# talk in ppt

```The strength of fractured rock
Erling Fj&aelig;r
SINTEF Petroleum Research
SINTEF Petroleum Research
1
Challenge: Estimation of rock strength from log data
Porosity,
Density, Sonic, .
...
Strength
approach:
correlations
UCS  a tPb
Wanted
Available
SINTEF Petroleum Research
2
Challenge: Estimation of rock strength from log data
Porosity,
Density, Sonic, .
...
Available
Strength
Brand&aring;s et al. (2012)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Wanted
3
Alternative approach:
1. Establish a constitutive model for static and dynamic
moduli of rocks
2. Use the measured dynamic moduli (i.e. velocities) to
calibrate the model
3. Use the calibrated model to simulate a test where
strength can be measured
SINTEF Petroleum Research
4
Dry, weak sandstone
static moduli vs dynamic moduli
160
140
Axial
Stress (MPa)
Rock mechanical test
including acoustic
measurements
on a dry sandstone
120
Peak
stress
100
80
60
40
20
0
static moduli  dynamic moduli
The differences changes with stress
and strain
Young's modulus (GPa)
20
0.005
Dynamic
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.015
0.020
0.025
15
10
5
Static
0
-5
0.005
0.010
Axial strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
5
Dry, weak sandstone
static moduli vs dynamic moduli
160
140
120
Rock mechanical test
including acoustic
measurements
on a dry sandstone
Stress (MPa)
Axial
Peak
stress
100
80
60
40
20
static moduli  dynamic moduli
The differences changes with stress
and strain
0
20
0.005
Young's modulus (GPa)
We are seeking
mathematical relations between
the static and the dynamic moduli
Dynamic
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.015
0.020
0.025
15
10
5
Static
0
-5
0.005
0.010
Axial strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
6
Hydrostatic test
Building relations
We introduce a parameter P, defined as:
P
v - total volumetric strain
 v   v ,e
3
 v ,e
P is a measure of the inelastic part of the
deformation caused by a compressive
hydrostatic stress increment.

- elastic

K e strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
7
Hydrostatic test
Building relations
We introduce a parameter P, defined as:
P
v - total volumetric strain
 v   v ,e
3
 v ,e
P is a measure of the inelastic part of the
deformation caused by a compressive
hydrostatic stress increment.

- elastic

K e strain

Ke
K
1  3 PKe
K = Static bulk modulus
Ke = Dynamic bulk modulus
SINTEF Petroleum Research
8
Hydrostatic test
Observations
25
1/P [GPa-1]
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Hydrastatic stress [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
9
Hydrostatic test
Observations
25
1/P [GPa-1]
20
15
P
10
g
 T
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Hydrastatic stress [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
10
Building relations
We introduce a parameter F, defined as:
F
z - total axial strain
 z   z ,e   z , p
 z
F is a measure of the inelastic part of the
deformation caused by a shear stress
increment.
 z ,e

- elastic

Ee strain
 z , p  Pz  z
SINTEF Petroleum Research
11
Building relations
We introduce a parameter F, defined as:
F
z - total axial strain
 z   z ,e   z , p
 z
F is a measure of the inelastic part of the
deformation caused by a shear stress
increment.
 z ,e

- elastic

Ee strain
 z , p  Pz  z

Ee
E
1  F 
1  Pz Ee
E = Static Young’s modulus
Ee = Dynamic Young’s modulus
SINTEF Petroleum Research
12
Observations
F*  F  z   r  S
0.04
F*
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
Shear strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
13
Observations
F*  F  z   r  S
0.04
F*
0.03
 z  r  o
FA
z r  S
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
Shear strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
14
Discussion: the F - parameter
Ee
E
1  F 
1  Pz Ee
160
140
120
Note:
Since E  (1 - F)
 when F =1 then E = 0
Stress (MPa)
Axial
Peak
stress
100
80
60
40
20
 peak stress
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
F = 1  rock strength
SINTEF Petroleum Research
15
Discussion: the F - parameter
 1   3   1
8To  1   3 
2
Griffith’s failure criterion:
 1   3   o 
 1   3  S 
2
Our model:
A
2
If we can assume that:
 F2
(  1 -  3)  (  1 -  3 )
then we could state that
F = 1  Fulfilment of the Griffith criterion
SINTEF Petroleum Research
16
Discussion: the F - parameter
(  1 -  3)  (  1 -  3) ?
OK for a purely elastic material
Also OK at the intact parts of the material
even after local failure has occurred
elsewhere
Local (1 -
3)  Global (1 - 3) !
SINTEF Petroleum Research
17
Discussion: the F - parameter
The development of F can be
seen as a gradual fulfillment of
the Griffith criterion
0.40
F*
0.30
0.20
May be associated with
local failure at various
places in the rock,
0.10
triggered at different
stress levels due to
variable local strength
Peak
stress
0.00
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Shear strain
SINTEF Petroleum Research
18
We have a set of equations……
Ke
K
1  3 PKe
These represent a constitutive model
for the rock
E
We may use it to predict rock behavior,
and thereby derive mechanical properties
for the rock
P
Ee
1  F 
1  Pz Ee
g
 T
 z  r  o
FA
z r  S
SINTEF Petroleum Research
19
Application for logging purposes
Porosity,
Density, Sonic, .
...
Strength
Constitutive model
12
10
Stress (MPa)
8
6
4
2
0
-5
0
5
10
15
Strain (mStrain)
Simulates rock mechanical
test on fictitious core
SINTEF Petroleum Research
20
… an example:
Strength (MPa) @ 2MPa
0
25
50
75
100
125
Depth (m - from a reference point)
0
Prediction from logs
Courtesy
of Statoil
50
100
150
200
Core measurements
SINTEF Petroleum Research
21
Challenge:
What is the impact of the intermediate principal stress
on rock strength?
In the field
  
1
2
in general
In the lab
3
 =
2
SINTEF Petroleum Research
3
22
Most convenient
description:
-plane
Hydrostatic
axis
-plane cross sections
(planes normal to the
hydrostatic axis)
Projections of the
principal axes
Cross section of
the failure surface
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Failure criteria (-plane):
No impact of the intermediate stress
Empirical
Assumption: Rotational symmetry
in -plane (No physical argument)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
24
Basic theory on shear failure:

Shear failure occurs when the shear stress over some plane
within the rock exceeds the shear strength of the rock
The intermediate principal
stress (2) has no impact
 
3
2

Stress symmetry is not
important
1
SINTEF Petroleum Research
25
Experimental observations:
2 = 3
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
350
2 = 1
300
250
200
150
No impact of intermediate stress
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
26
Experimental observations:
2 = 3
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
350
2 = 1
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
Takahashi &amp; Koide (1989)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
27
Numerical simulations:
2 = 3
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
3
2 = 1
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
Fj&aelig;r &amp; Ruistuen (2002)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
28
Experimental observations:
2 = 3
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
350
2 = 1
300
MohrCoulomb
250
DruckerPrager
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
-plane
29
Question:
2 = 3
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
3
2 = 1
What is similar when
2.5
2 = 3
Tetragonal
2
and
1.5
2 = 1
Tetragonal
but different when
1
1 &gt; 2 &gt; 3
Orthorhombic
0.5
?
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
It’s the
stress symmetry!
SINTEF Petroleum Research
30
How can stress symmetry affect the strength?
- It’s because it affects the probability for failure!

 
3
2

1
SINTEF Petroleum Research
31
Classical picture
Probability
for failure

1

 
3
2

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

32
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


 
3
2
1

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

33
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


 
3
2
1

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

34
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


 
3
2
1

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

35
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


1

3

2

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

36
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


1

3

2

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

37
Classical picture
Probability
for failure


1

3

2

0
1

m
SINTEF Petroleum Research

38
Classical picture
Classical picture:
Failure occurs if the shear stress
across any plane in the rock sample
Probability
for failure
exceeds So +  – otherwise not.
Introducing fluctuations:
The shear strength varies
from plane to plane.
The rock fails when  exceeds the
shear strength for one of them.
1
0
So
+ 

The probability for failure
increases when 
 So + 
SINTEF Petroleum Research
39
Classical picture
All planes oriented at an
angle  relative to the 1 axis


Many potential failure planes
in a critical state
2
 
3
2
 High probability for failure

1
SINTEF Petroleum Research
40
Classical picture
Only planes oriented at an
angle  relative to the 1 axis,
and parallel to the 2 axis


Few potential failure planes
in a critical state
2
 
3
2
 Low probability for failure

1
SINTEF Petroleum Research
41
Classical picture
All planes oriented at an
angle /2 - 
relative to the 3 axis


Many potential failure planes
in a critical state
2

3
 High probability for failure
 
1
2
SINTEF Petroleum Research
42
Mathematical model
Probability for failure of a plane
with orientation specified by (,):
p f  ,   
n
 n   So   
n
(n    classical Mohr-Coulomb)
Overall probability for failure:
Expected strength of the material:
Pfailure  1 
1  p  ,  


all ,

f
 Pfailure
  1
 exp    1 
SINTEF Petroleum Research
N
T

 d 1

43
Mathematical model
Probability for failure of a plane
with orientation specified by (,):
(n    classical Mohr-Coulomb)
p f  ,   
f ( 1 ,  1+  1 )
Probability distribution
0.015
 n   So   
n
 2 =  
0.01
2 = 1
Overall probability for failure:
 2 = 0.5( 1 +  3)
0.005
0
0.75
n
1
1.25
 1/ M-C
1.5
Pfailure  1 
1  p  ,  


all ,

N
T
f
Expected strength of the material:
 Pfailure
  1
 exp    1 
SINTEF Petroleum Research

 d 1

44
Mathematical model
Pfailure
f 1 , 1  1  
1
1
f ( 1 ,  1+  1 )
Probability distribution
0.015
 2 =  
0.01
2 = 1
 2 = 0.5( 1 +  3)
0.005
0
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
 1/ M-C
SINTEF Petroleum Research
45
Mathematical model
8
2 = 3
2 = 1
6
 exp 4
n = 30
n = 175
n = 1000
Mohr-Coulomb
2
The impact of the
intermediate principal
to the non-sharpness of
the failure criterion
(represented by 1/n)
i.e. to the rock
heterogeneity
0
0
2
4
6
8
2
SINTEF Petroleum Research
46
Comparing model and observations
2 = 1
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
350
300
Takahashi and Koide,
1989
250
200
150
n = 30
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
47
Comparing model and observations
2 = 1
Largest principal stress  1 [MPa]
3
2.5
Numerical model
2
1.5
1
n = 25
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Intermediate principal stress  2 [MPa]
SINTEF Petroleum Research
48
Fractures are
planes with
largely reduced
or no strength
Outcrop from a
Marcellus shale
formation
Han, 2011
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Borehole breakouts in a non-fractured rock
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Borehole breakouts in a non-fractured rock
Shear failure planes
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Borehole breakouts in a non-fractured rock
Shear failure planes
Failure would be more easily triggered by a set
of suitably oriented
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Simple example
Mudweight [sg]
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1500
No fractures
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
SINTEF Petroleum Research
53
Simple example
Mudweight [sg]
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1500
No fractures
1505
1510
Sealed fractures
1515
|| borehole
1520
1525
1530
SINTEF Petroleum Research
54
Simple example
Mudweight [sg]
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1500
No fractures
1505
1510
Sealed fractures
1515
|| borehole
1520
Open fractures
|| borehole
1525
1530
SINTEF Petroleum Research
55
Several fracture sets complicates the situation.
Blocks may become detached at washed away by the circulating
mud.

More fractures will be exposed to the drilling fluid.
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
Other possible failure modes – bedding plane splitting
SINTEF Petroleum Research
&Oslash;kland and Cook 1998
SINTEF Petroleum Research
 20
To avoid the problem:
&Oslash;kland and Cook 1998
The “angle of attack” between the well
and the bedding plane should be at least
SINTEF Petroleum Research
20.
Challenge:
What is the strength of a fractured rock
(if we consider it as homogeneous)?
Available alternative:
Hoek-Brown
Purely empirical criterion
Hoek &amp; Brown (1980)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
66
Geologocal Strength Index GSI
SINTEF Petroleum Research
67
Rocks are heterogeneous –
treating them as homogeneous comes at a price…..
SINTEF Petroleum Research
68
The strength of a homogeneous
material is size invariant.
Rocks, on the other hand, -
Hoek &amp; Brown (1980)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
69
Current work:
Relate the failure probability model to Hoek-Brown
SINTEF Petroleum Research
70
Challenge: Match with observations
60
50
1
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
3
Data from Hoek; Kaiser (2008)
Failure probability model
SINTEF Petroleum Research
71
Consideravble scatter in
measured strength
Kaiser (2008)
SINTEF Petroleum Research
72
60
50
1
40
Probability distribution
0.16
30
0.14
20
0.12
0.1
10
0.08
0.06
0
0.04
0
5
10
15
20
3
0.02
0
0
10
20
30
1
40
50
Failure probability model
SINTEF Petroleum Research
73
Conclusions:
Physics helps us to make better tools for rock mechanics applications
There is still room for more physics in rock mechanics
SINTEF Petroleum Research
74
```