Advertisement

Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

, Volume 78, Issue 8, pp 6249–6265 | Cite as

Stability analysis of a group of underground anhydrite caverns used for crude oil storage considering rock tensile properties

  • Bin ZhangEmail author
  • Hanxun Wang
  • Lei Wang
  • Nengxiong Xu
Original Paper
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

Tensile deformation and damage play an essential role in rock engineering problems. This paper presents a framework for evaluating the stability of a group of anhydrite caverns combining both experimental and numerical methods. In this study, the tensile Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of anhydrite are determined based on the Brazilian disc splitting test. The tests show that the tensile Young’s modulus of anhydrite is less than the compressive Young’s modulus, with a ratio of approximately 0.58–0.91. The tensile Poisson’s ratio is greater than the compressive Poisson’s ratio, with a ratio of approximately 2.47–3.20. Based on the differences between the mechanical parameters (Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio) of anhydrite in the tensile and compressive states, a user-defined constitutive model is developed with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, which describes the tensile and compressive behaviour at a laboratory scale. Finally, a large-scale three-dimensional (3D) anhydrite cavern group located in Anhui Province, China, which was formed by mining activity over the past 10 years, is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed framework. The model for the anhydrite cavern group is established in FLAC3D5.0, and the stability of the anhydrite cavern group used for underground oil storage is then analysed with this model. The simulation results indicate that after the exploitation is completed, there are few plastic zones and tensile elements in the surrounding rock near the cavern group. The maximum value of cavern roof settlement is approximately 5.54 mm. The maximum cavern bottom upheaval is approximately 6.11 mm, and the maximum ground subsidence is approximately 3.0 mm. The results indicate that the Anhui Hengtai anhydrite cavern group possesses good stability potential as an underground oil storage space.

Keywords

Underground anhydrite caverns Rock tensile properties Underground oil storage Cavern stability 

Symbols

σx, σy, σz, σxy, σxz, σyz

are normal stress and shear stress in respective directions in a 3D Cartesian coordinate system (MPa);

σ1, σ2, σ3

are the maximum, intermediate and minimum principal stresses, respectively (MPa);

εx, εx, εx, γxy, γxz, γyz

are normal strain and shear strain in respective directions;

p

is the applied load during the Brazilian disc splitting test (kN);

Gxy, Gxz, Gyz

are shear modulus in respective directions (GPa);

Ec

is the compressive Young’s modulus (GPa);

Et

is the tensile Poisson’s ratio (GPa);

μc

is the compressive Poisson’s ratio;

μt

is the tensile Poisson’s ratio;

Ex

is the Young’s modulus in the x direction. When normal stress is used, Ex = Ec; otherwise, Ex = Et (GPa);

Ey

is the Young’s modulus in the y direction. When normal stress is used, Ey = Ec; otherwise, Ey = Et (GPa);

Ez

is the Young’s modulus in the z direction. When the normal stress is pressed, Ez = Ec; otherwise, Ez = Et (GPa);

μx

is the lateral deformation in the y and z directions that is caused by the normal stress in the x direction. When the normal stress is subjected to compressive stress in the x direction, μx = μc; otherwise, μx = μt;

μy

is the lateral deformation in the x and z directions that is caused by the normal stress in the y direction. When the normal stress is subjected to compressive stress in the y direction, μy = μc; otherwise, μy = μt;

μz

is the lateral deformation in the x and y directions that is caused by the normal stress in the z direction. When the normal stress is subjected to compressive stress in the z direction, μz = μc; otherwise, μz = μt;

k1, k2

are the slope of the stress–strain curves in the x and y directions, respectively, in the Brazilian disc splitting test (103/m2);

σc

is the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS; MPa);

\( {\sigma}_3^{cv} \)

is the user-prescribed level of confining stress (MPa);

EcRM

is the Young’s modulus of an anhydrite rock mass (GPa);

σtRM

is the tensile strength of an anhydrite rock mass (MPa);

D, mi, mb, s, a

are the Hoek-Brown failure criterion parameters;

\( \Delta {e}_1^p,\Delta {e}_3^p \)

are the plastic strain increment in two directions;

γ

is the plastic factor in the plastic flow rule;

γrf, γaf, γcv

are the plastic factors in the radial flow rule, constant-volume flow rule and composite flow rule, respectively.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41572301, 40902086 and 61427802) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2-65-2015-071, 2-65-2018-108). Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW (2005) Relation between the Mogi and the Coulomb failure criteria. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:431–439Google Scholar
  2. Basu A, Mishra DA, Roychowdhury K (2013) Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian, and point load tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 72:457–475Google Scholar
  3. Blaise A, André S, Delobelle P, Meshaka Y, Cunat C (2016) Advantages of a 3-parameter reduced constitutive model for the measurement of polymers elastic modulus using tensile tests. Mech Time-Depend Mater 20(4):553–577Google Scholar
  4. Bossart P, Meier PM, Moeri A, Trick T, Mayor JC (2002) Geological and hydraulic characterization of the excavation disturbed zone in the Opalinus Clay of the Mont Terri Rock Laboratory. Eng Geol 66(1–2):19–38Google Scholar
  5. Chen CS, Pan E, Amadei B (1998) Determination of deformability and tensile strength of anisotropic rock using Brazilian tests. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:43–61Google Scholar
  6. Chen ZJ, Wang LH, Jin J, Huang Q, Gong JW (2015) Compressive research of Brazilian splitting and uniaxial compressive tests on three kinds of rock. Water Power 41(11):34–38 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  7. Fahimifar A, Malekpour M (2012) Experimental and numerical analysis of indirect and direct tensile strength using fracture mechanics concepts. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71:269–283Google Scholar
  8. Fairhurst C (1964) On the validity of the “Brazilian” test for brittle materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1:535–546Google Scholar
  9. Feng J (2015) Study on surrounding rock stability and optimized layout of underground energy storage in anhydrite. Dissertation, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Fu X, Xie Q, Liang L (2015) Comparison of the Kaiser effect in marble under tensile stresses between the Brazilian and bending tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:535–543Google Scholar
  11. GB/T 50266-2013 (2013) Standard for test methods of engineering rock mass. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Gercek H (2007) Poission’s ratio values for rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:1–13Google Scholar
  13. Goh ATC, Zhang Y, Zhang R, Zhang W, Xiao Y (2017) Evaluating stability of underground entry-type excavations using multivariate adaptive regression splines and logistic regression. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 70:148–154Google Scholar
  14. Gong FQ, Li XB, Zhao J (2010) Analytical algorithm to estimate tensile modulus in Brazilian disk splitting tests. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 29(5):881–891 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  15. Guo H, Aziz NI, Schmidt LC (1993) Rock fracture toughness determination by the Brazilian test. Eng Geol 33:177–188Google Scholar
  16. Hudson JA, Brown ET, Rummel F (1972) The controlled failure of rock discs and rings loaded in diametral compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 9:2241–2248Google Scholar
  17. ISRM (1978) Suggested methods for determining tensile strength of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:99–103Google Scholar
  18. Itasca (2012) Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions (FLAC3D) Online Manual. Constitutive models: theory and implementation, 1–107-108Google Scholar
  19. Krech WW, Henderson FA, Hjelmstad KE (1974) A standard rock suite for rapid excavation research report. 16F. US. Bur. Mines. RI 1974. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 11(10):198Google Scholar
  20. Lekhnitskii SG, Fern P, Brandstatter JJ, Dill EH (1964) Theory of elasticity of an anisotropic body. Phys Today 1(84):84Google Scholar
  21. Li DY, Wong LNY (2013) The Brazilian disc test for rock mechanics applications: review and new insights. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(2):269–287Google Scholar
  22. Li LC, Tang CA, Zhu WC, Liang ZZ (2009) Numerical analysis of slope stability based on the gravity increase method. Comput Geotech 36(7):1246–1258Google Scholar
  23. Liao JJ, Yang MT, Hsieh HY (1997) Direct tensile behavior of the transversely isotropic rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:837–849Google Scholar
  24. Liu JF, Chen L, Wang CP, Man K, Wang L, Wang J, Su R (2014) Characterizing the mechanical tensile behavior of Beishan granite with different experimental methods. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 69:50–58Google Scholar
  25. Lü Q, Sun HY, Low BK (2011) Reliability analysis of ground-support interaction in circular tunnels using the response surface method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48(8):1329–1343Google Scholar
  26. Lü Q, Chan CL, Low BK (2012) Probabilistic evaluation of ground-support interaction for deep rock excavation using artificial neural network and uniform design. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:1–18Google Scholar
  27. Lü Q, Chan CL, Low BK (2013) System reliability assessment for a rock tunnel with multiple failure modes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(4):821–833Google Scholar
  28. Lü Q, Xiao ZP, Ji J, Zheng J, Shang YQ (2017) Moving least squares method for reliability assessment of rock tunnel excavation considering ground-support interaction. Comput Geotech 84:88–100Google Scholar
  29. Luo L, Li XB, Tao M, Dong LJ (2017) Mechanical behavior of rock-shotcrete interface under static and dynamic tensile loads. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 65:215–224Google Scholar
  30. Narvaez B, Aubertin M, Saleh-Mbemba F (2015) Determination of the tensile strength of unsaturated tailings using bending tests. Can Geotech J 52:1874–1885Google Scholar
  31. Peng ZH, Li JY, Yang S, Wang JC (2013) Feasibility analysis of utilization of waste gypsum mine for crude oil storage. J Eng Geol 21(3):470–475 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Shao JF, Chau KT, Feng XT (2006) Modelling of anisotropic damage and creep deformation in brittle rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(4):582–592Google Scholar
  33. Stavrou A, Murphy W (2018) Quantifying the effects of scale and heterogeneity on the confined strength of micro-defected rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 102:131–143Google Scholar
  34. Sundaram PN, Corrales JM (1980) Brazilian tensile strength of rocks with different elastic properties in tension and compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 17:131–133Google Scholar
  35. Suttner S, Merklein M (2017) A new approach for the determination of the linear elastic modulus from uniaxial tensile tests of sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 241:64–72Google Scholar
  36. Wang HX, Zhang B, Fu D, Abisai N (2018) Stability and airtightness of a deep anhydrite cavern group used as an underground storage space: a case study. Comput Geotech 96:12–24Google Scholar
  37. Xu NX, Zhang JY, Tian H, Mei G, Ge Q (2016a) Discrete element modeling of strata and surface movement induced by mining under open-pit final slope. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 88:61–76Google Scholar
  38. Xu XL, Wu SC, Gao YT, Xu MF (2016b) Effects of micro-structure and micro-parameters on Brazilian tensile strength using flat-joint model. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3575–3595Google Scholar
  39. Yang HL, Peng JH (2015) Monitoring urban subsidence with multi-master radar interferometry based on coherent targets. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 43(3):529–538Google Scholar
  40. Ye JH, Wu FQ, Sun JZ (2009) Estimation of the tensile elastic modulus using Brazilian disc by applying diametrically opposed concentrated loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:568–576Google Scholar
  41. Ye JH, Wu FQ, Zhang Y, Ji HG (2012) Estimation of the bi-modulus of materials through deformation measurement in a Brazilian disk test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 52:122–131Google Scholar
  42. Yu Y, Wang TX (2004) Study on relationship between splitting behavior and elastic modulus of three Groges granite. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 23:3258–3261 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Zhang WG, Goh ATC (2013) Multivariate adaptive regression splines for analysis of geotechnical engineering systems. Comput Geotech 48:82–95Google Scholar
  44. Zhang XT, Zhang QY, Yuan SB, Wang C, Gao Q (2014) Development of test device for direct axial tension on rock and its application. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 33(12):2517–2553 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  45. Zhang B, Zhang LZ, Yang HL, Zhang ZJ, Tao JL (2016) Subsidence prediction and susceptibility zonation for collapse above goaf with thick alluvial cover: a case study of the Yongcheng coalfield, Henan Province, China. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:1117–1132Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bin Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hanxun Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lei Wang
    • 3
  • Nengxiong Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Engineering and TechnologyChina University of Geosciences (Beijing)BeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Deep Geodrilling TechnologyMinistry of Land and ResourcesBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Engineering and Applied SciencesUniversity of the District of ColumbiaWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations