Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes



Mark D.  Zoback
Professor of  Geophysics




Week 3 Lecture 5
Rock Strength Chapter 4 Part I

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Overview

Propagation of Hydraulic Fractures

The Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures

Next

Lecture

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline
Section 1
Compressive Strength
Strength Criterion
Section 2
Strength Anisotropy
Shear Enhanced Compaction
Strength from Logs
Section 3
Tensile Strength
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation
Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures
3

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Types of Rock Mechanics Tests

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.1 pg.86

Stress-Strain Curves for Rand Quartzite

Strength Depends on Confining Pressure

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Mohr Circles in Two Dimensions

Equations 4.1 & 4.2 pg.89

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Mohr Failure in Two Dimensions

Equations 4.3 & 4.4 pg.89

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.2 a,b,c pg.88

Practical Guide to Determination of C0 and i

n 1
i =
2 n
Equation 4.5 pg.89

Figure 4.3 b pg.90

8

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Strong Rocks/Weak Rocks

Weak rocks have high internal friction

Weak rocks have low cohesion

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

More Complex Failure Criterion that

Describe Rock Strength in Compression
Over the years, comprehensive laboratory studies have yielded a variety of
failure criterion to describe rock strength in compression which are
summarized below. However, to quote Mark Twain,
The efforts of many researchers have already cast much darkness
on the subject, and it is likely that, if they continue, we will soon
know nothing about it at all.
This statement, reflective of Twains inherent cynicism, is unfortunately
applicable of the degree to which concepts about rock failure based on
laboratory rock mechanics has made the subject of rock strength
sufficiently complex that it can almost never be practically applied in
case studies. Thus, the most important thing to keep in mind is that
Strong rock is strong, weak rock isn't
Our first goal is to capture the essential rock strength. Using advanced
failure criterion to describe rock strength is a worthy, but secondary,
objective.
10

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Strength Criteria in Which the Stress at Failure, 1,

Depends Only on 3
Linearized Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Jaeger and Cook, 1979)

1 = q3 + C0

q = ( 2 +1 + ) 2 tan =

Equations 4.6 - 4.8 pg.93

Empirical criterion of Hoek and Brown (1980)

1 = 3 + C 0

3
m +s
C0

Equation 4.9 pg.98

where m and s are constants that depend on the properties of the rock
and on the extent to which it was broken before being subjected to the
failure.

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

11

Among Failure Criterion that are

Polyaxial
Strength
Criteria
Functions
of Three
Principal
Stresses
(The Stress at Failure, 1, Depends on 2)
Modified Lade criterion (Ewy, 1998) A personal favorite

# ' 3
&# ' m &
% (I1 ) 27(% (I1 ) ( =
% I'3
(% a (
$
'$
'

I1' = (1 + S ) + ( 2 + S ) + ( 3 + S )
I'3 = (1 + S )( 2 + S )( 3 + S )

/tan
S =S
o

= 4

9 2 +1 7

2 +1

Equations 4.13 - 4.17 pg.100

12

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Failure Envelopes in Stress Space

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.6 pg.94

13

Rock Strength is a Function of Simple Effective Stress

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.11 a-d pg.105

14

Outline
Section 1
Compressive Strength
Strength Criterion
Section 2
Strength Anisotropy
Shear Enhanced Compaction
Strength from Logs
Section 3
Tensile Strength
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation
Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures
15

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Strength Anisotropy
Parallel Planes of Weakness (Bedding/Foliation)

1 = 3 =

2(S w + w 3 )
(1 w cot w )sin 2

if
tan 2 w =

min
1

1
w

1
" 2
%
2
$
= 3 + 2( Sw + w 3 ) ( w + 1) + w '
#
&

Equations 4.33 - 4.34 pg.107

16

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Highly Foliated Gneiss

17

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shear Enhanced Compaction (End Cap)

Cam-Clay Model: Elliptical End Caps

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.19 pg.119

18

Shear Enhanced Compaction (End Cap)

1
1
p = J 1 = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
3
3
1
p = ( S1 + S2 + S3 ) PP
3

q = 3J 2 D

Equation 4.35 pg.118

Equation 4.36 pg.118

1
q = [( S1 S2 )2 + ( S2 S3 )2 + ( S1 S3 )2 ]
2
2

M 2 p 2 M 2 p0 p + q = 0

Equation 4.37 pg.119

19

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shear Enhanced Compaction (End Cap)

300

Adamswiller (W97)
Berea (W97)
Boise-2 (W97)

Sv-Sh
(MPa)

Darley Dale (W97)

Rothbach-1 (W97)
Rothbach-2 (W97)
Kayenta (W97)
Navajo (D73)

200

Kayenta (D73)

15%

Cutler (D97)
Adamswiller (W97)
Berea (W97)
Boise (W97)

21%

Darley Dale (W97)

Rothbach-2 (W97)

21%

100

Kayenta (W97)
Berea (J&T79)

20%

Bad Durck (S98)

Castlegate (B&J98)

23%

Berea (H63)
Galesville (B81)
Berea (K91)

35%

Vosges (F98)
Red Wildmoor (Pap00)

0
0

100

200

((Sh+SH+Sv)/3)-Pp

300

(MPa)

Figure 4.20 pg.120

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

400

20

End Caps and Lab Tests

Figure 4.19 pg.119

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

21

Deformation Analysis in Reservoir Space (DARS)

To understand the deformation mechanisms of a

producing reservoir utilizing relatively simple
laboratory tests and in situ measurements
DARS is a formalism for estimating the evolution of
porosity, permeability and the potential for induced
normal faulting in a producing reservoir

22

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Cam-Clay Model: Elliptical End Caps Fit to Hydrostatic

Compression Data

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.19 pg.119

23

Deformation Analysis in Reservoir Space (DARS)

Lab Space

Shmin (MPa)

q (MPa)

DARS

Reservoir Space

p (MPa)

Pp (MPa)

24

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Deformation Analysis in Reservoir Space (DARS)

Lab Space

Shmin (MPa)

q (MPa)

DARS

Reservoir Space

p (MPa)

Pp (MPa)

25

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

26

Gulf of Mexico Field X

27

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Field X

90
80
70

Pp (psi)

60

S3

50

S3

Pp

40

Pp

30
20
10

Jan-04

Apr-01

Jul-98

Oct-95

Jan-93

May-90

Aug-87

Nov-84

Feb-82

28

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

29

DARS

Initial porosity

26.5%

30

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Estimating Rock Strength From Geophysical Logs

Why?
What?
How Well Does it Work?
Be Careful Out There!

31

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.14 pg.110

Figure 4.15 pg.111

Figure 4.16 pg.112

Sandstone
Eq. No.
1

UCS, MPa

Region Where Developed

0.035 Vp 31.5

Thuringia, Germany

General Comments
-

Reference
(Freyburg 1972)
(McNally 1987)

1200 exp(-0.036t)

Bowen Basin, Australia

Fine grained, both

consolidated and
unconsolidated sandstones
with wide porosity range

1.4138107 t-3

Gulf Coast

Weak and unconsolidated

sandstones

Unpublished

3.310-20 2Vp4 [(1+)/(1-)]2(1-2) [1+ 0.78Vclay]

Gulf Coast

Applicable to sandstones
with UCS >30 MPa

(Fjaer, Holt et al. 1992)

1.74510-9 Vp2 - 21

Cook Inlet, Alaska

Coarse grained sands and

conglomerates

(Moos, Zoback et al. 1999)

42.1 exp(1.910-11 Vp2)

Australia

Consolidated sandstones with

0.05<<0.12 and
UCS>80MPa

Unpublished

6
7

3.87 exp(1.1410-10 Vp2)

Gulf of Mexico

Unpublished

46.2 exp(0.000027E)

Unpublished

A (1-B)2

10

277 exp(-10)

Sedimentary basins
worldwide
-

Very clean, well consolidated

sandstones with <0.30

(Vernik, Bruno et al. 1993)

Sandstones with
2<UCS<360MPa and
0.002<<0.33

Unpublished

Units used: Vp (m/s), t (s/ft), (kg/m3), Vclay (fraction), E (MPa), (fraction)

Table 4.1 pg.113

33

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shale
UCS, MPa

Region Where Developed

General Comments

11

0.77 (304.8/t)2.93

North Sea

Mostly high porosity Tertiary shales

12

0.43 (304.8/t)3.2

Gulf of Mexico

Pliocene and younger

13

1.35 (304.8/t)2.6

Globally

14

0.5 (304.8/t)3

Gulf of Mexico

15

10 (304.8/t 1)

North Sea

16

0.0528 E0.712

Strong and compacted shales

17

1.001-1.143

Low porosity (<0.1), high strength

shales

18

2.922 0.96

19

0.286 -1.762

Mostly high porosity Tertiary shales

North Sea

Mostly high porosity Tertiary shales

-

High porosity (>0.27) shales

Reference
(Horsrud 2001)
Unpublished
Unpublished
Unpublished
(Lal 1999)
Unpublished
(Lashkaripour and Dusseault 1993)
(Horsrud 2001)
Unpublished

Units used: t (s/ft), E (MPa), (fraction)

Table 4.2 pg.114

34

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Carbonates
UCS, MPa

Region Where Developed

General Comments

Reference

20

(7682/t)1.82 / 145

(Militzer 1973)

21

10(2.44 + 109.14/t) / 145

(Golubev and Rabinovich 1976)

22

0.4067 E0.51

Limestone with 10<UCS<300 MPa

Unpublished

23

2.4 E0.34

Dolomite with 60<UCS<100 MPa

Unpublished

24

C (1-D)2

Korobcheyev deposit, Russia

C is reference strength for zero porosity

(250<C<300 MPa). D ranges between 2
and 5 depending on pore shape

(Rzhevsky and Novick 1971)

25

143.8 exp(-6.95)

Middle East

Low to moderate porosity (0.05<<0.2)

and high UCS (30<UCS<150 MPa)

Unpublished

26

135.9 exp(-4.8)

Representing low to moderate porosity

(0<<0.2) and high UCS
(10<UCS<300 MPa)

Unpublished

Units used: t (s/ft), E (MPa), (fraction)

Table 4.3 pg.115

35

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Coefficient of Internal Friction

, degree

General Comments

Reference
(Lal 1999)

27

sin-1

28

((Vp-1000) / (Vp+1000))

70 - 0.417GR

Applicable to shale

Applicable to shaly sedimentary

rocks with 60< GR <120

Unpublished

Units used: Vp (m/s), GR (API)

Table 4.4 pg.116

36

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Application to the GOM

Eqn 11
North Sea

Eqn 12
GOM

Eqn 18
North Sea

Eqn 27
GOM

Figure 4.17 pg.116

37

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 4.18 pg.117

38

Organic Rich Shales

Sample group

Clay

Carbonate

QFP

TOC (wt%)

Barnett-dark

29-43

0-6

48-59

4.1-5.8

Barnett-light

2-7

37-81

16-53

0.4-1.3

Haynesville-dark

36-39

20-23

31-35

3.7-4.1

Haynesville-light

20-22

49-53

23-24

1.7-1.8

Fort St. John

32-39

3-5

54-60

1.6-2.2

Eagle Ford-dark

12-21

46-54

22-29

4.4-5.7

Eagle Ford-light

6-14

63-78

11-18

1.9-2.5

Bedding plane and sample cylinder axis is either

parallel (horizontal samples) or

perpendicular (vertical samples)

3-10 % porosity

All room dry, room temperature experiments

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

39

Youngs Modulus

Strength

Barnett Dark
Haynesville Dark
Ft. St. John

200

0.8

150

0.6

100

0.4

50

0.2

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

ApproximateClay
Clay Content
[%]
Approximate
Content
(%)

Strength decreases with clay

content
Internal friction coefficient
decreases from 0.9 to 0.2

Young's
Modulus [MPa]
Young
s Modulus
(GPa)

250

Coefficient of Internal Friction

UCS(MPa)
[MPa]
UCS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Internal Frictional Coefficient

Barnett Light
Haynesville Light

80
70

Bed-Parallel
Samples

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Clay Clay
Content Content
[%]
Approximate
(%)

Modulus correlate with clay content

and porosity
Bedding parallel samples are
systematically stiffer
40

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline
Section 1
Compressive Strength
Strength Criterion
Section 2
Strength Anisotropy
Shear Enhanced Compaction
Strength from Logs
Section 3
Tensile Strength
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation
Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures
41

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Rock Strength Measurement

42

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Hydraulic Fractures Propagate Perpendicular to the

Least Principal Stress

43

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Propagation of a Mode I Fracture

Pf

Pf

Pf

44

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tensile Strength of Mode I Cracks in Sedimentary

Rocks is Irrelevant for Fracture Propagation*

*Once the fracture begins to propagate

45

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

What Controls the Vertical

Growth of Hydraulic Fractures?

46

Case 1 A Strong Contrast Between the Magnitude of Shmin

Within the Target Formation Prevents Vertical Propagation
3000

6000 psi

47

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Case 2 What if Shmin Above the Shale has a Similar

Magnitude?
3000

6000 psi

48

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing

Microseismic Events

Well

Hydraulic Fractures

49

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tendency for Upward Vertical Hydraulic Fracture Growth

in the Marcellus Shale

Fisher (2010)
50

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tendency for Downward Growth of Hydraulic Fractures

in the Barnett Shale into the Ellenburger Limestone

Fisher (2010)

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory

51

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

What Controls the Vertical

Growth of Hydraulic Fractures?
The Variation of the S3 (Shmin)
With Depth
Measure It!

52

Extended Leak Off Test

(or Mini-Frac)

Figure 7.2 pg. 211

53

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Case 1 A Strong Contrast Between the Magnitude of Shmin Within the

Target Formation Prevents Vertical Propagation

3000

6000 psi

54

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu