In-Situ Stresses in Low-Permeability, Nonmarine Rocks

1987 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. R. Warpinski ◽  
L. W. Teufel
Keyword(s):  
Low Permeability ◽  
In Situ Stresses

In-Situ Stresses in Low-Permeability, Nonmarine Rocks

1989 ◽  
Vol 41 (04) ◽  
pp. 405-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.R. Warpinski ◽  
L.W. Teufel
Keyword(s):  
Low Permeability ◽  
In Situ Stresses

A review of specific storage values from pore pressure response to passive in situ stresses: Implications for sustainable groundwater management

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy A Timms ◽  
M Faysal Chowdhury ◽  
Gabriel C Rau
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Management ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Pressure Response ◽  
Earth Tides ◽  
Low Permeability ◽  
Specific Storage ◽  
Sustainable Groundwater Management ◽  
In Situ Stresses ◽  
Pore Pressure Response

<p>Specific storage (S<sub>s</sub>) values are important for analyzing the quantity of stored groundwater and for predicting drawdown to ensure sustainable pumping. This research compiled S<sub>s</sub> values from multiple available studies based on pore pressure responses to passive stresses, for comparison and discussion with relevant poroelastic theory and groundwater applications. We find that S<sub>s</sub> values from pore pressure responses to passive in situ stresses ranged from 1.3x10<sup>-7</sup> to 3.7x10<sup>-5</sup> m<sup>-1</sup> (geomean 2.0x10<sup>-6</sup> m-1, n=64 from 24 studies). This large S<sub>s</sub> dataset for confined aquifers included both consolidated and unconsolidated strata by extending two recent literature reviews. The dataset included several passive methods: Individual strains from Earth tides and atmospheric loading, their combined effect, and values derived from soil moisture loading due to rainfall events. The range of S<sub>s</sub> values spans approx. 2 orders of magnitude, far less than for hydraulic conductivity, a finding that has important implications for sustainable groundwater management. Both the range of values and maximum S<sub>s</sub> values in this large dataset were significantly smaller than S<sub>s</sub> values commonly applied including laboratory testing of cores, aquifer pump testing and numerical groundwater modelling. </p><p>Results confirm that S<sub>s</sub> is overestimated by assuming incompressible grains, particularly for consolidated rocks. It was also evident that Ss that commonly assumes uniaxial conditions underestimate S<sub>s</sub> that accounts for areal or volumetric conditions.  Further research is required to ensure that S<sub>s</sub> is not underestimated by assuming instantaneous pore pressure response to strains, particularly in low permeability strata. However, in low permeability strata S<sub>s</sub> could also be overestimated if based on total porosity (or moisture content) rather than a smaller free water content, due to water adsorbed by clay minerals. Further evaluation is also required for influences on S<sub>s</sub> from monitoring bore construction (ie. screen and casing or grouting), and S<sub>s</sub> derived from tidal stresses (undrained or constant mass conditions) that could underestimate S<sub>s</sub> applicable to groundwater pumping (drained or changing mass conditions). In summary, poroelastic effects that are often neglected in groundwater studies are clearly important for quantifying water flow and storage in strata with changing hydraulic stress and loading conditions. </p>

What the Shale are We Talking About!

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Besmir Buranaj Hoxha ◽  
Claudio Rabe
Keyword(s):  
Failure Mechanism ◽  
Sedimentary Rocks ◽  
Formation Damage ◽  
Low Permeability ◽  
Wellbore Instability ◽  
The Past ◽  
In Situ Stresses ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Drilling Cost

Abstract Shale ‘stability’ has been extensively studied the past few decades in an attempt to understand wellbore instability problems encountered while drilling. Drilling through shale is almost inevitable, it makes up 75 percent of sedimentary rocks. Shale tends to be characterized as having high in-situ stresses, fissile, laminated, with low permeability. However, not all shale are the same, and the problem herein lies where they are all treated as such, in which most cases, has shown to be ineffective. Ironically, shale is predominantly generalized as being "reactive/swelling". Even though this can be true, it is not always the case because not all shale is reactive! In reality, there are many different types of shale: ductile, brittle, carbonaceous, argillaceous, flysch, dispersive, kaolinitic, micro-fractured etc. This study aims to clear many misconceptions and define different types of shale (global case scenarios) and their failing mechanisms that lead to wellbore instability, formation damage and high drilling cost. Afterwards, solutions will be offered, from a filed operation perspective, which will provide guidelines for stabilizing various shale based on their failure mechanism. Furthermore, we will define the symptoms for shale instability and propose industry accepted remedies.

scholarly journals Excavation unloading‐induced fracturing of hard rock containing different shapes of central holes affected by unloading rates and in situ stresses

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Feng ◽  
Shaojie Chen ◽  
Diyuan Li ◽  
Wanpeng Huang ◽  
Kang Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hard Rock ◽  
In Situ Stresses ◽  
Different Shapes

Development of ultrasonic methods for measuring in-situ stresses at great depth

1983 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.H. Su ◽  
S.S. Peng ◽  
S. Okubo ◽  
K. Matsuki
Keyword(s):  
Great Depth ◽  
Ultrasonic Methods ◽  
In Situ Stresses

Model experimental study on the effects of in situ stresses on pre-splitting blasting damage and strain development

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 ◽  
pp. 104587
Author(s):  
Liyun Yang ◽  
Aiyun Yang ◽  
Siyu Chen ◽  
Shizheng Fang ◽  
Chen Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Strain Development ◽  
In Situ Stresses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document