Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Engineering Advance

Energy geotechnics: Advances in subsurface energy recovery, storage,

exchange, and waste management q
John S. McCartney a,⇑, Marcelo Sánchez b,1, Ingrid Tomac a,2
a
University of California San Diego, Department of Structural Engineering, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, United States
b
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3136 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3136, United States

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

Article history: Energy geotechnics involves the use of geotechnical principles to understand and engineer the coupled
Available online 17 February 2016 thermo-hydro-chemo-mechanical processes encountered in collecting, exchanging, storing, and protect-
ing energy resources in the subsurface. In addition to research on these fundamental coupled processes
Keywords: and characterization of relevant material properties, applied research is being performed to develop ana-
Energy geotechnics lytical tools for the design and analysis of different geo-energy applications. The aims of this paper are to
Energy waste disposal discuss the fundamental physics and constitutive models that are common to these different applica-
Energy piles
tions, and to summarize recent advances in the development of relevant analytical tools.
Carbon sequestration
Methane hydrates
Ó 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
Hydraulic fracturing license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2. Fundamental developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
3. Gas hydrate sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
4. Hydraulic enhancement in energy georeservoirs (geothermal and hydrocarbons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5. Carbon dioxide geological sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
6. High level radioactive waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
7. Energy geo-storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
8. Energy geo-structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9. Other geotechnical activities related to the energy sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
10. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

1. Introduction of Energy Geotechnics. Energy Geotechnics builds upon past expe-

rience and analyses to solve new challenges associated with recov-
Geotechnical engineers have traditionally been at the core of ery and characterization of existing and new energy resources,
the energy sector, solving problems associated with resource utilization of heat exchange processes in civil engineering infras-
recovery, energy transportation, and energy waste management. tructure, storage of energy in the subsurface in different forms,
In the last few years, geotechnical engineering has expanded its and containment of carbon and nuclear waste in engineered sys-
presence in the energy sector by forming the new research area tems. At the core of this expansion has been research into the
behavior of soils and rocks under complex and extreme conditions
q
This is an Engineering Advance paper. involving coupled mechanical, hydraulic, thermal, and geochemi-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 858 534 9630. cal processes, and development of analytical tools and constitutive
E-mail addresses: mccartney@ucsd.edu (J.S. McCartney), msanchez@civil.tamu. models capable of considering the range of phenomena encoun-
edu (M. Sánchez), itomac@eng.ucsd.edu (I. Tomac).
1 tered in the subsurface. In response to new research area, the Inter-
Tel.: +1 979 862 6604.
2
Tel.: +1 858 534 9630. national Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.01.002
0266-352X/Ó 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
(ISSMGE) has formed Technical Committee 308 as a clearinghouse
for knowledge on this topic. Developments in the area of Energy
Geotechnics are expected to play a key role in the energy arena
in the near future due to the increase in energy demands and the
corresponding need for energy efficiency in the next decades asso-
ciated with economic development and population growth world-
wide. The goal of geotechnical engineers is to provide sustainable
solutions for these energy-related needs of society.
Energy Geotechnics encompasses a large number of different
applications, with a common thread of needing to understand cou-
pled flow, deformation, and reaction processes encountered when
collecting, exchanging, storing, and protecting energy resources in
the subsurface. Energy generation applications involving geotech-
nics include recovery and characterization of gas hydrate-bearing
sediments, development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)
for electrical power generation, and collection of hydrocarbons
from challenging geological settings. Recent contributions in EGS
and hydrocarbon recovery are primarily related to permeability
enhancement of rock deposits via hydraulic fracturing and prop-
pant placement. Another important application is the protection
of the environment through the disposal of energy waste, including
both high-level radioactive waste disposal and geologic sequestra-
tion of carbon dioxide. The design of radioactive waste contain-
ment systems relies on prediction of the long-term behavior of
engineered and natural barriers, while geologic sequestration of
carbon dioxide requires an understanding of natural aquitards
and permeability enhancement of subsurface aquifers. Energy
geo-storage applications include both storage of thermal energy
in borehole arrays, thermohaline salt caverns, or aquifers, as well
as storage of energy in the form of compressed air in caverns or
aquifers. In addition to design and construction concerns, the pri-
mary question in geo-storage applications is the long-term effi-
ciency of energy recovery. The use of geotechnical infrastructure
such as building foundations, walls, or embankments as thermal
energy exchangers to form energy geo-structures is reaching the
point of maturity from a research perspective. However, new chal-
lenges are still being encountered as this technology is imple-
mented into practice. Finally, there are several activities related
to operations in the energy sector that are widely implemented
in engineering practice but are seeing new developments. These
include the construction of pipelines, design of foundation systems
for the unique loading conditions of offshore wind or tidal energy
infrastructure, mining operations associated with oil sands, design
of dams for pumped-hydro energy storage, and quantification of
embodied energy in geotechnical infrastructure. This paper will
summarize the key literature relevant to these applications.
2. Fundamental developments
An underlying theme among the different topics within Energy
Geotechnics is the need to predict the flow of fluids and transfer of
heat in porous or fractured media, and understand the coupled role
of, or impacts on, the mechanical response of the media (i.e., vol-
ume change, changes in stiffness, changes in strength). The govern-
ing equations for coupled heat transfer and water flow are well-
established in the literature for deformable, water-saturated por-
ous media [37,295,38,300,294]. The governing equations for cou-
pled heat transfer and flow of water in liquid and vapor forms
are similarly well-established for unsaturated porous media in
nondeformable conditions [255,53,334,214,339], deformable
conditions [244,338], and in the presence of pore fluids containing
chemicals [64,119]. Going hand in hand with the governing equa-
tions is the development of coupled, nonisothermal constitutive
relationships for deformable and nondeformable soils, including
the soil–water retention curve (e.g. [353,117,265,367,385]),
245
hydraulic conductivity function (e.g., [66,389,91]), and thermal
conductivity function [75,146,194].
Thermal, hydraulic (both gas and liquid) and mechanical (THM)
processes have been implemented in fully-coupled research codes
(some of them freely-available), such as CODE_BRIGHT [244], COM-
PASS [340] and LAGAMINE [69]. Other researchers have opted for
coupling two (or more) codes to model multiphysics process in por-
ous media, as for example Rutqvist [273], who coupled the com-
mercial mechanical finite difference program FLAC3D [148] with
TOUGH2 [259], a finite volume program for simulating the coupled
transport of water, vapor, non-condensible gas, and heat in porous
and fractured media. More recently, commercial finite element
software packages capable of modeling THM processes in geologi-
cal media, such as COMSOL [321], have become available. The val-
idation of coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and chemical
numerical codes is a critical step toward reliable predictions.
Although there are a limited number of calibration data sets for
boundary value problems involving coupled heat transfer and fluid
flow in saturated soils [196,94] and unsaturated soils
[85,377,63,31], challenges still exist in accurately measuring and
relating relevant variables (e.g., changes in temperature, water con-
tent, water vapor fluxes, suction, thermal conductivity). This is
especially the case in deformable porous media. In this context, it
is worth highlighting the DECOVALEX project [71]. DECOVALEX
(DEvelopment of COupled models and their VALidation against
Experiments) is an international research and model comparison
collaboration (initiated in 1992), for advancing the understanding
and modeling of coupled THM and THM and chemical (THMC) pro-
cesses in geological systems intended for the disposal of radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel (e.g. [17]). Other research efforts, like
the MUSE (Mechanics of Unsaturated Soils for Engineering)
research network [100], and the ‘Methane Hydrate Reservoir Simu-
lator Code Comparison Study’ [227] have also contemplated the
validation of constitutive models and coupled computer codes.
The mechanical behavior of soils and rocks subjected to simul-
taneous multiphysics actions is a prime interest of geotechnical/-
geomechanical engineers. Constitutive models predicting the
mechanical response of soils under saturated and unsaturated con-
ditions have been under continuous development since the formu-
lation of the theory of critical state soil mechanics [299]. A
significant advance was made when Alonso et al. [15] proposed
an extension of the modified Cam-Clay model to account for the
effects of capillary pressure (i.e. matric suction) on the mechanical
behavior of unsaturated soils. This elasto-plastic model is known as
the Barcelona Basic Model (BBM). In this model, an increase in cap-
illary pressure induces an expansion of the yield surface (i.e. a
hardening of the material, with the corresponding increase of the
preconsolidation stress). It is also considered that as suction
increases, the shear strength and soil stiffness also increase. Suc-
tion reduction has the opposite effect on soil behavior. The BBM
is also able to reproduce the plastic deformations associated with
the collapse-compression behavior observed in unsaturated soils
under wetting [149]. This model has become very popular and sev-
eral modifications and improvements have been suggested after-
wards (e.g., [368,340,16,369,111,383**,384]). Of these models, the
model of Wheeler et al. [369] is useful to consider the impact of
hydraulic hysteresis on the behavior of soil [156], while the model
of Zhou et al. [383**,384] permits consideration of a smooth tran-
sition in the compression curve noted for unsaturated soils under
constant suction through the incorporation of a nonlinear change
in compressibility and a model to account for changes in effective
saturation.
Models reproducing the thermo-mechanical response of satu-
rated clays at elevated temperatures have been published in vari-
ous studies, and have been developed based on empirical
observations from a range of studies focused on evaluating the
246 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
roles of stress state, soil mineralogy, anisotropy, and temperature
cycles on the thermal volume change of saturated soils [51,28,134,
29,137,46,47,55,176,1,2,116,68,354,323,73] and unsaturated soils
[265,284,350,90,203,19,333]. The time dependent thermal consol-
idation process was studied by Delage et al. [72]] and Cui et al.
[67]. Other studies have also evaluated the impact of temperature
on the shear strength of soils in undrained conditions [130,168,3]
and drained conditions [55,350]. Other studies have evaluated
thermal softening of soils and associated changes in the preconsol-
idation stress [28,84,342]. To account for these observations,
Hueckel and Borsetto [135] modified the critical state model to
incorporate thermal effects. Their work focused on the thermo-
mechanical behavior of the soil skeleton in drained conditions
and was used to model the results from drained heating tests on
clays presented by Hueckel and Baldi [134]. According to their
model, when the stress state is elastic, the elastic domain is
assumed to shrink during heating and to expand during cooling.
In the plastic state, thermal softening occurs simultaneously with
the plastic strain hardening. They employed the thermal evolution
of the yield limit at constant plastic strain condition to model the
irreversible effect induced by temperature, including thermal com-
pression collapse. Gens [104] proposed the first elasto-plastic
thermo-mechanical model for unsaturated soils. This model
extends the BBM to non-isothermal conditions incorporating in
the model formulation the thermal effect suggested by Hueckel
and Borsetto [135]. This model has been used with success to sim-
ulate different engineering problems involving non-isothermal
unsaturated conditions (e.g., [106,105,288,290,110]). In parallel,
Laloui and François [173] presented the Advanced Constitutive
Model for Environmental Geomechanics-Thermal effect (ACMEG-
T) which summed up the previous developments in Modaressi
and Laloui [216], Laloui and Cekerevac [175] and Laloui and Cek-
erevac [176]. Francois and Laloui [89] provided an extension of this
model to unsaturated soils. Zhou et al. [385] extended the model of
Zhou et al. [383**,384] to also consider nonisothermal behavior.
There have been several examples of models being used suc-
cessfully to capture the thermo-mechanical response of saturated
clays [264,216,139,65,175]. A cyclic thermo-viscoplastic model
developed by Modaressi and Laloui [216] includes thermal harden-
ing and the evaluation of yield surfaces with temperature. Their
results obtained from numerical modelling compare very well with
the experimental results from Baldi et al. [28]. Cui et al. [65] pre-
sented an elasto-plastic model for saturated soils exposed to tem-
peratures, with particular attention given to the effects of
overconsolidation ratio on volume change, and hypothesized a
critical temperature at which an overconsolidated clay would tran-
sition from expansion to contraction during heating. They vali-
dated their model by using their experiments as well as those
from other studies [28,347]. Graham et al. [116] also introduced
an extension of the modified Cam-Clay model which allows predic-
tion of temperature change effects on volume change, pore water
pressure generation and strength of normally and overconsoli-
dated clays, and validated their model with experimental results
[187,331]. The model of Laloui and Cekerevac [175] permits evalu-
ation of the thermal evolution of the preconsolidation stress using
a one-parameter equation, simplifying predictions. The role of
stress state is important, and has been considered in thermo-
mechanical models for anisotropic conditions [138] and isotropic
conditions [4]. Most of these models assume that the slope of the
critical state line is constant with temperature, and that tempera-
ture primarily effects the size of the plastic yield locus. Hueckel
et al. [141] evaluated different scenarios where temperature effects
on the angle of internal friction may be used to explain experimen-
tal results, and discussed the importance of the thermal and
mechanical history which was considered to be the most impor-
tant factor in explaining the temperature dependent failure condi-
tions. The effect of strain rate on the behavior fine grained soils and
the potential for creep is enhanced when temperature is increased
[213,184], which has been implemented into a thermo-viscoplastic
model by Laloui et al. [177].
3. Gas hydrate sediments
Methane hydrates are solid compounds made of water mole-
cules clustered around low molecular weight gas molecules (e.g.,
[310]). Methane hydrates form under pressure and temperature
conditions that are common in deep marine sediments and sub-
permafrost layers [170]. Global estimates suggest these natural
hydrate systems store twice the carbon found in fossil fuel reserves
and 3000 times the methane present in the modern atmosphere
[169]. Methane hydrate soils are very dense, and are stable within
their depositional environment in which they typically behave
similar to bonded sedimentary soils or rocks. However, stability
and behavior of Hydrate Bearing Sediments (HBS) are character-
ized by the metastable character of the gas hydrate structure.
Depressurization, heating, or chemical inhibition may induce
hydrate dissociation, which may result in significant volume
expansion (e.g., 1 m3 of methane hydrate can release 164 m3 of
methane gas and 0.87 m3 of water). Such large volume changes
may affect the stability of the sediment and lead to high pore fluid
pressure gradients and associated fluxes. Furthermore, methane
hydrate dissociation is an endothermic process that induces
important changes in the sediment thermal field.
Although HBS may be a potential energy resource as they are
estimated to contain very large reserves of methane, they also
may be considered as a geohazard. Specifically, methane hydrate
deposits can lead to large-scale submarine slope failures, well
blowouts, platform foundation failures, and borehole instability
[310,131]. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance
of naturally occurring gas hydrates, the understanding of the fun-
damental physical processes associated with gas hydrate forma-
tion, HBS stability and hydrate dissociation in porous sediments
remains in its infancy, particularly in terms of their geomechanical
behavior. Experimental evaluations of HBS in the laboratory is
challenging owing to methane’s low solubility in water and the
prolonged time required to form hydrate from aqueous phase. Lab-
oratory studies have typically used sediments containing synthetic
gas hydrates to investigate mechanical, thermal, and electromag-
netic properties of both pure crystals and hydrate soils [49,358,
293,360,144,378,380,201,375,183]. Soga et al. [313] and Waite
et al. [359] present a comprehensive review on the characteriza-
tion of the engineering and physical properties of HBS. Different
models, from linear elastic to advanced elasto-plastic constitutive
equations have been adopted to describe the mechanical behavior
of HBS [163]. Retrieving natural undisturbed HBS samples is also
very challenging because of difficulties associated with depressur-
ization and temperature changes during core extraction. Recent
progress in this area has been made with the development of the
Instrumented Pressure Testing Chamber (IPTC, [379]). The IPTC
allows evaluation of geophysical and geomechanical properties of
the natural HBS in the stability pressure–temperature zone where
hydrate dissociation is prevented. The IPTC has been used with
success to measure the physical properties of pressurized cores,
and also to subsequently perform controlled gas production tests
[381]. Current efforts in this area are focused on the characteriza-
tion of HBS behavior in-situ, through properly-designed borehole
logging tools [293*].
Numerical modeling is equally challenging due to the complex
behavior of hydrate bearing sediments during formation and disso-
ciation. Several mathematical formulations have been developed
to explore various aspects of hydrate formation and dissociation
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
(e.g., [263,372,70,7,324,226,172,162,161,21,370,220]). Rutqvist
and Moridis [278] and Rutqvist [273] presented a general THMC
approach by linking (sequentially) a geomechanical code (FLAC3D)
with the multiphase fluid and heat transport simulator TOUGHT.
More recently, fully-coupled THMC computer codes have been pro-
posed to consider the behavior of methane hydrates [161,121]. The
mechanical modeling of HBS is particularly challenging. Advanced
constitutive equations based on critical state and sub-loading con-
cepts have been recently proposed to model the mechanical behav-
ior of HBS [351*,97]. Numerical models play a crucial role to
understand better the process behind hydrate formation and also
to explore optimal production strategies in different types of sedi-
ments by either inducing depressurization, heating or chemical
inhibition. Methane production tests from hydrate bearing sedi-
ments under actual conditions, and the associated numerical mod-
eling, are essential components to assess the technical and
economic viabilities of this energy resource (e.g. [143]).
4. Hydraulic enhancement in energy georeservoirs (geothermal
and hydrocarbons)
Energy georeservoirs reside in deep rock deposits and serve for
harvesting geothermal heat, oil or gas. Although existing classical
geothermal reservoirs have been used for electric power produc-
tion naturally fractured rock formations with sufficient supply of
hot water and steam for many years (Lardarello Italy, Wairakei
New Zealand, Matsukawa Japan, and The Geysers California), new
initiatives are being made toward the development of geo-
reservoirs which are not initially high-permeability formations
[335]. Accordingly, there are new challenges for the geotechnical
community in enhancing the permeability of hot rocks to form
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). Similarly, oil and gas reser-
voirs in high permeability sandstone reservoirs have been
exploited for many years, but there has recently been interest in
collecting these resources from lower permeability shale
[61,268,250]. In both cases, hydraulic fracturing is a commonly
used method for enhancing the permeability of a rock mass in
order to create a long-term, functional georeservoir. Besides com-
plex rock conditions regarding heterogeneity, anisotropy, and high
in-situ stresses characteristic for deep geological deposits [86,195],
high temperature (150–400 °C) in geothermal reservoirs poses sig-
nificant difficulties for rock fracturing [167] which inevitably
requires analysis of coupled hydro-thermo-mechanical process
during drilling, hydraulic fracturing and reservoir exploitation
[346], along with consideration of long-term phenomena such as
chemical and biological effects [165].
The methods for analyzing hydraulic fracturing and proppant
flow and transport have been available for many years due to use
in the petroleum field [157,132,155,254,234,235,233,374,81,252,
74,96,95]. Recently, enhanced geothermal reservoirs are modeled
assuming that the existence of natural fracture systems that will
interact with the propagating fracture [365,208,93,282]. Theories
for hydraulic fracturing have been developed in parallel with anal-
yses to infer the fracturing process through the use of tracers
[6,267,292,236,152,9] and through the use of acoustic emissions
or microseismic monitoring [376,366,189,315,316,124]. Several
studies have also developed analyses to evaluate the impact of
hydraulic fracturing on the potential for induced seismicity
[197,217,182,209,34], which is an important topic of future
research in this area.
During hydraulic fracturing, various fluids and slurries are
injected in stages at high pressures through a wellbore into the
deep rock. First, a prepad (low viscosity fluid) creates and propa-
gates fractures from the wellbore. Second follows a pad (a mixture
of viscous fluid and granular material referred to as a proppant)
247
with the goal of putting the proppant in place and keeping the
new fractures open for future production [81,82]. In spite of the
high dependency of the long-term georeservoir operation upon
the permeability enhancement through successful proppant place-
ment, multi-physics processes which govern proppant flow and
transport at georeservoir conditions are still not well understood.
Work has been performed recently on the particulate flow using
coupled discrete element modeling and continuum fluid dynamics
(DEM–CFD) with novel fluid-particle contact models [344,345*]
which can be calibrated and refined using the results of different
types of slot-flow experiments [62,123,125,235,302–306,14].
Recently, several other key issues which prevent proppant flow
and transport in rough hydraulic fractures were identified. For
example, hydraulic fracture permeability reduction due to fine par-
ticle bridging of the pore throats was investigated experimentally
using X-ray micro tomography technique by Trykozko et al.
[348*], and the flow of both particles and Newtonian fluid as a mix-
ture was theoretically considered by Dontsov and Peirce [78*],
where both the shear stress and particle pressure are expressed
in terms of functions of particle concentration. Research on prop-
pant flow is critical as a large proportion of hydraulic fracturing
applications do not lead to sufficient permeability enhancement.
This is especially the case in the development of deep geothermal
reservoirs, as high in-situ stresses and temperatures add more
complexity to the interplay between the governing processes.
Fluid flow in geo-reservoirs occurs through a three dimensional
fracture system, which is also the natural heat exchanger in the
case of the geothermal reservoirs [335]. Understanding the flow
and transport characteristics in the context of a three dimensional
rock fracture system requires an advanced approach, which is cap-
able of investigating the spatial geometric complexity [309]. There
have been evident disagreement between the results between lab-
oratory and field estimation of rock permeability at different spa-
tial scales [87,98]. Fluid flow in rough rock fractures subjected to
different stress field has been studied for years. Souley et al.
[317*] studied the relationship between mechanical and hydraulic
fracture apertures experimentally for a porous rock matrix, indi-
vidual fractures, and a fractured matrix under different normal
confining stresses. They found that the ratio between variation in
hydraulic aperture and normal fracture closure decreases with
increasing effective normal stress or fracture contact area. Further,
flow channeling occurs during long term operation of fractured
geothermal reservoirs as flow concentrates with time into a small
number of flow paths inside the cooled zone of the reservoir frac-
ture network [92*]. Hydro-thermo-chemo-mechanical coupled
processes in geothermal reservoirs are related to a long-term
energy extraction and reservoir behavior with respect to precipita-
tion and dissolution of minerals at fracture walls, and although
there has been a significant effort to evaluate and model HTCM
processes [165,127,44,103], the long-term HTCM effects have not
yet been completely understood in the context of deep fractured
geo-reservoirs.
5. Carbon dioxide geological sequestration
CO2 capture and geological sequestration is considered as one of
the most promising technologies to counter CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere and thus mitigates greenhouse gas effects on global
warming [60,25]. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has widely been
acknowledged as a promising technology that can limit CO2 emis-
sions into the atmosphere and accordingly mitigate their subse-
quent impacts on climate [261,57,60,56,231]. CCS has the
potential to reduce up to 20% of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2050
[145]. The technology consists of capturing CO2 at source emitters
(e.g. coal-fired power plants) and storing it through high-pressure
injection in deep geological formations such as saline aquifers and
248 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
depleted oil and gas reservoirs (e.g. [24,126]). For efficiency rea-
sons, this fluid has to be injected deep enough (typically below
1000 m deep) in a supercritical state and in host rocks having good
properties in terms of injectivity and available porosity. These aqui-
fers are typically located beneath a naturally-occurring aquitard
(i.e. the cap rock). The scientific issues to be tackled involve fluid
flow problems along with reactive transport issues associated with
the chemical activity of CO2 in contact with water [150,151]. Kim
and Hosseini [158*] analyzed hydro-thermo-mechanical injection
into geological formation and assessed the maximum mobilized
friction angle shift during cold fluid injection in normal-faulting
and reverse-faulting stress regime. However, the mechanical
aspects (e.g., fault reactivation, chemical degradation of the rocks,
pressure changes, including drying of rocks, cap rock behavior) can-
not be disregarded [272,221,48,256,352,246,245,274,275,173,276,
277]. This is where the expertise of geotechnical engineers working
on geomechanical issues related to chemo-thermo-hydro-
mechanical couplings can make a real difference. Rapid progress
is needed on storage issues such as safety, monitoring and long
term liability of CSS technologies and sites [112,232]. In addition
to storage, there are opportunities to exploit CO2 injection as a
working fluid for Enhanced Geothermal Reservoirs [45,318].
6. High level radioactive waste disposal
The storage of high level radioactive waste (HLW) is an unre-
solved problem of the nuclear industry. Deep geological disposal
is considered to be one of most-favored options for the isolation
of high level nuclear waste. It is also the solution that requires
the most input from geotechnical engineers [105]. The primary
aim of a geological repository for HLW disposal is to contain safely
the (highly) pollutant waste for a time period in the thousands of
years. Repository construction envisages the excavation of a net-
work of tunnels in a suitable rock formation (i.e. crystalline, sedi-
mentary, salt) located within a few hundred meters below the
ground level [108]. The host rock (i.e. the natural barrier) has to
provide mechanical stability to the excavated galleries while still
being a medium of very low permeability to prevent/retard any
possible leakage from the isolation system. The empty space that
exists between the waste canister and the cavity surface is to be
filled with a buffer material (i.e. the engineered barrier). Expansive
clays are generally selected for the construction of these engi-
neered barriers due to their high swelling capacity, very low per-
meability, and good cation adsorption capacity. The natural and
engineered barriers are expected to be subjected to simultaneous
thermal, hydraulic, mechanical and chemical (THMC) phenomena
triggered by the heat-emitting nature of the nuclear waste, the
swelling character of the unsaturated clay barrier, the highly con-
fined conditions of the isolation system, and the chemical interac-
tions between the barriers material and the pore fluid. The THMC
processes described above and their mutual interactions will con-
trol the evolution and the long-term response of the overall isola-
tion system. This implies that a good understanding of the main
THMC phenomena is required for a safe design of HLW
repositories.
Small- to large-scale tests under controlled conditions in the
laboratory have been performed to investigate the intrinsic proper-
ties of the main components of the natural and engineered barriers
(e.g. [260,166,72,99,257,188,355,200,266,356,10,373,26,88,281]).
Large scale in-situ tests have been instrumental to examine the
behavior of barriers system under actual repository conditions
and at full scale (e.g. [357,77,330,142]). At the same time, constitu-
tive models, THMC mathematical formulations and their respective
numerical codes aimed at predicting the behavior of the isolation
system have been developed and validated (e.g. [136,102,244,
106,154,65,140,69,18,286,287,289,279,118–120,308,332,225,336]).
Recent contributions have confirmed the ability of coupled multi-
physics numerical programs to simulate the observed behavior
around the repository near-field (e.g., [58,107,108,337,288,280]).
A number of benchmarks have been proposed to validate the
THMC codes used to predict the behavior of HLW repositories
(e.g., [17]). In the last few years special attention has been placed
to the study of the excavation-damaged zone EDZ and its impact
on the short and long term behavior of the barrier system
[349,133,23], as well as on the mechanical behavior of bonded
claystones (e.g., [101,258,253]). A comprehensive review of the
main aspects and issues related to the geological storage of HLW
can be found in Gens [105] and Kim et al. [160]. The introduction
of new types of heterogeneous pellet-based engineered barriers
[129,109] and the migration of designs toward higher tempera-
tures provide fresh challenges to geotechnical engineering in a
multi-physics context.
7. Energy geo-storage
The increasing energy demand, current dependency on fossil
fuels, and climate implications have led to an accelerated growth
in renewable energy resources. The inherent fluctuating nature of
renewable sources will create an unprecedented demand for
large-capacity energy storage systems. Energy geo-storage
requires the need to develop energy storage systems with different
scales (i.e., residential-scale, building-scale, community-scale, city-
scale). In many of the energy storage systems, cyclic charging and
discharging will occur, potentially on a daily or seasonal time scale.
Depending on the energy storage technique, different types of
hydro-thermo-chemo-mechanical processes may be encountered.
Many storage technologies have been considered in the context
of utility-scale energy storage systems, including electrical energy
storage systems (batteries, superconducting magnetic energy stor-
age, flywheels, fuel cells, capacitors), mechanical energy storage
systems (pumped hydro reservoirs, compressed air reservoirs),
phase change materials, water or brine tanks, and underground
thermal energy storage systems (aquifer, pit, borehole, or thermo-
haline systems). Advantages of underground energy storage sys-
tems are that they can be installed anywhere in the world, have
a good balance between efficiency and installation cost, and have
the technical maturity to be implemented on a large scale. Of these,
most promising large-scale storages of high energy quantity are
related to geo-systems.
Geotechnical engineers have been involved with energy storage
through the design of reservoirs for pumped-hydro energy storage,
where water is pumped to a reservoir with higher elevation during
times when electricity costs are low, and electricity is generated
through hydro-power. However, there are environmental concerns
in many locations throughout the world concerning the develop-
ment of new reservoirs. The storage of mechanical energy in the
form of compressed air in subsurface caverns or aquifers is another
innovative technique that can be adapted in many geological set-
tings [322,159,291*].
Most underground thermal energy storage systems involve
storage of heat at temperatures between 50 and 95 °C [128]. Direct
use of hot water for heating requires lower temperatures (50 °C),
while a temperature difference of at least 35 °C must be main-
tained to operate an efficient binary cycle power plant for
thermo-electrical conversion. One of the earliest studies to investi-
gate underground thermal energy storage was by Meyer and Todd
[211], who proposed to store heat generated as a byproduct from
power plants operations in aquifers (temperatures up to 171 °C)
to balance electrical supply and demand. Aquifer thermal energy
storage systems involve extracting water from the subsurface,
transferring heat, then re-injecting to the subsurface
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[218,219,122,76], and have been implemented on a utility scale in
Turkey, Greece, and the Netherlands for direct cooling [249,312].
However, aquifer heat storage is not feasible in many US states
because of water rights issues, issues with mass balance of water
extraction and injection, and concerns of groundwater contamina-
tion or thermal mobilization of contaminants. Further, another
major issue with aquifer systems is spreading of thermal energy
away from the point of injection, making it difficult or impossible
to later extract. Opportunities to store heat in salt domes in the
form of thermohaline reservoirs is an alternative approach that
minimizes the potential for heat loss [371].
Another promising technology is to adapt the well-known
closed-loop ground-source heat exchange system into a closely-
spaced array of boreholes to form a soil-borehole thermal energy
storage systems (SBTES) [80]. Most SBTES systems in operation
are installed in saturated soil profiles and rely upon closed-loop
heat exchangers to shed or absorb heat from the ground through
conduction [27,94,285]. The typical heating and cooling capacity
of a SBTES is 50–250 kW using 10–50 boreholes drilled to a depth
of 100–200 m [22]. Research is also being performed to investi-
gate the storage of thermal energy in borehole arrays in unsatu-
rated soils above the water table [32,30*]. This approach may
take advantage of both coupled heat transfer and water flow
within the borehole array and the lower thermal conductivity of
unsaturated soils outside of the borehole array [207,31]. Addi-
tional communities have implemented and studied utility-scale
solar-thermal SBTES systems in Canada [307], Japan [239] and
Europe [237,238,297,199,33,198,128]. In particular, the Drake
Landing SBTES site in Canada has been thoroughly studied using
both field monitoring [307] and numerical simulations
[210,382,54]. Even though the SBTES this site has a relatively
low efficiency on the order of 20–30% in terms of the energy
extracted versus the energy injected, the heat source is essentially
free and the system is still able to provide more than 95% of the
heat to 52 homes.
8. Energy geo-structures
The effects of incorporating geothermal heat exchangers into
subsurface infrastructure is an emerging topic in geotechnical engi-
neering. Energy geo-structures such as energy piles, diaphragm
walls, tunnels, and geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls can uti-
lize the ground for heating and cooling of structures, storage of heat,
or dissipation of waste heat. Similar to conventional ground-source
heat exchangers (GSHEs), these thermo-active geo-structures can
be used as pathways to extract heat in the winter and inject heat
in the summer, albeit while taking advantage of the construction
process. In particular, the incorporation of heat exchangers into
drilled shaft foundations has been shown to provide a sustainable
approach to transfer thermal energy to and from the ground for a
lower installation cost than traditional borehole-type geothermal
heat exchangers [42,43,174,202,240]. However, it also presents
new challenges for the broader geotechnical engineering profes-
sion, in terms of technical issues associated with soil-structure
interaction [178,39,8,224]; thermal effects on surrounding soils
[179], as well as construction and organizational issues [20].
A key aspect in using any geotechnical infrastructure compo-
nent as a heat exchanger is its thermal properties, and equally rel-
evant are the techniques used to incorporate these properties into
heat transfer simulations used to design heating and cooling sys-
tems for buildings. Thermal response tests have been evaluated
on energy piles in different configurations and in different soil
strata by several researchers [190–192,224], and results from these
tests have been used to develop analytical methods [271,193*] and
calibrate advanced numerical methods [171,153]. Loveridge and
Powrie [193] and Kwag and Krarti [171] have adapted the G-
249
function approach used in most geothermal heat pump analysis
software to consider the geometry of heat exchanger piles, which
facilitates their adoption by building systems engineers. The ther-
mal cone dissipation test (TCT) was recently proposed to deter-
mine in-situ the thermal properties of soils [12]. A challenging
issue to consider in the long term response of these systems is
the effect of soil saturation on the heat exchange rate, which has
been investigated numerically by Thomas and Rees [341] and Choi
et al. [59]. Akrouch et al. [13] combined experimental, analytical
and numerical investigations to gain a better understanding on
the effect of the unsaturated conditions on the heat exchange rate.
Observations from several case histories involving full-scale
energy foundations indicate that heating and cooling will lead to
movements associated with thermal expansion and contraction of
the foundation element and surrounding soil [174,43,178,39,8,206
,11,329,229*,224,204,241,228,361]. These thermally-induced
movements may lead to the generation of axial stresses due to the
restraint of the foundation provided by soil-structure interaction
and end-restraint boundary conditions. Lateral movements of
energy piles during heating and cooling has been proposed as a
mechanism of changing soil structure interaction [205,212],
although cavity expansion analyses indicate that the amount of lat-
eral expansion may not be sufficient to change the lateral stress
state in all soils profiles [242]. The end-restraint boundary condi-
tions play an important role in design guidelines being proposed
for energy foundations [325,212]. As it is often difficult to vary the
end-restraint boundary conditions in full-scale energy pile systems,
an alternate modeling approach involves the use of centrifuge-scale
energy piles to investigate soil-structure interaction mechanisms [
205,319,113–115,229*,228]. Although centrifuge tests represent a
comparatively simple situation compared to field tests, they have
been shown to be useful for calibration of numerical simulations
using thermo-elasto plastic finite element models [269,270*].
Empirical data from centrifuge tests and field tests are useful for cal-
ibration of parameters or verification of load transfer analyses
[164,204] and finite element analyses [178,363,362,364,247,248].
This data can be complimented from in-situ measurement of the
nonisothermal soil–concrete interface shear stress–strain curves
from tests such as the thermal borehole shear test for site-specific
analyses [222]. The long-term behavior of energy piles is another
issue that still needs to be continued to evaluated [223*] to evaluate
the possibility of mechanisms such as ratcheting effects that may
occur in some soil profiles as evidenced in centrifuge tests
[319,229] and numerical simulations [326*,327,251,283]. Energy
pile design guidelines to account for thermal soil-structure interac-
tion effects are available in different countries [40], but there is still
a need for consistent guidance to ensure implementation in practice
worldwide [243].
There are also efforts to introduce geothermal heat exchange
systems into other geotechnical infrastructure beyond pile founda-
tions, with several applications discussed by Brandl [43]. Dupray
et al. [79], Sutman et al. [328] and Bowers and Olgun [41] investi-
gated the coupling between energy piles and bridge decks to eval-
uate the potential for using geothermal energy for deicing
processes during the winter. Adam and Markiewicz [5] investi-
gated the role of incorporating heat exchangers into diaphragm
walls and tunnel lining systems. Stewart et al. [320] evaluated
the role of incorporating heat exchangers into geosynthetic-
reinforced retaining wall systems, where heat is used to drive
water from the soil via thermally induced water flow in order to
improve the undrained shear strength and stiffness of the backfill
soil. However, changes in the reinforcement stiffness may also
occur, so the coupling between the thermo-hydro-mechanical
behavior of the soil and reinforcements may play opposing roles
in the deformation response of the wall. There are likely many
additional applications of geothermal heat exchange that can be
250 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
exploited to improve the behavior of geotechnical infrastructure in
the future.
9. Other geotechnical activities related to the energy sector
Geotechnical engineers have traditionally been involved in the
energy sector through providing foundation support for energy
infrastructure, stability calculations for mines, and dam engineer-
ing work for pumped-hydro dam facilities. Emerging renewable
energy technologies are resulting in the need for new foundation
design strategies to meet cyclic and multi-directional foundation
loading. Tinjum and Lang [343] provides a useful summary of the
strategies behind on-shore wind turbine foundation design, while
Schmidt et al. [296] provides insight on soil improvement and sit-
ing requirements for wind turbines in reclaimed land areas. Off-
shore tidal energy generation systems provide a novel approach
to harness the tidal movement of water, but are often located in
regions with soft clays, such as off the coast of Maine or in the
North sea. In these situations, the steady reversal of loading on
the foundation implies that the cyclic lateral loading must be con-
sidered in design [311,181,180,298]. The most economical founda-
tion designs for wind farms in shallow water involve monopiles,
which are relatively simple but encounter complex cyclic loading
that requires modification of traditional lateral soil-structure inter-
action analyses [186,185].
The large reserves of oil sands in Alberta, Canada are a signifi-
cant natural resource, but it is well known than the mining process
of these materials poses significant geotechnical challenges
[301,83]. This mining process leads to the production of large vol-
umes of waste with high water contents, which must be contained
in an engineered system as they may contain different types of
contaminants. As they are deposited in loose states, there may be
issues associated with slope instability due to static liquefaction
[35]. It is critical to understand the consolidation process of these
materials so that the reclamation or continued deposition of these
materials can be planned. However, the self-weight consolidation
process for these materials may take many years [388], and the soft
nature of the soil makes it particularly difficult to characterize [36].
Analyses involving the seepage-induced consolidation approach
[387] are currently the standard in evaluating the consolidation
of these materials. Analyses for novel solutions involving the use
of geotextiles [50], even potentially in the form of geotubes or geo-
bags to accelerate the consolidation and reclamation process [386].
Geotechnical infrastructure typically requires a significant
amount of earthwork, including excavation and moving of engi-
neered fills from one location to another. This approach can lead
to significant energy consumption and carbon emissions. Calcula-
tion methodologies have been developed by several authors to
assess the life cycle costs, embodied energy, and gas emissions
associated with the construction of different types of geosystems
[147,262,314,215,52,230]. Although these methodologies are cur-
rently available to geotechnical engineers to help in evaluating
the sustainable design of project, an issue remains in that geotech-
nical engineers are often involved in construction projects too late
in the process to make significant changes that may impact the
overall sustainability. However, the significant impact of geotech-
nical works on the overall sustainability of a project may convince
project owners to involve geotechnical engineers earlier in the pro-
cess to have a bigger impact.
10. Conclusions
This paper summarized some of the major research and practi-
cal developments in the emerging area of energy geotechnics.
Although many of these fields are relatively mature, new funda-
mental research is being developed to aid in the analysis and
design of the different components of these systems. All of these
developments are closely tied with challenging policy and eco-
nomic concerns, which is a topic that should be further integrated
into future research in this area.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the newly-
formed ISSMGE committee 308 on Energy Geotechnics for their
assistance in organization of the committee into the thrust areas
described in this paper. The first author appreciates the support
from National Science Foundation grants CMMI-0928159, CMMI
1230237, and NSF CMMI 1054190. The second author would like
to acknowledge the financial support from the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (Department of Energy, US) through Award
No.: DE-FE0013889. The views in this paper are those of the
authors alone.
References
⁄ of special interest. ⁄⁄ of outstanding interest.
[1] Abuel-Naga HM, Bergado DT, Ramana GV, Grino L, Rujivipat P, Thet Y.
Experimental evaluation of engineering behavior of soft Bangkok clay under
elevated temperature. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;132(7):902–10.
[2] Abuel-Naga HM, Bergado DT, Bouazza A. Thermally induced volume change and
excess pore water pressure of soft Bangkok clay. Eng Geol 2007;89(1–2):144–54.
[3] Abuel-Naga HM, Bergado DT, Bouazza A, Ramana GV. Volume change
behavior of saturated clays under drained heating conditions: experimental
results and constitutive modeling. Can Geotech J 2007;44(8):942–56.
[4] Abuel-Naga HM, Bergado DT, Bouazza A, Pender M. Thermomechanical model
for saturated clays. Géotechnique 2009;59(3):273–8.
[5] Adam D, Markiewicz R. Energy from earth-coupled structures, foundations,
tunnels and sewers. Géotechnique 2009;59(3):229–36.
[6] Adams MC, Moore JN, Fabry LG, Ahn J-H. Thermal stabilities of aromatic acids
as geothermal tracers. Geothermics 1992;21:323–39.
[7] Ahmadi G, Chuang J, Smith DH. Numerical solution for natural gas production
from methane hydrate dissociation. J Petrol Sci Eng 2004;41:269–85.
[8] Amatya BL, Soga K, Bourne-Webb PJ, Amis T, Laloui L. Thermo-mechanical
behaviour of energy piles. Géotechnique 2012;62(6):503–19.
[9] Ames M, Li K, Horne RN. The utility of threshold reactive tracers for
characterizing temperature distributions in geothermal reservoirs. Math
Geosci 2015;47(1):51–62.
[10] Åkesson M, Jacinto A, Gatabin C, Sánchez M, Ledesma A. Bentonite THM
behaviour under high temperature gradients. Experimental and numerical
analysis. Géotechnique 2009;59(4):307–18. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.2009.59.4.307.
[11] Akrouch G, Sánchez M, Briaud J-L. Thermo-mechanical behavior of energy
piles in high plasticity clays. Acta Geotech 2014;9(3):399–412.
[12] Akrouch G, Briaud J-L, Sánchez M. Thermal cone test to determine soil
thermal properties. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2015:04015085. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001353.
[13] Akrouch G, Sánchez M, Briaud J-L. An experimental, analytical and
experimental study on the thermal efficiency of energy piles in unsaturated
soils. Comput Geotech 2016;2016(71):207–20.
[14] Alaskar M, Ames M, Connor S, Liu C, Cui Y, Horne RN. Nanoparticle and
microparticle flow in porous and fractured media – an experimental study.
SPE J 2012;17(4):1160–71.
[15] Alonso EE, Gens A, Josa A. A constitutive model for partially saturated soils.
Géotechnique 1990;40(3):405–30.
[16] Alonso EE, Vaunat J, Gens A. Modelling the mechanical behaviour of
expansive clays. Eng Geol 1999;54:173–83.
[17] Alonso EE, Alcoverro J, Coste F, Malinsky L, Merrien-Soukatchoff V, Kadiric I,
et al. The FEBEX benchmark test: case definition and comparison of modelling
approaches. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42(5–6):611–38.
[18] Alonso EE, Romero E, Hoffmann C, García-Escudero E. Expansive bentonite–
sand mixtures in cyclic controlled-suction drying and wetting. Eng Geol
2005;81(3):213–26.
[19] Alsherif NA, McCartney JS. Nonisothermal behavior of compacted silt at low
degrees of saturation. Géotechnique 2015;65(9):703–16. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot./14-P-049.
[20] Amis T, McCartney JS, Loveridge F, Olgun CG, Bruce ME, Murphy KD.
Identifying best practice, installation, laboratory testing, and field testing. J
Deep Found Inst 2014;8(2):73–82.
[21] Anderson BJ, Kurihara M, White MD, Moridis GJ, Wilson SJ, Pooladi-Darvish
M, et al. Regional forward production modeling from a single well test. Mar
Pet Geol 2011;28(2):493–501.
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[22] Andersson O. ATES utilization in Sweden – an overview. In: Proc
MegaStock’97. 7th International conference on thermal energy storage,
Sapporo, Japan, vol. 2, June 18–21; 1997. p. 925–30.
[23] Arson C, Gatmiri B. Thermo-hydro-mechanical modeling of damage in
unsaturated porous media: theoretical framework and numerical study of
the EDZ. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2012;36(3):272–306.
[24] Bachu S, Gunter WD, Perkins EH. Aquifer disposal of CO2: hydrodynamic and
mineral trapping. Energy Convers Manage 1994;35(4):269–79.
[25] Bachu S. CO2 storage in geological media: role, means, status and barriers to
deployment. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:254–73.
[26] Baille W, Tripathy S, Schanz T. Swelling pressures and one-dimensional
compressibility behaviour of bentonite at large pressures. Appl Clay Sci
2010;48(3):324–33.
[27] Bakema G, Snijders AL, Nordell B. Underground thermal energy storage state
of the art report. Arnhem.
[28] Baldi G, Hueckel T, Pellegrini R. Thermal volume changes of the mineral-
water system in low-porosity clay soils. Can Geotech J 1988;25(4):807–25.
[29] Baldi G, Hueckel T, Peano A, Pellegrini R. Developments in modelling of
thermo-hydro-geomechanical behaviour of boom clay and clay-based buffer
materials. Report 13365/2 EN. Commission of European Communities; 1991.
[30] Basßer T, Lu N, McCartney JS. Operational response of a soil-borehole thermal
energy storage system. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001432.
* Evaluated thermal energy storage in an instrumented soil-borehole thermal
energy storage system 04015097-1-12.
[31] Basßer T, Linkowski D, McCartney JS. Heat storage in soil-borehole thermal
energy storage systems in the vadose zone. In: Proc 7th international
congress on environmental geotechnics; 2014. p. 1–8.
[32] Basßer T, McCartney JS. Development of a full-scale soil-borehole thermal
energy storage system. In: Proceedings of the international foundations
conference and equipment exposition; 2015. p. 1608–17.
[33] Bauer D, Heidemann W, Steinhagen H. Central solar heating plants with
seasonal heat storage. Renewables in a changing climate. Lausanne,
Switzerland; 2007.
[34] Baujard C, Schoenball M, Kohl T, Dorbath L. Large magnitude events during
injections in geothermal reservoirs and hydraulic energy: a heuristic
approach. Geothermics 2014;52:140–52.
[35] Been K, Obermeyer J, Parks J, Quinonez A. Post-liquefaction undrained shear
strength of sandy silt and silty sand tailings. Proc tailings and mine waste,
Keystone, CO; 2012. p. 325–35.
[36] Beier N, Wilson GW, Dunmola A, Sego D. Impact of flocculation based
dewatering on the shear strength of oil sands fine tailings. Can Geotech J
2013;50(9):1001–7.
[37] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys
1941;12:155–64.
[38] Booker JR, Savvidou C. Consolidation around a point heat source. Int J Numer
Anal Meth Geomech 1985;9(2):173–84.
[39] Bourne-Webb PJ, Amatya B, Soga K, Amis T, Davidson C, Payne P. Energy pile
test at Lambeth College, London: geotechnical and thermodynamic aspects of
pile response to heat cycles. Géotechnique 2009;59(3):237–48.
[40] Bourne-Webb P, Pereira J-M, Bowers A, Mimouni T, Loveridge F, Burlon S,
et al. Validation of design tools for thermo-active geotechnical systems. J
Deep Found Inst 2014;8(2):120–8.
[41] Bowers Jr GA, Olgun CG. Ground-source bridge deck deicing systems using
energy foundations. Geo-Congress 2014;2014:2705–14.
[42] Brandl H. Energy piles and diaphragm walls for heat transfer from and into
the ground. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international geotechnical seminar on
deep foundations on bored and auger piles, BAP III, Ghent, Belgium.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1998. p. 37–60.
[43] Brandl H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Géotechnique 2006;56(2):81–122.
[44] Bower K, Zyvoloski G. A numerical model for thermo-hydro-mechanical
coupling in fractured rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34:1201–11.
[45] Brown DW. A hot dry rock geothermal energy concept utilizing supercritical
CO2 instead of water. In: Proceedings of the 25th workshop on geothermal
reservoir engineering, Stanford University; 2000. p. 233–8.
[46] Burghignoli A, Desideri A, Miliziano S. Deformability of clays under non-
isothermal conditions. Rev Ital Geotech 1992;4(92):227–36.
[47] Burghignoli A, Desideri A, Miliziano S. 2A laboratory study on the
thermomechanical behavior of clayey soils. Can Geotech J 2000;37
(4):764–80.
[48] Cabral L, Guimarães L, Horowitz B, Sánchez M. Coupled hydro-mechanical
fault reactivation analysis incorporating evidence theory for uncertainty
quantification. Comput Geotech 2014;56:202–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compgeo.2013.12.007.
[49] Cameron I, Handa YP, Baker THW. Compressive strength and creep-behavior
of hydrate-consolidated sand. Can Geotech J 1990;27(2):255–8.
[50] Cammarota MC, Freire DDC, Mendonça MB, Ehrlich M. Dewatering of oily
slurry using drying bed with geotextile filter. Geosynth Int 2008;15
(3):184–91.
[51] Campanella RG, Mitchell JK. Influence of temperature variations on soil
behavior. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 1968;94(3):709–34.
[52] Carbone 4. Geotechnical carbon calculator, version 2.2. EFFC-DFI; 2014.
<http://www.geotechnicalcarboncalculator.com/>.
[53] Cary JW, Taylor SA. Thermally driven liquid and vapor phase transfer of water
and energy in soil. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 1962;26:417–20.
251
[54] Catolico N, Ge S, McCartney JS. Numerical modeling of a soil-borehole
thermal energy storage system. Vadose Zone Hydrol 2016:1–17. http://dx.
doi.org/10.2136/vzj2015.05.0078.
[55] Cekerevac C, Laloui L. Experimental study of thermal effects on the
mechanical behaviour of a clay. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2004;28
(3):209–28.
[56] Celia MA. Geological storage of CO2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2012.
[57] Celia MA, Bachu S, Nordbotten JM, Gasda SE, Dahle HK. Quantitative
estimation of CO2 leakage from geological storage: analytical models,
numerical models and data needs. In: 7th International conference on
greenhouse gas control technologies (GHGT-7), September 5–9, 2004,
Vancouver, Canada, v.I; 2005. p. 663–72.
[58] Chen G, Ledesma A. Coupled thermohydromechanical modeling of the full-
scale in situ test prototype repository. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135
(1):121–32.
[59] Choi J, Lee S, Lee D. Numerical simulation of vertical ground heat exchangers:
intermittent operation in unsaturated soil conditions. Comput Geotech
2011;38(8):949–58.
[60] Chu S. Carbon capture and sequestration. Science 2009;325:1599.
[61] Cipolla CL, Lolon E, Mayerhofer MJ. Reservoir modeling and production
evaluation in shale-gas reservoirs. In: International petroleum technology
conference; 2009. p. 1–15.
[62] Clark P, Guler N. Prop transport in vertical fractures: settling velocity
correlations. In: SPE/DOE low permeability gas reservoirs symposium, 14–16
March, Denver, CO; 1983. p. 1–6.
[63] Cleall PJ, Singh RM, Thomas HR. Non-isothermal moisture movement in
unsaturated kaolin: an experimental and theoretical investigation. Geotech
Test J 2011;34(5):514–24.
[64] Cleall PJ, Seetharam SC, Thomas HR. Inclusion of some aspects of
chemical behaviour of unsaturated soil in thermo/hydro/chemical/
mechanical models. I: model development. ASCE J Eng Mech 2007;133
(3):338–47.
[65] Cui YJ, Sultan N, Delage P. A thermomechanical model for saturated clays. Can
Geotech J 2000;37:607–20.
[66] Cui Y-J, Tang AM, Loiseau C, Delage P. Determining the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity of a compacted sand–bentonite mixture under constant-volume
and free-swell conditions. Phys Chem Earth 2008;33(1):S462–71.
[67] Cui Y-J, Le TT, Tang AM, Delage P, Li XL. Investigating the time-dependent
behavior of Boom clay under thermomechanical loading. Géotechnique
2009;59(4):319–29.
[68] Coccia CJR, McCartney JS. A thermo-hydro-mechanical true triaxial cell for
evaluation of the impact of anisotropy on thermally-induced volume changes
in soils. ASTM Geotech Test J 2012;35(2):227–37.
[69] Collin F, Li X, Radu JP, Charlier R. Thermo-hydromechanical coupling in clay
barriers. Eng Geol 2002;64(2–3):179–93.
[70] Davie MK, Buffett BA. A numerical model for the formation of gas hydrate
below the seafloor. J Geophys Res 2001;106(B1):497–514.
[71] DECOVALEX; 2015. <http://www.decovalex.org/> [April 2015].
[72] Delage P, Sultan N, Cui Y-J. On the thermal consolidation of Boom clay. Can
Geotech J 2000;37(2):343–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t99-105.
[73] Demars KR, Charles RD. Soil volume changes induced by temperature cycling.
Can Geotech J 1982;19(2):188–94.
[74] Detournay E. Propagation regimes of fluid-driven fractures in impermeable
rocks. Int J Geomech 2004;4(1):35–45.
[75] de Vries DA. The thermal conductivity of soil. Mededelingen van
de Landbouwhogeschool to Wageningen 1952; 52(1): 1–73
[Translated by Building Research Station (Library Communication
No. 759), England].
[76] Dickinson JS, Buik N, Mathews MC, Snijders A. Aquifer thermal energy
storage: theoretical and operational analysis. Géotechnique 2009;59
(3):249–60.
[77] Dixon D, Chandler N, Graham J, Gray M. Two large scale sealing tests
conducted at atomic energy of Canada’s underground research laboratory:
the buffer-container experiment and the isothermal test. Can Geotech J
2002;39(3):503–18.
[78] Dontsov E, Peirce A. Slurry flow, gravitational settling and a proppant
transport model for hydraulic fractures. J Fluid Mech 2014;760:567–90.
* Theoretical consideration of a mixture of particles and Newtonian fluid.
[79] Dupray F, Mimouni T, Laloui L. Alternative uses of heat-exchanger
geostructures. In: Laloui L, DiDonna A, editors. Energy geostructures:
innovation in underground engineering. Wiley-ISTE; 2013. p. 119–38. ISBN:
978-1-84821-572-6 [chapter 6].
[80] ECES (energy conservation through energy storage). Annex 12: high-
temperature underground thermal energy storage. Paris, France:
International Energy Agency; 1997.
[81] Economides MJ, Nolte KG, Ahmed U. Reservoir stimulation. 3rd
ed. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2000.
[82] Economides MJ, Martin T, Company BJS. Modern fracturing: enhancing
natural gas production. Houston, TX: ET Publishing; 2007.
[83] Edil T, Fox PJ. Geotechnics of high water content materials. STP 1374. West
Conshohocken, NJ: ASTM International; 2000.
[84] Eriksson LG. Temperature effects on consolidation properties of sulphide
clays. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro; 1989. p. 1–4.
[85] Ewen J, Thomas HR. Heating unsaturated medium sand. Géotechnique
1989;39(3):455–70.
252 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[86] Fang Z, Harrison J. Application of a local degradation model to the analysis of
brittle fracture of laboratory scale rock specimens under triaxial conditions.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:459–76.
[87] Faybishenko B, Witherspoon PA, Bodvarsson GS, Gale J. Emerging issues in
fractured-rock flow and transport investigations: introduction and
overview. New York: Wiley; 2005.
[88] Ferrari A, Seiphoori A, Rüedi J, Laloui L. Shot-clay MX-80 bentonite: an
assessment of the hydro-mechanical behavior. Eng Geol 2014;173(1):10–8.
[89] François B, Laloui L. ACMEG-TS: a constitutive model for unsaturated soils
under non-isothermal conditions. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2008;32:1955–88.
[90] François B, Laloui L. An oedometer for studying combined effects of
temperature and suction on soils. Geotech Test J 2010;33(2):112–22.
[91] Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H, Fredlund MD. Unsaturated soil mechanics in
engineering practice. Wiley; 2012. p. 912.
[92] Fu P, Hao Y, Walsh SD, Carrigan CR. Thermal drawdown-induced flow
channeling in fractured geothermal reservoirs. Rock Mech Rock Eng
2015:1–24.
* Found that flow channeling occurs during long term operation of fractured
geothermal reservoirs as flow concentrates with time into a small number of
flow paths inside the cooled zone of the reservoir fracture network.
[93] Fu P, Johnson SM, Carrigan CR. An explicitly coupled hydro-geomechanical
model for simulating hydraulic fracturing in arbitrary discrete fracture
networks. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2013;37(14):2278–300.
[94] Gabrielsson A, Lehtmets M, Moritz L, Bergdahl U. Heat storage in soft clay
field tests with heating (70 °C) and freezing of the soil. Report 53. Stockholm,
Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute; 1997.
[95] Gadde P, Sharma MM. The impact of proppant retardation on propped
fracture lengths. In: 2005 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition;
2005. p. 9–12.
[96] Gadde P, Yajun L, Jay N, Roger B, Sharma M. Modeling proppant settling in
water-fracs. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 26–29
September, Houston, Texas; 2004. p. 1–10.
[97] Gai X, Sánchez M. Mechanical modeling of gas hydrate bearing sediments
using an elasto-plastic framework. Environ Geotech 2016 [in press].
[98] Gale J, Seok E. Using fracture pore space geometry to assess degassing and
scaling relationships in fractured rocks. In: Proc 2nd int symp on dynamics of
fluids in fractured rock; 2004. p. 1–25.
[99] Gallé C. Gas breakthrough pressure in compacted Fo–Ca clay and interfacial
gas overpressure in waste disposal context. Appl Clay Sci 2000;17(1–
2):85–97.
[100] Gallipoli D, Toll DG, Augarde CE, Tarantino A, De Gennaro V, Vaunat J, et al.
The MUSE network: sharing research expertise on unsaturated soils across
Europe. In: 4th International conference on unsaturated soils, Arizona; 2006.
p. 2075–85.
[101] Garitte B, Vaunat J, Gens A. A constitutive model that incorporates the effect
of suction in cemented geological materials. Unsaturated soils 2006. 2006;
1944–55.
[102] Gawin D, Baggio P, Schrefler BA. Coupled heat, water and gas flow in
deformable porous media. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1995;20(8–9):969–87.
[103] Gelet R, Loret B, Khalili N. A thermo-hydro-mechanical coupled model in
local thermal non-equilibrium for fractured HDR reservoir with double
porosity. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 2012;117(B7):1–23.
[104] Gens A. Constitutive laws. Modern issues in non-saturated soils. Springer-
Verlag; 1995. p. 129–58.
[105] Gens A. The role of geotechnical engineering for nuclear energy utilisation.
In: Proceeding of XIII European conference of soils mechanics and
geotechnical engineering, vol. 3, Prague; 2003. p. 25–67.
[106] Gens A, Garcia Molina A, Olivella S, Alonso EE, Huertas F. Analysis of a full
scale in-situ test simulating repository conditions. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 1998;22(7):515–48.
[107] Gens A, Vaunat J, Garitte B, Wileveau Y. In situ behaviour of a stiff layered
clay subject to thermal loading: observations and interpretation.
Géotechnique 2007;57(2):207–28.
[108] Gens A, Sánchez M, Guimarães L, Alonso EE, Lloret A, Olivella S, et al. A full
scale in situ heating test for high level nuclear waste disposal: observations,
analysis and interpretation. Géotechnique 2009;59(4):377–99.
[109] Gens A, Vallejan B, Sánchez M, Imbert C, Villar MV, Van Geet M.
Hydromechanical behaviour of a heterogeneous compacted soil:
experimental observations and modeling. Géotechnique 2011;61
(5):367–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP11.P.015.
[110] Gens A, Guimarães L, Fernández A, Sánchez M, Olivella S. Formulation for the
THMC analysis of clayey materials: application to radioactive waste disposal.
GeoCongress 2008:1053–60.
[111] Gens A, Sánchez M, Sheng D. On constitutive modelling of unsaturated soils.
Acta Geotech 2006;1(3):137–47.
[112] Gibbins J, Chalmers H. Carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy
2008;36:4317–22.
[113] Goode III JC, Zhang M, McCartney JS. Centrifuge modeling of energy
foundations in sand. In: Gaudin C, White D, editors. Physical modeling in
geotechnics: proceedings of the 8th international conference on physical
modelling in geotechnics, Perth, January 14–17. London: Taylor and Francis;
2014. p. 729–36.
[114] Goode III JC, McCartney JS. Evaluation of head restraint effects on energy
foundations. In: Abu-Farsakh M, Hoyos L, editors. Proceedings of
GeoCongress 2014 (GSP 234). ASCE; 2014. p. 2685–94.
[115] Goode III JC, McCartney JS. Centrifuge modeling of end-restraint effects
in energy foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(8) 04015034-
1-13.
[116] Graham J, Tanaka N, Crilly T, Alfaro M. Modified cam-clay modelling of
temperature effects in clays. Can Geotech J 2001;38(3):608–21.
[117] Grant SA, Salehzadeh A. Calculations of temperature effects on wetting
coefficients of porous solids and their capillary pressure functions. Water
Resour Res 1996;32(2):261–79.
[118] Guimarães L, Gens A, Sánchez M, Olivella S. THM and reactive transport
analysis of expansive clay barrier in radioactive waste isolation. Commun
Numer Methods Eng 2006;22(8):849–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnm.852.
[119] Guimarães L, Gens A, Olivella S. Coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and
chemical analysis of expansive clay subjected to heating and hydration.
Transp Porous Media 2007;66(3):341–72.
[120] Guimarães L, Gens A, Sánchez M, Olivella S. A chemo-mechanical constitutive
model accounting for cation exchange in expansive clays. Géotechnique
2013;63(3):221–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.012.
[121] Gupta S, Helmig R, Wohlmuth B. Non-isothermal, multi-phase, multi-
component flows through deformable methane hydrate reservoirs. Comput
Geosci 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10596-015-9520-9.
[122] Guven O, Melville G, Molz FJ. An analysis of the effect of surface heat
exchange on the thermal behavior of an idealized aquifer thermal energy
storage system. Water Resour Res 1983;19(3):860–4.
[123] Hannah R, Harrington L. Measurement of dynamic proppant fall rates in
fracturing gels using a concentric cylinder tester. J Petrol Technol
1981;33:909–13.
[124] Hardy Jr HR. Acoustic emission/microseismic activity: principles, techniques
and geotechnical applications. vol. 1. CRC Press; 2005.
[125] Harrington L, Hannah R, Williams D. Dynamic experiments on proppant
settling in crosslinked fracturing fluids. In: Proc SPE annual technical
conference and exhibition; 1979. p. 1–8.
[126] Haszeldine RS. Carbon capture and storage: how green can black be? Science
2009;325(5948):1647–52.
[127] Hicks T, Pine R, Willis-Richards J, Xu S, Jupe A, Rodrigues N. A hydro-thermo-
mechanical numerical model for HDR geothermal reservoir evaluation. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1996;33(5):499–511.
[128] High-Combi. High solar fraction heating and cooling systems with
combination of innovative components and methods. Report STREP.
European Union; 2008.
[129] Hoffmann C, Alonso EE, Romero E. Hydro-mechanical behaviour of bentonite
pellet mixtures. Phys Chem Earth 2007;32(8–14):832–49.
[130] Houston SL, Houston WN, Williams ND. Thermo-mechanical behavior of
seafloor sediments. J Geotech Eng 1985;111(12):1249–63.
[131] Hovland M, Gudmestad OT. Potential influence of gas hydrate on seabed
installations. In: Paull CK, Dillon WP, editors. Natural gas hydrates:
occurrence, distribution, and detection. Geophysics monograph series, vol.
124; 2001. p. 307–15.
[132] Hubbert KM, Willis DG. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Trans Am Inst Min
Metall Eng 1957;210(6):153–63.
[133] Hudson JA, Bäckström A, Rutqvist J, Jing L, Backers T, Chijimatsu M, et al.
Characterising and modelling the excavation damaged zone in crystalline
rock in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Environ Geol 2009;57
(6):1275–97.
[134] Hueckel T, Baldi G. Thermoplasticity of saturated clays: experimental
constitutive study. J Geotech Eng 1990;116(12):1778–96.
[135] Hueckel T, Borsetto M. Thermoplasticity of saturated soils and shales:
constitutive equations. J Geotech Eng 1990;116(12):1765–77.
[136] Hueckel T. Water–mineral interaction in hygromechanics of clay exposed to
environmental loads: a mixture-theory approach. Can Geotech J 1992;29
(6):1071–86.
[137] Hueckel T, Pellegrini R. Effective stress and water pressure in saturated clays
during heating-cooling cycles. Can Geotech J 1992;29:1095–102.
[138] Hueckel T, Pellegrini R. A note on thermomechanical anisotropy of clays. Eng
Geol 1996;41(1–4):171–80.
[139] Hueckel T, Pellegrini R, Del Omo C. A constitutive study of thermo-elasto-
plasticity of deep carbonatic clays. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1998;22
(7):549–74.
[140] Hueckel T, Pellegrini R. Reactive plasticity for clays: application to a natural
analog of long-term geomechanical effects of nuclear waste disposal. Eng
Geol 2002;64:195–215.
[141] Hueckel T, François B, Laloui L. Explaining thermal failure in saturated clays.
Géotechnique 2009;59(3):197–212.
[142] Huertas F, Farina P, Farias J, Garcýa-Sineriz JL, Villar MV, Fernandez AM, et al.
Full-scale engineered barrier experiment, updated final report, technical
publication 05-0/2006. Madrid: Enresa; 2006.
[143] Hunter R-B, Collett T-S, Boswell R, Anderson B-J, Digert S-A, Pospisil G, et al.
BPXA-USDOE-USGS Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska
north slope: overview of scientific and technical program. Mar Pet Geol
2011;28(2):295–310.
[144] Hyodo M, Nakata Y, Yoshimoto N, Yoneda J. Shear strength of methane
hydrate bearing sand and its deformation during dissociation of methane
hydrate. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on deformation
characteristics of geomaterials; 2008. p. 549–56.
[145] International Energy Agency (IEA). Global action to advance carbon capture
and storage accelerating the transition to clean energy technologies: a focus
on industrial applications, Paris; 2013.
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[146] Ingersoll L-R, Zobel O-J, Ingersoll A-C. Heat conduction: with engineering,
geological and other applications. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1955. p. 325.
[147] Inui T, Chau C, Soga K, Nicholson D, O’Riordan N. Embodied energy and gas
emission of retaining wall structures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2011;137
(10):958–67.
[148] Itasca; 2015. <http://www.itascacg.com/software/flac3d> [April 2015].
[149] Jennings JEB, Burland JB. Limitations to the use of effective stresses in partly
saturated soils. Géotechnique 1962;12(2):125–44.
[150] Johnson JW, Nitao JJ, Steefel CI, Knaus KG. Reactive transport modeling of
geologic CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers: the influence of intra-aquifer
shales and the relative effectiveness of structural, solubility, and mineral
trapping during prograde and retrograde sequestration. In: Proc first natl
conf carbon sequestration, Washington, DC, May 14–17, 2001. p. 1–60.
[151] Johnson JW, Nitao JJ, Knaus KG. Reactive transport modelling of CO2 storage
in saline aquifers to elucidate fundamental processes, trapping mechanisms,
and sequestration partitioning. Geol Soc London Spec Publ Carbon
Sequestration Technol 2004:1–43.
[152] Juliusson E, Horne RN. Characterization of fractured reservoirs using tracer
and flow-rate data. Water Resour Res 2013;49(5):2327–42.
[153] Kaltreider C, Krarti M, McCartney JS. Heat transfer analysis of thermo-active
foundations. Energy Build 2015;86:492–501.
[154] Kanno T, Fujita T, Takeuchi A, Ishikawa H, Hara K, Nakano M. Coupled
thermo-hydro-mechanical modelling of bentonite buffer material. Int J
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1999;23(12):1281–307.
[155] Kern L, Perkins R, Wyant R. The mechanics of sand movement in fracturing. J
Petrol Technol 1959;11:55–7.
[156] Khosravi A, McCartney JS. Impact of hydraulic hysteresis on the small-strain
shear modulus of unsaturated soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138
(11):1326–33.
[157] Khristianovic SA, Zheltov YP. Formation of vertical fractures by means of
highly viscous liquid. In: Proceedings of the fourth world petroleum congress,
Rome; 1955. p. 579–86.
[158] Kim S, Hosseini SA. Hydro-thermo-mechanical analysis during injection of
cold fluid into a geologic formation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2015;77:220–36.
** Analyzed hydro-thermo-mechanical injection into geological formation and
assessed the maximum mobilized friction angle shift during cold fluid
injection in normal-faulting and reverse-faulting stress regime.
[159] Kim H, Rutqvist J, Ryu D, Choi B, Sunwoo C, Song W. Exploring the concept of
compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns at sallow depth: a
modeling study of air tightness and energy balance. Appl Energy
2012;92:653–67.
[160] Kim J-S, Kwon S-K, Sánchez M, Cho G-C. Geological storage of high level
nuclear waste. KSCE J Civil Eng 2011;15(4):721–37.
[161] Kimoto S, Oka F, Fushita T. A chemo-thermo-mechanically coupled analysis
of ground deformation induced by gas hydrate dissociation. Int J Mech Sci
2010;52(2):365–76.
[162] Klar A, Soga K, Ng M. Coupled deformation-flow analysis for methane hydrate
extraction. Géotechnique 2010;60(10):765–76.
[163] Klar A, Uchida S, Soga K, Yamamoto K. Explicitly coupled thermal-flow-
mechanical formulation for gas hydrate sediments. SPE J 2012;18(2):196–206.
[164] Knellwolf C, Peron H, Laloui L. Geotechnical analysis of heat exchanger piles. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2011;137(12):890–902.
[165] Kohl T, Evansi K, Hopkirk R, Rybach L. Coupled hydraulic, thermal and
mechanical considerations for the simulation of hot dry rock reservoirs.
Geothermics 1995;24:345–59.
[166] Komine H, Ogata N. Experimental study on swelling characteristic of sand-
bentonite mixture for nuclear waste disposal. Soils Found 1999;39(3):83–97.
[167] Kranz RL. Microcracks in rocks: a review. Tectonophysics 1983;100:449–80.
[168] Kuntiwattanakul P, Towhata I, Ohishi K, Seko I. Temperature effects on
undrained shear characteristics of clay. Soils Found 1995;35(1):147–62.
[169] Kvenolden KA. Gas hydrates – geological perspective and global change. Rev
Geophys 1993;31(2):173–87.
[170] Kvenolden KA, Lorenson TD. Global occurrences of gas hydrate. In:
Proceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering conference;
2001. p. 462–7.
[171] Kwag BC, Krarti M. Development of a response factor model for thermo-
active building foundation. In: ASME 2014 international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition, vol. 6B. Paper IMECE2014-36350;
2014. p. 1–12.
[172] Kwon TH, Cho GC, Santamarina JC. Gas hydrate dissociation in sediments:
pressure–temperature evolution. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 2008;9(3):
Q03019.
[173] Laloui L, François B. ACMEG-T: soil thermoplasticity. J Eng Mech 2009;135
(9):932–44.
[174] Laloui L, Moreni M, Vulliet L. Comportement d’un pieu bi-fonction,
foundation et échangeur de chaleur. Can Geotech J 2003;40(2):388–402.
[175] Laloui L, Cekerevac C. Thermo-plasticity of clays: an isotropic yield
mechanism. Comput Geotech 2003;30:649–60.
[176] Laloui L, Cekerevac C. Non-isothermal plasticity model for cyclic behaviour of
soils. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2008;32:437–60.
[177] Laloui L, Leroueil S, Chalindar S. Modelling of the combined effect of strain
rate and temperature on one-dimensional compression of soils. Can Geotech
J 2008;45(12):1765–77.
[178] Laloui L, Nuth M, Vulliet L. Experimental and numerical investigations of the
behaviour of a heat exchanger pile. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2006;30
(8):763–81.
253
[179] Laloui L, Olgun CG, Sutman M, McCartney JS, Coccia CJR, Abuel-Naga HM,
et al. Issues involved with thermo-active geotechnical systems:
characterization of thermo-mechanical soil behavior and soil-structure
interface behavior. J Deep Found Inst 2014;8(2):107–19.
[180] Landon Maynard M, Schneider JA, McEntee J, Newberg E. Suction caissons for
cross-flow tidal power system. Proc ICE – Geotech Eng 2013;166(2):
99–110.
[181] Landon Maynard M, Schneider J. Geotechnics for developing offshore
renewable energy infrastructure industries in the US. In: 2nd Int symp on
frontiers in offshore geotechnics (ISFOG), 8–10 November, University of
Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia; 2010.
[182] Lee SH, Ghassemi A. Three-dimensional thermo-poro-mechanical modeling
of reservoir stimulation and induced microseismicity in geothermal
reservoir. In: Proc 36th workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering,
Palo Alto, CA; 2011.
[183] Lee JY, Yun YS, Santamarina JC, Ruppel C. Observations related to
tetrahydrofuran and methane hydrates for laboratory studies of hydrate-
bearing sediments. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 2007;8(6):1–10.
[184] Leroueil S, Marques MES. Importance of strain rate and temperature effects in
geotechnical engineering. In: Proceedings of ASCE national convention,
Washington, DC; 1996. p. 1–60.
[185] Lesny K, Hinz P. Design of monopile foundations for offshore wind energy
converters. Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations; 2009. p. 512–9.
[186] Lesny K, Wiemann J. Finite-element-modelling of large diameter monopiles
for offshore wind energy converters. GeoCongress 2006:1–6.
[187] Lingnau BE, Graham J, Tanaka N. Isothermal modelling of sand-bentonite
mixtures at elevated temperatures. Can Geotech J 1995;32:78–88.
[188] Lloret Morancho A, Villar MV, Sánchez M, Gens A, Solé S, Pintado Llurba X.
Mechanical behaviour of heavily compacted bentonite under high suction
changes. Géotechnique 2003;53(1):27–40.
[189] Lockner D. The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1993;30(7):883–99.
[190] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Pile heat exchangers: thermal behaviour and
interactions. Proc Inst Civil Eng – Geotech Eng 2012;166(GE2):
178–96.
[191] Loveridge F, Powrie W. 2D thermal resistance of pile heat exchangers.
Geothermics 2014;50:122–35.
[192] Loveridge F, Olgun CG, Brettmann T, Powrie W. The thermal behaviour of
three different auger pressure grouted piles used as heat exchangers. Geol
Geotech Eng 2015;32(3):273–89.
[193] Loveridge F, Powrie W. Temperature response functions (G-functions) for
single pile heat exchangers. Energy 2013;57:554–64.
** Practical approach to integrate thermal response of energy pile heat
exchangers into building thermal design software.
[194] Lu N, Dong Y. Closed-form equation for thermal conductivity of unsaturated
soils at room temperature. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001295. 04015016.
[195] Lutz SJ, Hickman S, Davatzes N, Zemach E, Drakos P, Robertson-Tait A. Rock
mechanical testing and petrologic analysis in support of well stimulation
activities at the Desert Peak Geothermal Field, Nevada. In: Proc 35th
workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering; 2010. p. 1–11.
[196] Maddocks DV, Savvidou C. The effects of heat transfer from a hot penetrator
installed in the ocean bed. In: Craig WH, editor. Application of centrifuge
modeling to geotechnical design; 1984. p. 337–56.
[197] Majer EL, Baria R, Stark M, Oates S, Bommer J, Smith B, et al. Induced
seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems. Geothermics
2007;36:185–222.
[198] Mangold D. Seasonal heat storage: pilot projects & experiences in Germany.
Stuttgart, Germany: Steinbeis Research Institute for Solar and Sustainable
Thermal Energy Systems; 2008.
[199] Mangold D, Schmidt T. The new central solar heating plants with seasonal
storage in Germany. Glasgow, UK: EuroSun; 2006. p. 1–6.
[200] Martin PL, Barcala JM. Large scale buffer material test: mock-up experiment
at CIEMAT. Eng Geol 2005;81(3):298–316.
[201] Masui A, Miyazaki K, Haneda H, Ogata Y, Aoki K. Mechanical characteristics of
natural and artificial gas hydrate bearing sediments. In: Proceedings of the
6th international conference on gas hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada; 2008.
[202] McCartney JS. Engineering performance of energy foundations. In: 2011 Pan
Am CGS geotechnical conference; 2011. p. 1–15.
[203] McCartney JS. Issues involved in using temperature to improve the mechanical
behavior of unsaturated soils. In: Jotisankasa A, Sawangsuriya A, Soralump S,
Mairaing W, editors. Unsaturated soils, theory and practice: proceedings of 5th
Asia-Pacific unsaturated soils conference. Thailand: Kasetsaert University;
2012. p. 509–14.
[204] McCartney JS. Structural performance of thermo-active foundations. In:
Krarti M, editor. Advances in thermo-active foundations. New York: ASME
Press; 2015. p. 1–44. ISBN: 9780791861059.
[205] McCartney JS, Rosenberg JE. Impact of heat exchange on side shear in
thermo-active foundations. In: Han J, Alzamora DE, editors. Proc geo-frontiers
2011 (GSP 211). Reston, VA: ASCE; 2011. p. 488–98.
[206] McCartney JS, Murphy KD. Strain distributions in full-scale energy
foundations. DFI J 2012;6(2):28–36.
[207] McCartney JS, Ge S, Reed A, Lu N, Smits K. Soil-borehole thermal energy
storage systems for district heating. In: Proceedings of the European
geothermal congress 2013, Pisa, June 3–7, 2013. p. 1–10.
254 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[208] McClure MW, Horne RN. An investigation of stimulation mechanisms in
enhanced geothermal systems. Int J Rock Mech Min 2014;72:242–60.
[209] McClure MW, Horne RN. Correlations between formation properties and
induced seismicity during high pressure injection into granitic rock. Eng Geol
2014;175:74–80.
[210] McDowell TP, Thornton JW. Simulation and model calibration of a large-scale
solar seasonal storage system. In: Third national conference of IBPSA-USA,
Berkeley, CA; 2008.
[211] Meyer CF, Todd DK. Are heat-storage wells the answer? Electrical World
1973:42–5.
[212] Mimouni T, Laloui L. Towards a secure basis for the design of geothermal
piles. Acta Geotech 2014;9(3):355–66.
[213] Mitchell JK, Campanella RG, Singh A. Soil creep as a rate process. J Soil Mech
Found Div, ASCE 1968;94(1):231–53.
[214] Milly PCD. Moisture and heat transport in hysteretic, inhomogeneous porous
media: a matric head-based formulation and a numerical model. Water
Resour Res 1982;18(3):489–98.
[215] Mitchell JK, Kelly R. Addressing some current challenges in ground
improvement. Proc Inst Civil Eng – Ground Improve 2013;166
(GI3):127–37.
[216] Modaressi H, Laloui L. A thermo-viscoplastic constitutive model for clays. Int
J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1997;21(5):313–35.
[217] Moeck I, Kwiatek G, Zimmermann G. Slip tendency analysis, fault reactivation
potential and induced seismicity in a deep geothermal reservoir. J Struct Geol
2009;31:1174–82.
[218] Molz FJ, Waarman JC, Jones TE. Aquifer storage of heated water: part I – a
field experiment. Ground Water 1978;16(4):234–41.
[219] Molz FJ, Parr AD, Andersen PF, Lucido VD, Warman JC. Thermal energy
storage in a confined aquifer, experimental results. Water Resour Res
1979:1509–14.
[220] Moridis G, Collett T, Boswell R, Kurihara M, Reagan M, Koh C, et al. Toward
production from gas hydrates: current status, assessment of resources, and
simulation-based evaluation of technology and potential. SPE Reservoir Eval
Eng 2008;12(5):745–71.
[221] Mortezaei K, Vahedifard F. Numerical simulation of induced seismicity in
carbon capture and storage projects. Geotech Geol Eng 2015;33(2):1–17.
[222] Murphy KD, McCartney JS. Thermal borehole shear device. ASTM Geotech
Test J 2014;37(6):1040–55.
[223] Murphy KD, McCartney JS. Seasonal response of energy foundations during
building operation. Geotech Geol Eng 2015;33(2):343–56.
* Evaluated the thermal and mechanical response of energy piles over the
course of several heating and cooling cycles.
[224] Murphy KD, McCartney JS, Henry KS. Thermo-mechanical response tests on
energy foundations with different heat exchanger configurations. Acta
Geotech 2015;10(2):179–95.
[225] Musso G, Romero E, Della Vecchia G. Double-structure effects on the chemo-
hydro-mechanical behaviour of a compacted active clay. Géotechnique
2013;63(3):206–20.
[226] Nazridoust K, Ahmadi G. Computational modeling of methane hydrate
dissociation in a sandstone core. Chem Eng Sci 2007;62(22):6155–77.
[227] NETL; 2015. <http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-
hydrates/mh-codecompare> [April 2015].
[228] Ng CWW, Shi C, Gunawan A, Laloui L, Liu HL. Centrifuge modelling of heating
effects on energy pile performance in saturated sand. Can Geotech J
2015;52:1–13.
[229] Ng CWW, Shi C, Gunawan A, Laloui L. Centrifuge modelling of energy piles
subjected to heating and cooling cycles in clay. Géotech Lett 2014;4(October–
December):310–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.14.00063.
** Centrifuge modeling of cyclic heating and cooling effects of energy piles in
clay.
[230] Nicholson D, Smith P, Bowers GA, Cuceoglu F, Olgun CG, McCartney JS, et al.
Environmental impact calculations, life cycle cost analysis. J Deep Found Inst
2014;8(2):129–45.
[231] Nicot J-P, Duncan IJ. Common attributes of hydraulic fractured oil and gas
production and CO2 geological sequestration. Greenhouse Gas Sci Technol
2012;2:352–68.
[232] Nicot JP, Oldenburg CM, Houseworth JE, Choi JW. Analysis of potential
leakage pathways at the Cranfield, MS, U.S.A., CO2 sequestration site. Int J
Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;18:388–400.
[233] Nolte KG, Smith MB. Interpretation of fracturing pressures. J Petrol Technol
1981;33(9):1767–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8297-PA.
[234] Nordgren RP. Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. Soc Pet Eng J
1972;12(4):306–14.
[235] Novotny E. Proppant transport; 1977.
[236] Nottebohm M, Licha T, Sauter M. Tracer design for tracking thermal fronts in
geothermal reservoirs. Geothermics 2012;43:37–44.
[237] Nussbicker J, Heidemann W, Steinhagen H. Monitoring results and
operational experiences for a central solar district heating system with
borehole thermal energy store in Neckarsulm (Germany). Stuttgart,
Germany; 2000.
[238] Nussbicker J, Mangold D, Heidemann W, Steinhagen H. Solar assisted district
heating system with seasonal duct heat store in Neckarsulm-Amorback
(Germany). In: EuroSun 2004, Freiburg, Germany; 2004.
[239] Ohga H, Mikoda K. Energy performance of borehole thermal energy storage
systems. In: Seventh int IBPSA conference, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil; 2001. p.
1009–16.
[240] Olgun CG, McCartney JS. Outcomes from the international workshop on
thermoactive geotechnical systems for near-surface geothermal energy: from
research to practice. J Deep Found Inst 2014;8(2):58–72.
[241] Olgun CG, Ozudogru TY, Abdelaziz SL, Senol A. Long-term performance of
heat exchanger pile groups. Acta Geotech 2015:1–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11440-014-0334-z.
[242] Olgun CG, Ozudogru T, Arson CF. Thermo-mechanical radial expansion of
heat exchanger piles and possible effects on contact pressures at pile–soil
interface. Géotech Lett 2014;4(3):170–8.
[243] Olgun CG, McCartney JS, Loveridge FA, Bowers GA, Coccia CJ, Bouazza A, et al.
Building codes, green certification, and implementation issues, market
challenges. J Deep Found Inst 2014;8(2):83–91.
[244] Olivella S, Gens A, Carrera J, Alonso EE. Numerical formulation for a simulator
(CODE-BRIGHT) for the coupled analysis of saline media. Eng Comput
1996;13(7):87–112.
[245] Osselin F, Fabbri A, Teddy F-C, Dangla P, Pereira J-M, Lassin A. Stress from
NACL crystallization by CO2 injection in aquifers. Environ Geotech 2015;2
(5):280–91.
[246] Osselin F, Teddy F-C, Fabbri A, Lassin A, Pereira J-M, Dangla P. Dependence on
injection temperature and on aquifer’s petrophysical properties of the local
stress applying on the pore wall of a crystallized pore in the context of CO2
storage in deep saline aquifers. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 2013;64(2):1–10.
[247] Ouyang Y, Soga K, Leung YF. Numerical back-analysis of energy pile test at
Lambeth College, London. In: Han J, Alzamora DE, editors. Proc geo-frontiers
2011 (GSP 211). Reston, VA: ASCE; 2011. p. 440–9.
[248] Ozudogru TY, Olgun CG, Arson CF. Analysis of friction induced thermo-
mechanical stresses on a heat exchanger pile in isothermal soil. Geotech Geol
Eng 2015;33(3):357–71.
[249] Paksoy HO, Andersson O, Abaci S, Evliya H, Turgut B. Heating and cooling of a
hospital using solar energy coupled with seasonal thermal energy storage in
an aquifer. Renew Energy 2000;19:117–22.
[250] Passey QR, Bohacs K, Esch WL, Klimentidis R, Sinha S. From oil-prone source
rock to gas-producing shale reservoir – geologic and petrophysical
characterization of unconventional shale-gas reservoirs. In: Proc
international oil and gas conference and exhibition in China, SPE 131350;
2010. p. 1–29.
[251] Pasten C, Santamarina JC. Thermally induced long-term displacement of
thermoactive piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014;140(5):06014003.
[252] Patankar NA, Joseph DD, Wang J, Barree RD, Conway M, Asadi M. Power law
correlations for sediment transport in pressure driven channel flows. Int J
Multiph Flow 2002;28:1269–92.
[253] Pereira J-M, Arson C. Retention and permeability properties of damaged
porous rocks. Comput Geotech 2013;48:272–82.
[254] Perkins T, Kern L. Widths of hydraulic fractures. J Petrol Technol
1961;13:937–49.
[255] Philip JR, de Vries DA. Moisture movement in porous materials under
temperature gradients. Trans Am Geophys Union 1957;38(2):222–32.
[256] Pijuadier-Cabat G, Pereira J-M. Geomechanics in CO2 storage
facilities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013.
[257] Pintado X, Ledesma A, Lloret A. Backanalysis of thermohydraulic bentonite
properties from laboratory tests. Eng Geol 2002;64(2–3):91–115.
[258] Pinyol N, Vaunat J, Alonso EE. A constitutive model for soft clayey rocks that
includes weathering effects. Géotechnique 2009;57(2):137–51.
[259] Pruess K, Oldenburg C, Moridis G. TOUGH2 user’s guide, version 2.0. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-43134, Berkeley, CA; 1999.
[260] Push R. Mineral–water interactions and their influence on the physical
behavior of highly compacted Na-bentonite. Can Geotech J 1982;19
(3):381–7.
[261] Rackley S. Carbon capture and storage. Gulf Professional Publishing; 2009.
[262] Rajaei M, Tinjum JM. Life cycle assessment of energy balance and emissions
of a wind energy plant. J Geotech Geol Eng 2013;31(6):1663–70.
[263] Rempel A, Buffett B. Formation and accumulation of gas hydrate in porous
media. J Geophys Res – All Ser 1997;102:10151–64.
[264] Robinet J-C, Rahbaoui A, Plas F, Lebon P. A constitutive thermomechanical
model for saturated clays. Eng Geol 1996;41:145–69.
[265] Romero E, Gens A, Lloret A. Suction effects on a compacted clay under non-
isothermal conditions. Géotechnique 2003;53(1):65–81.
[266] Romero E, Villar MV, Lloret A. Thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of two
heavily overconsolidated clays. Eng Geol 2005;81(3):255–68.
[267] Rose PE, Benoit WR, Kilbourn PM. The application of the polyaromatic
sulfonates as tracers in geothermal reservoirs. Geothermics 2001;30:617–40.
[268] Ross DJ, Bustin RM. The importance of shale composition and pore structure
upon gas storage potential of shale gas reservoirs. Mar Pet Geol
2009;26:916–27.
[269] Rotta Loria AF, Gunawan A, Shi C, Laloui L, Ng CWW. Numerical modelling of
energy piles in saturated sand subjected to thermo-mechanical loads.
Geomech Energy Environ 2015;1:1–15.
[270] Rotta Loria AF, Di Donna A, Laloui L. Numerical study on the suitability of
centrifuge testing for capturing the thermal-induced mechanical behavior of
energy piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(1).
* Verifies that geotechnical centrifuges are a useful tool to understand soil-
structure interaction phenomena in energy piles 04015042-1-10.
[271] Rouissi K, Krarti M, McCartney JS. Analysis of thermo-active foundations with
U-tube heat exchangers. ASME J Sol Energy Eng 2012;134(2):1–8.
[272] Rutqvist J, Birkholzer J, Cappa F, Tsang C-F. Estimating maximum sustainable
injection pressure during geological sequestration of CO2 using coupled fluid
 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis. Energy Conserv Manage
2007;48:1798–807.
[273] Rutqvist J. Status of the TOUGH-FLAC simulator and recent applications
related to coupled fluid flow and crustal deformations. Comput Geosci
2011;37(6):739–50.
[274] Rutqvist J. The geomechanics of CO2 storage in deep sedimentary formations.
J Geotech Geol Eng 2012;30:525–51.
[275] Rutqvist J, Wu Y-S, Tsang C-F, Bodvarsson G. A modeling approach for
analysis of coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer, and deformation in
fractured porous rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:429–42.
[276] Rutqvist J, Vasco DW, Myer L. Coupled reservoir-geomechanical analysis of
CO2 injection at In Salah, Algeria. Energy Proc 2009;1(1):1847–54.
[277] Rutqvist J, Rinaldi AP, Cappa F, Moridis GJ. Modeling of fault reactivation and
induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs. J
Petrol Sci Eng 2013;107:31–44.
[278] Rutqvist J, Moridis G. Numerical studies of geomechanical stability of
hydrate-bearing sediments. In: Offshore technological conference, Houston.
OTC 18860; 2007.
[279] Rutqvist J, Barr D, Datta R, Gens A, Millard M, Olivella S, et al. Coupled
thermal-hydrological-mechanical analysis of the yucca mountain drift scale
test – comparison of field results to predictions of four different models. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42(5–6):680–97.
[280] Rutqvist J, Zheng L, Chen F, Liu H-H, Birkholzer J. Modeling of coupled
thermo-hydro-mechanical processes with links to geochemistry associated
with bentonite-backfilled repository tunnels in clay formations. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 2014;47:167–86.
[281] Saba S, Delage P, Cui Y-J, Tang A, Lenoir N, Barnichon JD. Further insight into
the microstructure of compacted bentonite/sand mixture. Eng Geol
2014;168:141–8.
[282] Sahara DP, Schoenball M, Kohl T, Müller BI. Impact of fracture networks on
borehole breakout heterogeneities in crystalline rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2014;71:301–9.
[283] Saggu R, Chakraborty T. Cyclic thermo-mechanical analysis of energy piles in
sand. Geotech Geol Eng 2015;33(3):321–42.
[284] Salager S, François B, El Youssoufi MS, Laloui L, Saix C. Experimental
investigations of temperature and suction effects on compressibility and
pre-consolidation pressure of a sandy silt. Soils Found 2008;48(4):
453–66.
[285] Sanner B, Knoblich K. New IEA-activity ECES annex 12: high temperature
underground thermal energy storage. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Stockton
international geothermal conference, March 16–17, Stockton University, NJ;
1998. p. 1–9.
[286] Sánchez M, Gens A, Guimarães L, Olivella S. A double structure generalized
plasticity model for expansive materials. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2005;29(8):751–87.
[287] Sánchez M, Gens A, Guimarães L, Olivella S. Implementation algorithm of a
generalised plasticity model for swelling clays. Comput Geotech 2008;35
(6):860–71.
[288] Sánchez M, Gens A, Guimarães L. Thermal–hydraulic–mechanical (THM)
behaviour of a large-scale in situ heating experiment during cooling and
dismantling. Can Geotech J 2012;49(10):1169–95.
[289] Sánchez M, Gens A, Olivella S. THM analysis of a large scale heating test
incorporating material fabric changes. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2012;36(4):391–421.
[290] Sánchez M, Gens A, Villar MV, Olivella S. A truly coupled THM formulation for
double porosity unsaturated soils. Int J Geomech 2016 [in press].
[291] Sánchez M, Shastri A, Le T. Coupled hydro-mechanical analysis of an
underground compressed air energy storage facility in sandstone. Géotech
Lett 2014;4:157–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.13.00068.
* Evaluation of issues involved with storage of compressed air in the
subsurface.
[292] Sanjuan B, Pinault J-L, Rose P, Gérard A, Brach M, Braibant G, et al. Tracer
testing of the geothermal heat exchanger at Soultz-sous-Forêts (France)
between 2000 and 2005. Geothermics 2006;35:622–53.
[293] Santamarina JC, Dai S, Terzariol M, Jang J, Waite WF, Winters WJ. Hydro-bio-
geomechanical properties of hydrate-bearing sediments from Nankai Trough.
Mar Pet Geol 2015;66(September):434–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpetgeo.2015.02.033.
** Provides insight into the properties of methane hydrate sediments.
[294] Savvidou C, Britto AM. Numerical and experimental investigation of
thermally induced effects in saturated clay. Soils Found 1995;35(1):37–44.
[295] Schiffman RL. A thermoelastic theory of consolidation. Environ Geophys Heat
Transfer 1971:78–84.
[296] Schmidt H-G, Wuttke F, Schanz T. Foundation design of wind power stations
on reclaimed mining areas; soil improvement and site parameter
investigations. In: Symp constr proc geotech eng, London; 2003.
[297] Schmidt T, Nussbicker J. Monitoring results from German central solar
heating plants with seasonal storage. In: ISES 2005 solar world congress;
2005.
[298] Schneider JA, Landon Maynard M, Senders M. Geotechnical engineering for
offshore wind turbine foundations. Sea Technol 2010;51(9):29–33.
[299] Schofield AN, Wroth CP. Critical state soil mechanics. London, United
Kingdom: McGraw Hill; 1968.
[300] Seneviratne HN, Carter JP, Booker JR. Analysis of fully coupled
thermomechanical behaviour around a rigid cylindrical heat source
255
buried in clay. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1994;18
(3):177–203.
[301] Settari A, Ito Y, Fukushima N, Vaziri H. Geotechnical aspects of recovery
processes in oil sands. Can Geotech J 1993;30(1):22–33.
[302] Shah SN. Proppant settling correlations for non-Newtonian fluids under static
and dynamic conditions. Soc Petrol Eng J 1982;22:164–70.
[303] Shah SN. Rheological characterization of hydraulic fracturing slurries. Prod
Facil 1993;8:123–30.
[304] Shah SN, Lee Y. Friction pressures of proppant-laden hydraulic fracturing
fluids. SPE Prod Eng 1986;1:437–45.
[305] Shah SN, Lord D. Hydraulic fracturing slurry transport in horizontal pipes. SPE
Drill Eng 1990;5:225–32.
[306] Shah SN, El Fadili Y, Chhabra RP. New model for single spherical particle
settling velocity in power law (visco-inelastic) fluids. Int J Multiph Flow
2007;33:51–66.
[307] Sibbitt B, McClenahan D, Djebbara R, Thornton J, Wong B, Carriere J, et al. The
performance of a high solar fraction seasonal storage district heating system
– five years of operation. Energy Proc 2012;30:856–65.
[308] Siemens G, Blatz J. Evaluation of the influence of boundary confinement on
the behaviour of unsaturated swelling clay soils. Can Geotech J 2009;46
(3):339–56.
[309] Singurindy O, Berkowitz B. Competition among flow, dissolution, and
precipitation in fractured carbonate rocks. In: Prof 2nd int symp on
dynamics of fluids in fractured rock; 2004. p. 1–81.
[310] Sloan ED, Koh CA. Clathrate hydrates of natural gases. 3rd ed. Boca
Raton: CRC Press; 2008.
[311] Small AA, Cook GK, Brown MJ. The geotechnical challenges of tidal turbine
projects. In: ASME 2014 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and
arctic engineering; 2014. p. 1–9.
[312] Snijders AI, Bakema G. The successful introduction of aquifer cold storage in
the Netherlands. In: Proc. MegaStock’97. 7th International conference on
thermal energy storage; 1997.
[313] Soga K, Lee S, Ng M, Klar A. Characterisation and engineering properties of
methane hydrate soils. In: 2nd International workshop on characterisation &
engineering properties of natural soils, Singapore; 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1201/NOE0415426916.ch26.
[314] Soga K, Chau C, Nicholson D, Pentelidou H. Embodied energy: soil retaining
geosystems. KSCE J Civil Eng 2011;15(4):739–49.
[315] Soma N, Niitsuma H. Identification of structures within the deep geothermal
reservoir of the Kakkonda field, Japan, by a reflection method using acoustic
emission as a wave source. Geothermics 1997;26:43–64.
[316] Soma N, Niitsuma H, Baria R. Reflection technique in time-frequency domain
using multicomponent acoustic emission signals and application to
geothermal reservoirs. Geophysics 2002;67:928–38.
[317] Souley M, Lopez P, Boulon M, Thoraval A. Experimental hydromechanical
characterization and numerical modelling of a fractured and porous
sandstone. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2015;48(3):1143–61.
* Studied the relationship between mechanical and hydraulic fracture
apertures, and observed that the ratio between hydraulic aperture and
normal fracture closure decreases with increasing effective normal stress and
fracture contact area.
[318] Spycher N, Pruess K. A phase-partitioning model for CO2–brine mixtures at
elevated temperatures and pressures: application to CO2-enhanced
geothermal systems. Transp Porous Media 2010;82:173–96.
[319] Stewart MA, McCartney JS. Centrifuge modeling of soil-structure interaction
in energy foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014;140(4). http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001061 04013044-1-11.
[320] Stewart MA, Coccia CJR, McCartney JS. Issues in the implementation
of sustainable heat exchange technologies in reinforced, unsaturated
soil structures. In: GeoCongress. Reston, VA: ASCE; 2014. p.
4066–75.
[321] Suarez MC, Fernando Samaniego V. COMSOL in a new tensorial formulation
of non-isothermal poroelasticity. In: Proc COMSOL conference; 2009.
p. 1–7.
[322] Succar S, Williams RH. Compressed air energy storage: theory, resources, and
applications for wind power. Princeton Environmental Institute Report;
2008.
[323] Sultan N, Delage P, Cui Y-J. Temperature effects on the volume change
behavior of Boom clay. Eng Geol 2002;64:135–45.
[324] Sultan N, Cochonat P, Fouchera J-P, Mienert J. Effect of gas hydrates melting
on seafloor slope instability. Mar Geol 2004;213(1–4):379–401.
[325] Suryatriyastuti ME, Mroueh H, Burlon S. Numerical analysis of the bearing
capacity of thermoactive piles under cyclic axial loading. In: Laloui L,
DiDonna A, editors. Energy geostructures. London: John Wiley and Sons;
2013 [chapter 7].
[326] Suryatriyastuti ME, Mroueh H, Burlon S. A load transfer approach for
studying the cyclic behavior of thermo-active piles.
** Comput Geotech 2014;55:378–91. Analysis of cyclic heating and cooling
effects on energy piles.
[327] Suryatriyastuti ME, Burlon S, Mroueh H. On the understanding of cyclic
interaction mechanisms in an energy pile group. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.2382.
[328] Sutman M, Olgun CG. Temperature effects on soil behavior in relation to
ground-sourced bridge deck deicing systems. In: Transportation research
board 92nd annual meeting; 2013. p. 1–8.
256 J.S. McCartney et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 244–256
[329] Sutman M, Brettmann T, Olgun CG. Thermo-mechanical behavior of energy
piles: full-scale field test verification. In: DFI 39th annual conference on deep
foundations, Atlanta, GA; 2014. p. 1–11.
[330] Svemar C, Push R. Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. International progress report
IPR-00-30. Stockholm: SKB; 2002.
[331] Tanaka N, Graham J, Crilly T. Engineering behaviour of reconstituted illitic
clay at different temperatures. Eng Geol 1997;47(4):339–50.
[332] Tang AM, Cui Y-J. Modelling the thermo-mechanical volume change
behaviour of compacted expansive clays. Géotechnique 2009;59(3):185–95.
[333] Tang AM, Cui YJ, Barnel N. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of a compacted
swelling clay. Géotechnique 2008;58(1):45–54.
[334] Taylor SA, Cary JW. Linear equations for the simultaneous flow of water and
energy in continuous soil system. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 1964;28:167–72.
[335] Tester JW, Anderson BJ, Batchelor AS, Blackwell DD, DiPippo R, Drake EM,
et al. The future of geothermal energy. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; 2006.
[336] Thomas H, Cleall P. Inclusion of expansive clay behaviour in coupled thermo
hydraulic mechanical models. Eng Geol 1999;54:93–108.
[337] Thomas H, Cleall P, Chandler N, Dixon D, Mitchell H. The coupled thermal-
hydraulic-mechanical behaviour of a large-scale in situ heating experiment.
Géotechnique 2009;59(4):401–13.
[338] Thomas HR, He Y, Sansom MR, Li CLW. On the development of a model of the
thermo-mechanical-hydraulic behavior of unsaturated soils. Eng Geol
1996;41:197–218.
[339] Thomas HR, Sansom MR. Fully coupled heat, moisture, and air transfer in an
unsaturated soil. J Eng Mech 1995;12(3):392–405.
[340] Thomas HR, He Y. Modelling the behaviour of unsaturated soil using an
elasto-plastic constitutive relationship. Géotechnique 1998;48(5):589–603.
[341] Thomas HR, Rees SW. Measured and simulated heat transfer to foundation
soils. Geotechnique 2009;59(4):365–75.
[342] Tidfors M, Sällfors G. Temperature effect on preconsolidation pressure.
Geotech Test J 1989;12(1):93–7.
[343] Tinjum JM, Lang P. Wind geotechnics. ASCE Geo-Strata 2012;16(1):18–26.
[344] Tomac I, Gutierrez M. Discrete element modeling of non-linear submerged
particle collisions. Granular Matter 2013;15(6):759–69.
[345] Tomac I, Gutierrez M. Fluid lubrication effects on particle flow and transport
in a channel. Int J Multiphase Flow 2014;65(October):143–56.
** New insights into particle interaction and agglomeration that apply to
studying proppant flow and agglomeration.
[346] Tomac I, Gutierrez M. Formulation and implementation of coupled forced
heat convection and heat conduction in DEM. Acta Geotech 2015;10
(4):421–33.
[347] Towhata I, Kuntiwattanakul P, Seko I, Ohishi K. Volume change of clays
induced by heating as observed in consolidation tests. Soils Found 1993;33
(4):170–83.
[348] Trykozko A, Peszynska M, Dohnalik M. Modeling non-Darcy flows in realistic
pore-scale proppant geometries. Comput Geotech 2015;71:352–60.
* Experimental assessment of hydraulic fracture permeability reduction due to
fine particle bridging of pore throats using X-ray micro tomography.
[349] Tsang CF, Bernier F, Davies C. Geohydromechanical processes in the
excavation damaged zone in crystalline rock, rock salt, and indurated and
plastic clays-in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2005;42:109–25.
[350] Uchaipichat A, Khalili N. Experimental investigation of thermo-hydro-
mechanical behaviour of an unsaturated silt. Géotechnique 2009;59
(4):339–53.
[351] Uchida S, Soga K, Yamamoto K. Critical state soil constitutive model for
methane hydrate soil. J Geophys Res 2012;117:B03209. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/2011JB008661.
** Proposed an advanced elasto-plastic model for modeling gas hydrate bearing
sediments.
[352] Vallin C, Pereira J-M, Fabbri A, Wong H. Numerical modelling of the hydro-
chemo-mechanical behaviour of geomaterials in the context of CO2 injection.
Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech, Wiley-Blackwell 2013;37(17):3052–69.
[353] van Genuchten MT. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1980;44(5):892–8.
[354] Vega A, McCartney JS. Cyclic heating effects on thermal volume change of silt.
Environ Geotech 2015;2(5):257–68.
[355] Villar MV, Lloret A. Influence of temperature on the hydro-mechanical
behaviour of a compacted bentonite. Appl Clay Sci 2004;26(1–4):337–50.
[356] Villar MV, Sánchez M, Gens A. Behaviour of a bentonite barrier in the
laboratory: experimental results up to 8 years and numerical simulation.
Phys Chem Earth 2008;33:S476–85.
[357] Volckaert G, Dereeper B, Put M, Ortiz L, Gens A, Vaunat J, et al. A large-scale
in situ demonstration test for repository sealing in an argillaceous host rock.
Reseal phase i project report. Brussels: European Commission; 2000.
[358] Waite WF, Winters WJ, Mason DH. Methane hydrate formation in partially
water-saturated Ottawa sand. Am Mineral 2004;89:1202–7.
[359] Waite WF, Santamarina JC, Cortes DD, Dugan B, Espinoza DN, Germaine J,
et al. Physical properties of hydrate-bearing sediments. Rev Geophys 2009;47
(4):1–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000279 RG4003.
[360] Winters WJ, Waite WF, Mason DH, Gilbert LY, Pecher IA. Grain size effects on
acoustic and strength behavior of sediments containing natural- and
laboratory-formed methane gas hydrate. In: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference on gas hydrates, vol. 2. Paper 2017, Trondheim,
Norway, June 13–16; 2005. p. 507–16.
[361] Wang B, Bouazza A, Singh R, Haberfield C, Barry-Macaulay D, Baycan S. Post-
temperature effects on shaft capacity of a full-scale geothermal energy pile. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014:04014125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001266.
[362] Wang W, Regueiro RA, McCartney JS. Coupled axisymmetric thermo-poro-
mechanical finite element analysis of an energy foundation centrifuge
experiment in partially saturated silt. In: Abu-Farsakh M, Hoyos L, editors.
Proceedings of GeoCongress 2014 (GSP 234). ASCE; 2014. p. 2675–84.
[363] Wang W, Regueiro R, Stewart MA, McCartney JS. Coupled thermo-poro-
mechanical finite element analysis of a heated single pile centrifuge
experiment in saturated silt. GeoCongress 2012:4406–15.
[364] Wang W, Regueiro R, McCartney JS. Coupled axisymmetric thermo-poro-
elasto-plastic finite element analysis of energy foundation centrifuge
experiments in partially saturated silt. Geotech Geol Eng 2015;33(2):373–88.
[365] Warpinski NR, Teufel LW. Influence of geologic discontinuities on hydraulic
fracture propagation. J Petrol Technol 1987;39(2):209–20. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/13224-PA.
[366] Warpinski NR, Branagan PT, Peterson RE, Wolhart SL, Uhl JE. Mapping
hydraulic fracture growth and geometry using microseismic events detected
by a wireline retrievable accelerometer array. In: Proceedings of SPE gas
technology symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1998. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/40014-MS.
[367] Wayllace A, Lu N. A transient water release and imbibitions method for
rapidly measuring wetting and drying soil water retention and hydraulic
conductivity functions. Geotech Test J 2012;35(1):103–17.
[368] Wheeler SJ, Sivakumar V. An elasto-plastic critical state framework for
unsaturated soil. Géotechnique 1995;45(1):35–53.
[369] Wheeler SJ, Sharma RS, Buisson MSR. Coupling of hysteresis and stress–strain
behaviour in unsaturated soil. Géotechnique 2003;53(1):41–54.
[370] Wilson S-J, Hunter R-B, Collett T-S, Hancock S, Boswell R-M, Anderson B-J.
Alaska North Slope regional gas hydrate production modeling forecasts. Mar
Pet Geol 2011;28(2):460–77.
[371] Wuttke F, Wagner N, Khan M, Thess A, Scherzber H. Thermohaline energy
geo-storage: evaluation of fluid–fluid layer and fluid-rock salt evaluation.
Géotech Lett 2014;4:132–8.
[372] Xu W, Ruppel C. Predicting the occurrence, distribution, and evolution of
methane gas hydrate in porous marine sediments. J Geophys Res 1999;104
(B3):5081–95.
[373] Ye WM, Cui Y-J, Qian LX, Chen B. An experimental study of the water transfer
through confined compacted GMZ bentonite. Eng Geol 2009;108(3–
4):169–75.
[374] Yew CH. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Gulf Professional Publishing; 1997.
[375] Yoneda J, Hyodo M, Nakata Y, Yoshimoto N. Triaxial shear characteristics of
methane hydrate-bearing sediment in the deep seabed. J JSCE (III): Geotech
Eng 2010;66(4):742–56 [in Japanese].
[376] Yong C, Wang C-Y. Thermally induced acoustic emission in Westerly granite.
Geophys Res Lett 1980;7:1089–92.
[377] Yong RN, Mohamed A-M. Evaluation of coupled heat and moisture flow
patterns in a bentonite-sand buffer material. Eng Geol 1996;41:269–86.
[378] Yun TS, Francisca FM, Santamarina JC, Ruppel C. Compressional and shear
wave velocities in uncemented sediment containing gas hydrate. Geophys
Res Lett 2005;32:L10609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022607.
[379] Yun T, Narsili G, Santamarina JC, Ruppel C. Instrumented pressure testing
chamber for characterizing sediment cores recovered at in situ hydrostatic
pressure. Mar Geol 2006;229(3–4):285–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.margeo.2006.03.012.
[380] Yun TS, Santamarina JC, Ruppel C. Mechanical properties of sand, silt, and
clay containing tetrahydrofuran hydrate. J Geophys Res 2007;112(B4):1–13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004484 B04106.
[381] Yun TS, Fratta D, Santamarina JC. Hydrate-bearing sediments from the
Krishna–Godavari Basin: physical characterization, pressure core testing, and
scaled production monitoring. Energy Fuels 2010;24:5972–83.
[382] Zhang R, Lu N, Wu Y-S. Efficiency of a community-scale borehole thermal
energy storage technique for solar thermal energy. In: Proceedings of ASCE
geo-institute annual conference; 2012. p. 1–10.
[383] Zhou AN, Sheng D, Sloan SW, Gens A. Interpretation of unsaturated soil
behaviour in the stress – saturation space, I: volume change and water
retention behaviour.
** Comput Geotech 2012;43(June):178–87. Effective stress-based constitutive
model for considering the hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils.
[384] Zhou AN, Sheng D, Sloan SW, Gens A. Interpretation of unsaturated soil
behaviour in the stress–saturation space, II: constitutive relationships and
validations. Comput Geotech 2012;43(June):111–23.
[385] Zhou AN, Sheng D, Li J. Modelling water retention and volume change
behaviours of unsaturated soils in non-isothermal conditions. Comput
Geotech 2014;55:1–13.
[386] Zhu M, Kulasingam R, Beech J, Brussel L. Modeling stability of stacked
geotextile tubes. GeoFlorida 2010;2010:1777–85.
[387] Znidarčić D, Liu JC. Consolidation characteristics determination for dredged
materials. In: Proc 22nd annual dredging seminar. Center for Dredged
Studies. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Univ.; 1989. p. 45–65.
[388] Znidarčić D, Miller R, van Zyl D, Fredlund M, Wells S. Consolidation testing of soil
sand fine tailings. In: Proc tailings and mine waste, Vancouver, BC; 2011. p. 1–7.
[389] Zornberg JG, McCartney JS. Centrifuge permeameter for unsaturated soils I:
theory and experimental philosophy. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136
(8):1051–63.