 2004, 12, 497–510. [CrossRef]
15. Snow, D.T. Anisotropie Permeability of Fractured Media. Water Resour. Res. 1969, 5, 1273–1289. [CrossRef]
16. Wanniarachchi, W.A.M.; Ranjith, P.G.; Perera, M.S.A.; Rathnaweera, T.D.; Zhang, D.C.; Zhang, C. Investigation of effects of
fracturing fluid on hydraulic fracturing and fracture permeability of reservoir rocks: An experimental study using water and
foam fracturing. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 194, S001379441731353X. [CrossRef]
17. Uehara, S.; Takahashi, M.; Oikawa, Y.; Masuda, K. Depth dependency of fracture permeability in Neogene mudstone. Agu Fall
Meet. Abstr. 2009, 2009, H13E-1023.
18. Liang, Y.; Tsuji, S.; Jia, J.; Tsuji, T.; Matsuoka, T. Modeling CO2–Water–Mineral Wettability and Mineralization for Carbon
Geosequestration. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 1530–1540. [CrossRef]
19. Zhong, Y.; Zhang, H.; Shao, Z.; Li, K. Gas Transport Mechanisms in Micro- and Nano-Scale Matrix Pores in Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Chem. Technol. Fuels Oil 2015, 51, 545–555. [CrossRef]
20. Duan, Y.; Cao, T.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, G. Simulation of gas flow in nano-scale pores of shale gas deposits. J. Southwest Petrol.
Univ. 2015, 37, 63–68.
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 22 of 23

21. Davarpanah, A.; Mirshekari, B. Experimental Investigation and Mathematical Modeling of Gas Diffusivity by Carbon Dioxide
and Methane Kinetic Adsorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 12392–12400. [CrossRef]
22. Rasmussen, T.C.; Jim-Yeh, T.C.; Evans, D.D. Effect of variable Fracture Permeability/Matrix Permeability Ratios on Three-
Dimensional Fractured Rock Hydraulic Conductivity. 1989. pp. 337–358. Available online: https://eurekamag.com/research/01
8/362/018362917.php (accessed on 23 March 2021).
23. Lough, M.F.; Lee, S.H.; Kamath, J. An Efficient Boundary Integral Formulation for Flow Through Fractured Porous Media. J.
Comput. Phys. 1998, 143, 462–483. [CrossRef]
24. Lee, S.H.; Lough, M.F.; Jensen, C.L. Hierarchical modeling of flow in naturally fractured formations with multiple length scales.
Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37, 443–455. [CrossRef]
25. Neuman, S.P. Multiscale Relationships Between Fracture Length, Aperture, Density and Permeability. Geophys Res. Lett. 2015, 35,
1092–1104. [CrossRef]
26. Bai, M.; Ma, Q.; Roegiers, J.C. Dual-porosity behaviour of naturally fractured reservoirs. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. 2010, 18,
359–376. [CrossRef]
27. Cai, L.; Ding, D.Y.; Wang, C.; Wu, Y.S. Accurate and Efficient Simulation of Fracture–Matrix Interaction in Shale Gas Reservoirs.
Transp. Porous Med. 2015, 107, 305–320. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, W.; Wei, Y.; Hu, X.; Hua, L.; Wu, B. A Semi-analytical Model for Simulating Real Gas Transport in Nanopores and Complex
Fractures of Shale Gas Reservoirs. AIChE J. 2017, 64, 326–337. [CrossRef]
29. Abbasi, M.; Madani, M.; Sharifi, M.; Kazemi, A. Fluid flow in fractured reservoirs: Exact analytical solution for transient dual
porosity model with variable rock matrix block size. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2018, 164, 571–583. [CrossRef]
30. Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, S.S. Studies of Hydraulic Fracture-Propagation Behavior in Presence of Natural Fractures: Fully Coupled
Fractured-Reservoir Modeling in Poroelastic Environments. Int. J. Geomech. 2013, 13, 809–826. [CrossRef]
31. Matthäi, S.K.; Belayneh, M. Fluid flow partitioning between fractures and a permeable rock matrix. Geophys Res. Lett. 2004, 31, 7.
[CrossRef]
32. Sanaee, R.; Oluyemi, G.F.; Hossain, M.; Oyeneyin, M.B. Fracture-Matrix Flow Partitioning and Cross Flow: Numerical Modeling
of Laboratory Fractured Core Flood. In Proceedings of the 2012 COMSOL Conference, Milan, Italy, 10–12 October 2012.
33. Lei, Q.; Wang, X.; Min, K.-B.; Rutqvist, J. Interactive roles of geometrical distribution and geomechanical deformation of fracture
networks in fluid flow through fractured geological media. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2020, 12, 780–792. [CrossRef]
34. Wong, D.L.Y.; Doster, F.; Geiger, S.; Kamp, A. Partitioning Thresholds in Hybrid Implicit-Explicit Representations of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR025774. [CrossRef]
35. Jia, C. Characteristics of a Superimposed Basin and the Promise of a Buried Petroleum Play. In Characteristics of Chinese Petroleum
Geology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
36. Karpyn, Z.T.; Alajmi, A.; Radaelli, F.; Halleck, P.M.; Grader, A.S. X-ray CT and hydraulic evidence for a relationship between
fracture conductivity and adjacent matrix porosity. Eng. Geol. 2009, 103, 139–145. [CrossRef]
37. Liu, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, Y. Progress in the Application of AE and CT in Research of Coal and Rock Fracture Propagation. Met. Mine
2008, 5, 63–66.
38. Kock, T.D.; Boone, M.A.; Schryver, T.D.; Stappen, J.V.; Derluyn, H.; Masschaele, B.; Schutter, G.D.; Cnudde, V. A Pore-Scale
Study of Fracture Dynamics in Rock Using X-ray Micro-CT Under Ambient Freeze–Thaw Cycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49,
2867–2874. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Ya, L.I.; Jie, Y.U.; Man, X.U.; Hui, W.U. SEM Study on Fracture Characteristic of Mineralized wall Rock Samples of Nannigou
Gold Deposit in Guizhou under High Temperature and High Pressure. Bull. Miner. Petrol. Geochem. 2000, 39, 5271–5276.
40. Neupane, B.; Ju, Y.; Huang, C. Micro/Nano-Pore Structure Characterization of Western and Central Nepal Coals Using Scanning
Electron Microscopy and Gas Adsorption. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2017, 17, 1–7. [CrossRef]
41. Yang, H.E.; Li, K.; Chai, J. Numerical Analysis of Unsteady Seepage Through Fracture Network in Rock Mass Simulated by the
Monte-Carlo Method. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2005, 13, 81–86.
42. Canals, M.; Ayt Ougougdal, M. Percolation on anisotropic media, the Bethe lattice revisited. Application to fracture networks.
Nonlinear Proc. Geoph. 1997, 4, 11–18. [CrossRef]
43. Sisavath, S.; Mourzenko, V.; Genthon, P.; Thovert, J.F.; Adler, P.M. Geometry, percolation and transport properties of fracture
networks derived from line data. Geophys J. Int. 2004, 157, 917–934. [CrossRef]
44. Reuschlé, T.; Darot, M.; Gueguen, Y. Mechanical and transport properties of crustal rocks: From single cracks to crack statistics.
Phys. Earth Planet Inter. 1989, 55, 353–360. [CrossRef]
45. Mo, H.; Bai, M.; Lin, D.; Roegiers, J.C. Study of flow and transport in fracture network using percolation theory. Appl. Math.
Model 1998, 22, 277–291. [CrossRef]
46. Rivard, C.; Delay, F. Simulations of solute transport in fractured porous media using 2D percolation networks with uncorrelated
hydraulic conductivity fields. Hydrogeol. J. 2004, 12, 613–627. [CrossRef]
47. Pardo, Y.A.; Donado, L.D. Optimization of flow modeling in fractured media with discrete fracture network via percolation
theory. In Proceedings of the Agu Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, 9–13 December 2013.
48. Bagalkot, N.; Kumar, G.S. Effect of random fracture aperture on the transport of colloids in a coupled fracture-matrix system.
Geosci. J. 2016, 21, 1–15. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 2209 23 of 23

49. Zhang, Y.Q.; Oldenburg, C.M.; Finsterle, S. Percolation-theory and fuzzy rule-based probability estimation of fault leakage at
geologic carbon sequestration sites. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 59, 1447–1459. [CrossRef]
50. Gudmundsson, A. Geometry, formation and development of tectonic fractures on the Reykjanes Peninsula, southwest Iceland.
Tectonophysics 1987, 139, 295–308. [CrossRef]
51. Scholz, C.H.; Cowie, P.A. Determination of total strain from faulting using slip measurements. Nature 1990, 346, 837–839.
[CrossRef]
52. Segall, P.; Pollard, D.D. Joint formation in granitic rock of the Sierra Nevada. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 1983, 94, 1005–1008. [CrossRef]
53. Dreuzy, J.-R.d.; Davy, P.; Bour, O. Hydraulic properties of two-dimensional random fracture networks following a power law
length distribution 1. Effective connectivity. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37, 2079–2096. [CrossRef]
54. Mourzenko, V.V.; Thovert, J.F.; Adler, P.M. Percolation of three-dimensional fracture networks with power-law size distribution.
Phys. Rev. E 2005, 72, 066307. [CrossRef]
55. Khamforoush, M.; Shams, K.; Thovert, J.F.; Adler, P.M. Permeability and percolation of anisotropic three-dimensional fracture
networks. Phys. Rev. E 2008, 77, 056307. [CrossRef]
56. Liu, D.M.; Yao, Y.B.; Cai, Y.D.; Zhang, B.R.; Zhang, K.M.; Li, J.Q. Characteristics of Porosity and Permeability and Their Geological
Control of Permo-Carboniferous Coals in North China. Geoscience 2010, 24, 1198–1203.
57. Boaca, T.; Malureanu, I. Determination of oil reservoir permeability and porosity from resistivity measurement using an analytical
model. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2017, 157, 884–893. [CrossRef]
58. Youssef, A.A.; Awotunde, A.A. Modelling fluid flow in karst reservoirs using Darcy Model with estimated permeability
distribution. Comput. Geosci. 2019, 133, 104311. [CrossRef]
59. Tiab, D.; Donaldson, E.C. Experiment 11—Verification of the Klinkenberg Effect. Petrophys 2004, 822–825. [CrossRef]
60. Tanikawa, W.; Shimamoto, T. Comparison of Klinkenberg-corrected gas permeability and water permeability in sedimentary
rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 229–238. [CrossRef]
61. Dong, J.; Hsu, J.; Wu, W.; Shimamoto, T.; Hung, J. Stress-dependence of the permeability and porosity of sandstone and shale
from TCDP Hole-A. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2010, 47, 1141–1157. [CrossRef]
62. Konecny, P.; Kozusnikova, A. Influence of stress on the permeability of coal and sedimentary rocks of the Upper Silesian basin.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2011, 48, 347–352. [CrossRef]
63. Wang, Z.; Rutqvist, J.; Zuo, J.; Dai, Y. A modified equivalent permeability model of fracture element and its verification. Chin. J.
Rock Mech. Eng. 2013, 32, 728–733. (In Chinese)
64. Mckenna, S.A.; Reeves, P.C. Fractured Continuum Approach to Stochastic Permeability Modeling. AAPG Spec. Vol. 2006.
[CrossRef]
65. Svensson, U. A continuum representation of fracture networks. Part I: Method and basic test cases. J. Hydrol. 2001, 250, 170–186.
[CrossRef]
66. Maria, A.; Keller, A.A. Pore scale processes that control dispersion of colloids in saturated porous media. Water Resour. Res. 2004,
40, 114–125. [CrossRef]
67. Chang, C.; Ju, Y.; Xie, H.; Zhou, Q.; Gao, F. Non-Darcy interfacial dynamics of air-water two-phase flow in rough fractures under
drainage conditions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4570. [CrossRef] [PubMed]