Page 136 - Reservoir Geomechanics
P. 136

119    Rock failure in compression, tension and shear




                   40
                                            SHEAR FAILURE  2 TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
                   35                              M     1 HYDROSTATIC TEST

                   30                                    3 TRIAXIAL EXTENSION

                   25

                  q (MPa)  20                  END CAP
                                               COMPACTION
                   15
                                                           30%
                   10
                                                 34%
                    5            3          37%
                                    2
                           1          39%
                    0
                     0       10      20       30      40       50       60      70
                                                p (MPa)

              Figure 4.19. The Cam–Clay model of rock deformation is presented in p–q space as modified by
              Chan and Zoback (2002) following Desai and Siriwardane (1984) which allows one to define how
              inelastic porosity loss accompanies deformation. The contours defined by different porosities are
              sometimes called end-caps. Loading paths consistent with hydrostatic compression, triaxial
              compression and triaxial extension tests are shown. C  2002 Society Petroleum Engineers



              J 1 and J 2D are the first and the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor respec-
              tively. The equation of the yield loci shown in Figure 4.19 for the Cam-Clay model is
              given by Desai and Siriwardane (1984) as:

                                2
                        2
                2 2
              M p − M p 0 p + q = 0                                              (4.37)
              where M is known as the critical state line and can be expressed as M = q/p.
                The Cam-Clay model in p–q space is illustrated in Figure 4.19 from Chan and Zoback
              (2002). Note that the shape of the yield surface as described by equation (4.37)in the
              Cam-Clay model is elliptical. If the in situ stress state in the reservoir is within the
              domain bounded by the failure envelope in p–q space, the formation is not likely to
              undergo plastic deformation. The intersection of the yielding locus and the p-axis is
              defined as p 0 (also known as the preconsolidation pressure) and each end-cap has its
              own unique p 0 that defines the hardening behavior of the rock sample. The value of
              p 0 can be determined easily from a series of hydrostatic compression tests in which
              porosity is measured as a function of confining pressure. Conceptually, it is easy to
              see why the end-caps should be roughly elliptical. Because shear stress facilitates the
              process of compaction and porosity loss, the mean confining pressure at which a certain
              end-cap is reached will decrease as shear stress increases.
   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141