Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 52, Issue 12, pp 5085–5098 | Cite as

From Static to Dynamic Stiffness of Shales: Frequency and Stress Dependence

  • Serhii LozovyiEmail author
  • Andreas Bauer
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The relation between static and dynamic stiffness in shales is important for many engineering applications. Dynamic stiffness, calculated from wave velocities, is often related to static stiffness through simple empirical correlations. The reason for this is that dynamic properties are often easier to obtain; however, it is the static properties that define the actual subsurface response to stress or pore pressure changes. Rocks are not elastic media, and stiffness depends on the stress state, stress change amplitude, loading rate, drainage conditions, fluid saturation, and scale. All these factors require consideration when static and dynamic stiffness properties are to be related. Two mechanisms that may have a strong effect on the stiffness of shales were studied in this experimental work: (1) a reduction of undrained static stiffness with an increase in stress amplitude and (2) a frequency dependence (or dispersion) of dynamic stiffness. Laboratory tests were performed on four fully brine-saturated undrained field shales from different overburden formations. Experiments were conducted using a low-frequency apparatus—a triaxial loading cell with the ability to measure dynamic stiffness at seismic frequencies (1–150 Hz) and ultrasonic velocities (500 kHz). Shale anisotropy was characterized by testing differently oriented core plugs. The results demonstrated that all the tested shales exhibited a dispersion of dynamic stiffness from seismic to ultrasonic frequencies. Young’s modulus dispersion for the tested shales ranged from nearly 30% to above 100%. Wave velocity dispersion was on the order of 10–20% for P-waves and 20–40% for S-waves. In static tests, the undrained rock stiffness gradually decreased with increasing stress amplitude. For one shale, the static undrained Young’s modulus was reduced by 50% when amplitude of the loading–unloading measurement cycle increased from 1 to 3 MPa. This finding is explained by non-elastic deformations that increase with the stress level. A method of zero-stress extrapolation of static stiffness was used to obtain the purely elastic response. The stiffness for the limit of zero stress change amplitude agreed well with the dynamic response at seismic frequency, providing a link between static and dynamic stiffness.

Keywords

Static and dynamic moduli Dispersion Seismic frequencies Shale Anisotropy 

List of Symbols

VP,S

Velocity of shear and compressional wave, respectively, (m/s)

L

Length of the rock sample, (mm)

ΔL

Change in the rock sample length, (mm)

TP,S

Total wave send–receive travel time for P- and S-waves, respectively, (s)

TP,S0

Correction for system traveling time, (s)

σax

Axial stress, (MPa)

A

Cross-section area of the sample, (mm2)

F

Axial force amplitude, (N)

εax, r

Axial and radial strains, (mm/m)

Rax, r

Amplitudes of the axial and radial strain signals, respectively, (V)

GF

Gauge factor of the strain gauges, (–)

Vin

Input voltage of the Wheatstone bridge, (V)

E

Young’s modulus, (GPa)

ν

Poisson’s ratio, (–)

K, G

Bulk and shear moduli, respectively, (GPa)

Cij

Stiffness matrix parameters, (GPa)

ε, γ, δ

Thomsen’s anisotropy parameters, (–)

E0, ν0

Zero-stress-extrapolated Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, (GPa, –)

Eaver, νaver

Average Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the finite stress amplitude in the static test, (GPa, –)

Aax, Ar

Constants describing the non-elastic contribution to the static axial and radial deformation, respectively, (–)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from the Research Council of Norway and industrial partners in the following consortia: Shale Rock Physics 2 with AkerBP, INEOS, ENGIE, Maersk and Total (Grant 234074), and Improved Prediction of Stress and Pore-pressure Changes in the Overburden for Infill Drilling with AkerBP, Equinor and Shell (Grant 294369). The authors also acknowledge Dr. Silvio Giger from NAGRA for providing information about the Opalinus Clay and sample preparation, as well as several helpful discussions. BP is acknowledged for providing core material and support. The two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Batzle ML, Han D-H, Hofmann R (2006) Fluid mobility and frequency-dependent seismic velocity—Direct measurements. Geophysics 71:N1–N9.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2159053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilal A, Myers MT, Hathon LA (2016) An investigation of static and dynamic data using multistage tri-axial test. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bower AF (2010) Applied mechanics of solids. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng CH, Johnston DH (1981) Dynamic and static moduli. Geophys Res Lett 8:39–42.  https://doi.org/10.1029/gl008i001p00039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duranti L, Ewy R, Hofmann R (2005) Dispersive and attenuative nature of shales: multiscale and multifrequency observations. In: 75th annual international meeting. Society of exploration geophysicists, pp 1577–1580.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2147994
  7. Eissa EA, Kazi A (1988) Relation between static and dynamic Young’s moduli of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstr Elsevier 25:479–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewy RT (2015) Shale/claystone response to air and liquid exposure, and implications for handling, sampling and testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:388–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fjær E (2009) Static and dynamic moduli of a weak sandstone. Geophysics 74:WA103–WA112.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3052113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fjaer E (2019) Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks: relations between static and dynamic moduli. Geophys Prospect 67:128–139.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fjær E, Stroisz AM, Holt RM (2013) Elastic dispersion derived from a combination of static and dynamic measurements. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:611–618.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0385-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofmann R (2006) Frequency dependent elastic and anelastic properties of clastic rocks. https://crusher.mines.edu/UserFiles/File/CRA/Thesis/Ronny_Hofmann_Thesis.pdf
  13. Holt R (2016) Bounds of elastic parameters characterizing transversely isotropic media: application to shales. Geophysics 81:C243–C252.  https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0485.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt RM, Kolstø MI (2017) How does water near clay mineral surfaces influence the rock physics of shales? Geophys Prospect 65:1615–1629.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holt RM, Nes O-M, Stenebraten JF, Fjær E (2012) Static vs. dynamic behavior of shale. In: 46th US rock mechanics/Geomechanics symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt RM, Bauer A, Fjær E et al (2015) Relating static and dynamic mechanical anisotropies of shale. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  17. King MS (1969) Static and dynamic elastic moduli of rocks under pressure. In: The 11th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), 16–19 June, Berkeley, California, pp 329–351Google Scholar
  18. Lozovyi S, Bauer A (2018) Static and dynamic stiffness measurements with Opalinus Clay. Geophys Prospect.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lozovyi S, Bauer A (2019) Velocity dispersion in rocks: a laboratory technique for direct measurement of P-wave modulus at seismic frequencies. Rev Sci Instrum 90:024501.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5026969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lozovyi S, Sirevaag T, Szewczyk D et al (2017) Non-elastic effects in static and dynamic rock stiffness. In: 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin III RJ, Haupt RW et al. (1994) Static and dynamic elastic moduli in granite: the effect of strain amplitude. In: 1st North American Rock Mechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria, pp 473–480Google Scholar
  22. Mavko GM, Nur A (1979) Wave attenuation in partially saturated rocks. Geophysics 44:161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nye JF (1985) Physical properties of crystals: their representation by tensors and matrices. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Connell RJ, Budiansky B (1977) Viscoelastic properties of fluid-saturated cracked solids. J Geophys Res 82:5719–5735.  https://doi.org/10.1029/jb082i036p05719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sone H, Zoback MD (2013) Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir rocks—Part 1: static and dynamic elastic properties and anisotropy. Geophysics 78:D381–D392.  https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0050.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suarez-Rivera R, Willson SM, Nakagawa S, Magnar-Ness O (2001) Frequency scaling for evaluation of shale and mudstone properties from acoustic velocities. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.T32E0924S
  27. Subramaniyan S, Quintal B, Tisato N et al (2014) An overview of laboratory apparatuses to measure seismic attenuation in reservoir rocks: apparatuses to measure seismic attenuation. Geophys Prospect 62:1211–1223.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Szewczyk D, Bauer A, Holt RM (2016) A new laboratory apparatus for the measurement of seismic dispersion under deviatoric stress conditions. Geophys Prospect 64:789–798.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szewczyk D, Holt RM, Bauer A (2018) The impact of saturation on seismic dispersion in shales—laboratory measurements. Geophysics 83:15–34.  https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0169.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomsen L (1986) Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics 51:1954–1966.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tutuncu AN (2010) Anisotropy, compaction and dispersion characteristics of reservoir and seal shales. In: 44th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.–Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, 27–30 June, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  32. Tutuncu AN, Podio AL, Gregory AR, Sharma MM (1998) Nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of sedimentary rocks, Part I: effect of frequency and strain amplitude. Geophysics 63:184–194.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsh JB (1965) The effect of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks. J Geophys Res 70:399–411.  https://doi.org/10.1029/jz070i002p00399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winkler K, Nur A, Gladwin M (1979) Friction and seismic attenuation in rocks. Nature 277:528–531.  https://doi.org/10.1038/277528a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yale DP, Swami V (2017) Conversion of Dynamic Mechanical Property Calculations to Static Values for Geomechanical Modeling. In: 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEFTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options