00 vote positif00 vote négatif

25 vues9 pagesrock mechanics

Jan 02, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

rock mechanics

© All Rights Reserved

25 vues

00 vote positif00 vote négatif

rock mechanics

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

of Discontinuous Rock

M. Nassir, A. Settari, and R. Wan, University of Calgary

Abstract

other planes of weakness which reduce the strength and deformation properties of rock structure. Under different

loading conditions, joints with weaker than normal and shear

deformation strength undergo a relatively higher strain than

intact rock. Because permeability of jointed rock masses in

fractured reservoirs is a strong function of joint aperture size,

one may expect a major change in the permeability when subjected to confining load variation. Therefore, it is important to

establish the relation between the stress-strain of the jointed

rock mass and the reservoir permeability. This relation is particularly important to model hydraulic fracturing and productivity decline in tight gas wells.

In this paper, a new relation is proposed to model prepeak

shear stiffness of the joint based on the conventional joint surface parameters and the confining load. Furthermore, constitutive matrices for evaluating deformation behaviour of a

single-joint and regularly jointed rock are presented as the results of an analytical study. Based on the concept of joint stiffness, an equivalent stiffness for regularly jointed rock masses

was derived, assuming that the deformation of the jointed

rock mass equals the sum of the deformation of the rock matrix and the joints. Finite element technique is used to numerically model the deformation behaviour of the jointed rock

under various loading conditions. The applicability of the

constitutive model to represent jointed rock mass was confirmed from comparison of the numerical results with some

of the existing experimental data.

The model presented here will be the key element for integrated geomechanical modelling of tight gas wells, naturally

fracture reservoirs and other fracturing processes in stresssensitive reservoirs.

Introduction

Mechanical behaviour of the jointed rock in naturally fractured reservoirs or in rock bodies stimulated by hydraulic fracturing (i.e., an artificially fractured well in a tight gas reservoir)

is highly influenced by the presence of joints. Because joints are

the main flow conduit in jointed rocks and single-joint permeability is a quadratic function of its aperture size, it is crucial to

investigate the variations in a joint aperture size under different

loading conditions.

Change in the pore pressure is the main source of the load

acting on a jointed rock in fractured reservoirs. The question of

how aperture size of the joints varies with the applied load is answered by investigating the stress-deformation of the jointed rock.

Increasing in pore pressure usually results in the opening of frac78

and vice versa.

Mechanical behaviour of a joint is characterized by its normalshear mechanical deformation and is defined in the form of a

joint constitutive model. Here we will first review the literature

related to normal and shear rock joint deformations. Different

techniques by which the composite system of rock and joints

(jointed rock) are mechanically modelled will be reviewed in the

next section.

Normal deformation of a joint has been the subject of many

studies in the early investigations on jointed rock mechanical behaviour. It was first formulated by Goodman(1) and later by Swan(2)

in an empirical approach by power-law mathematical functions.

Afterward, based on numerous experimental results, Bandis et

al.(3) proposed an empirical hyperbolic model for normal deformation of a rock joint. This model is similar, in both formulation approach and functional form, to Goodmans model; however, each

fits best their own experimental results. It is obvious that an empirical model cannot provide a reasonable simulation of joint behaviour under all laboratory testing conditions. A general exponential

function was later suggested by Malama and Kulatilake(4). The

model proved to be the best fit for their experimental data in comparison with other empirical models. However, other models only

require two experimental data points to be defined, whereas the

general exponential function requires at least three experimental

data points. Some theoretical models have also been developed

using theories of different branches of solid mechanics; for example, the theory of plasticity, damage mechanics and Hertzs contact theory of elasticity [Plesha(5), Amadei and Saeb(6) and Jing(7)].

This approach suffers from the limitation of the existing mathematical theory of classical solid mechanics, which today cannot

conveniently represent all aspects of rock joint behaviour. Hence,

both approaches rely on the experimental data and are valid only

under the certain experimental conditions under which they can fit

the experiments.

To model the shear behaviour of a rock joint, one needs to

know the peak shear stress and the respective shear displacement.

Patton(8), Ladanyi and Archambault(9) and Barton(10) were among

the first to develop a rock joints shear strength criterion. Patton

conducted a series of tests to study regular tooth-shaped artificial joints under constant-normal load. In his study he showed that

the shear strength of a saw-tooth joint is controlled by the effective friction angle, summation of basic joint friction angle and the

angle asperities build with fracture plane or dilation angle. Pattons finding is only valid at low-normal stresses where no asperities are worn off. Jaeger(11) proposed a nonlinear failure criterion

instead of a bilinear form of Pattons. At higher-normal stress his

criterion approaches Pattons model as shown in Fig. 1. An empirical shear strength criterion was proposed by Barton(10), which

represents a continuous failure envelope from low- to high-normal

stresses. This criterion is advantageous because it is defined in

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

v max

6

co

Pattons joint

strength envelope

k ni =20

b

Jaegers joint

strength envelope

Component

of dilation plus

tooth strength

Frictional

component

Shear stress

Bartons criterion

10

5

1

0.5

Aperture=1.5 mm

0

0

Normal stress

0.3

0.6

0.9

joints [Roosta et al.(26)].

behaviour of a single fracture.

coefficient (JRC), joint compressive strength (JCS) and the joint

basic friction angle (f b), which can be easily measured in the laboratory. He also developed a relationship to obtain the peak shear

displacement, which will be needed to formulate the shear stressshear strain relationship. Bartons criterion applicability is limited

by the subjectivity in determination of the JRC from the standard

profiles defined by Barton and Choubey(12).

Numerous other constitutive relationships have been proposed for shear stress-shear strain of a single joint. They usually

fall into two categories. The first one is the incremental relationship, consisting of the piecewise linear relationship between increments of shear stress and increments of shear strain [Archambault

et al.(13) and Boulon and Nova(14)]. These relationships are usually developed by a direct shear test under constant-normal stress

in the laboratory. The second category of constitutive relationships

is the elastoplastic relationship, derived from the plasticity theory.

In these relationships, a joints prepeak shear behaviour is usually assumed to be elastic and recoverable, whereas the post-peak

shear behaviour is considered to be plastic. Numerous elastoplastic

models exist in literature [Roberds and Einstein(15), Desai and

Fishman(16) and Plesha(5)]. This study mainly focuses on prepeak

shear behaviour of rock joints; therefore, the post-peak or elastoplastic part will not be discussed. Clough and Duncans(17) work

analyzed prepeak elastic shear behaviour, where the nonlinear hyperbolic relationship between shear stiffness is ks and normal and

shear stresses are sn and t. This has been widely used in literature

and is expressed by

k s = patm n

patm

1 R f p , ..................................................(1)

test in the laboratory and the peak shear stress t p is obtained from

an appropriate shear failure criterion.

In this study a new hyperbolic relationship will be proposed to

model the prepeak elastic part of the joints shear deformation. The

main advantage of the proposed model is that it relates shear stress

and shear strain to standard joint properties, such as JRC, JCS and

basic friction angle.

In this technical paper, mechanical behaviour or the stressstrain relationship of a single joint and a jointed rock with different

joint sets will be obtained. Single-joint mechanical behaviour comprises two normal and shear deformations which will be discussed

extensively in this study. When a jointed rock constitutive model

(stress-strain relationship) is constructed, it will be implemented

in the finite element numerical modelling in which one can apply

a load vector and obtain the respective displacement vector. The

model will be validated against some experimental data obtained

from the literature.

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

1.2

To model the deformation of a jointed rock, one can use the mechanics of deformation of single joints to develop the concept of

equivalent continuum. Here we first show the formulation used to

obtain the normal and shear stiffness of a single joint. When the

constitutive model of a single joint is built, it will be transformed

to the global coordinate system to construct the pseudo-continuum

constitutive model for the jointed rock.

Bandis et al.(3) suggested the following hyperbolic model to describe normal deformation of a single fracture under compressive

effective stress:

n' =

k ni v j

, .............................................................................(2)

v j

1

v m

where Dvj, kni and vm, respectively, are the joint-normal deformation, initial-normal stiffness and the maximum joint closure.

Normal stiffness of the joint kn can be obtained by taking the derivative of the normal effective stress with respect to the normal

deformation:

kn =

n'

n'

= k ni 1

'

v j

vm k ni + n

................................................(3)

toughness at zero-normal load condition. The effect of initialnormal stiffness on mechanical deformation of a sample joint is

shown in Fig. 2. It can be observed that the normal stiffness of a

joint is a strong function of initial-normal stiffness.

To develop a relation describing shear behaviour of a single fracture, an appropriate peak shear strength criterion is required. Barton

et al.s(18) empirical equation is used here to obtain the peak shear

strength t p as a function of effective normal stress, sn, and the joint

surface properties which is expressed as:

JCS n

+ b , ..........................................(4)

n

compressive strength and basic joint friction angle, respectively.

The subscript n denotes the form of JRC and JCS corrected for the

length (scale) effect. It can be easily shown that in Equation (4), the

first term in the bracket is the same as the asperity dip angle a for

an idealized model as shown in Fig. 3.

79

point to calculate the unknowns in the suggested empirical function. Then ksi and b in Equation (6) can be derived as:

y

yx

1

b=

n tan (b )

p coef

n tan ( b )

JCS n

+ r , ......................................(8)

n

y

xy

x

x

fr is the residual angle.

The magnitude of mobilized friction angle varies from zero

up to the peak shear angle. JRCn(mob) in the previously described

equation changes within the following range.

pentagonal geometry.

At peak shear stress, the following empirical equation developed by Barton and Bandis(19) from analysis of 650 shear tests can

provide an estimate of shear displacement at peak shear stress:

Ln JRCn

500 Ln

0.33

Kt =

k si , ...................................................................................(6)

1 + b

14

11

2

5

JRC=2

1

n =2 MPa, JCS =20 MPa,

coef =0.3

are shown in Fig. 4. JRC and JCS have the same effect on shear

stiffness of the joint. Lower values of JRC and JCS result in stiffer

shear resistance at lower shear stress levels and softer shear resistance at higher shear stress values. JCS does not influence the peak

shear displacement, while higher JRC is associated with greater

peak shear displacement. This is because the peak shear displacement is only a function of JRC and the length of the joint, not JCS.

The curvature of the curves is highly affected by gcoef as shown in

Fig. 4(b). The concave loading path turns to a convex one when

gcoef takes values greater than 0.824. This value changes in joints

with different surface properties and can be obtained by substituting the value of b equal to zero in Equation (7).

coef

critical

tan (b )

JCS n

tan JRC n log

coef =0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

Shear Displacement, mm

JCS=50

20

10

coef =0.3

0

0

(b)

................................(11)

0.9

n =2 MPa, JRC =5,

JCS =20 MPa

10

+ b

...............................................(9)

(k b) ...............................................(10)

k si

d

=

= si

d (1 + b )2

k si

a and ksi are respectively a constant and the joints initial shear

stiffness, which will be obtained later. The previously described

equation is similar to what Barton et al. suggested for normal deformation of a single joint. To obtain a and ksi in the previously

described correlation, at least two nonzero sets of data points are

required. One is the available data at peak shear stress and the other

can be obtained as follows. Results of experiments performed by

Barton et al. showed that dilation initiates when d/d p is around 0.3,

at which the mobilized friction angle is equal to the basic friction

angle. In other words, at d=gcoef.d p, the amount of shear stress will

be sn tan (fb). Here gcoef is the fraction of peak shear displacement

Shear stiffness in differential form can be obtained by differentiating shear stress in Equation (6) with respect to shear displacement as follows:

, ...................................................................(5)

where Ln and d p are the fracture length and the peak shear displacement. In Equation (5) Ln and d p are both in metres.

To describe a single-joint shear behaviour, a hyperbolic function is proposed by the authors to fit the experimental data obtained

by Barton et al.(18) as:

(a)

r

JCS n

log

no

yx

p (1 + b p )

...............................(7)

p

yx

p =

2a

, k si =

Shear Displacement, mm

(c)

Fig. 4: Effect of (a) JRC, (b) coef and (c) JCS on pre-peak shear behaviour of a single joint.

80

shear) is another important phenomenon commonly associated with

shearing of rough-walled fractures. Dilation can be defined as a

function of shear displacement and the tangent of dilation angle as:

d u n = tan(d n ) d ut = tan(d n )

1

d , ..........................................(12)

Ks

where dun, dut and dn are the normal displacement, tangential displacement and the dilation angle, respectively. In strain form,

d ne =

d un

1

d ...................................................(13)

= tan(d n )

W

K sW

Barton and Choubey(12)s empirical model can be used to estimate

the value of the mobilized dilation angle as:

be calculated from the average of the stresses and strains within

that region when the boundary traction is macroscopically uniform

[Hill(21)]. Singh(22) established a continuum characterization for the

mechanical properties of the jointed rock by summing the compliances of orthogonal joint sets. Using the previously described

concept and the fact that the compliance matrices for any existing

joints can be transformed easily into the global coordinate system,

Gerrard and Pande(23) developed a pseudoization technique to obtain the equivalent modulus of a jointed rock. The transformation

from the global coordinates for the joint x, y and z to local coordinates x, y and z (used for continuum formulation) for the stress

vector is [Cook et al.(24)]:

{ '

x 'x '

= [T ] xx'

, ...............................(18)

JCS n

d n0 (mob) = 1 / 2 JRCn (mob)log

n

.....................................(14)

the mean asperities dip angle, a. Seidel and Haberfield(20) showed

that elastic deformation of asperities in shear displacement of a

joint with two initially matched faces explains the reduction in the

mean asperities dip angle. They also proved that the peak shear

stress remains unchanged even though asperities elastically deform.

To model the mechanical behaviour of rock joints, they are considered in this work to be continuum possessing their own constitutive

model, rather than as discontinuities. Consider a local coordinate

system for a planar joint where n denotes the direction normal to

the joint plane, and s and t are two orthogonal directions in the

plane. The constitutive model relating stress and strain is then expressed as:

e

e

n WK n

e

s = D12

e

t

D13

D12

1

WK se

0

D13

n

0 s , .......................................(15)

1 t

WK te

= F , ...............................................................................(16)

~J

J ~ J

mat

or ~ J = D

J

~J

2 mx' n x'

2lx' nx'

nx' m y' + mx' n y' nx' l y' + lx' n y'

nx' mz' + mx' nz' nx' lz' + lx' nz'

l x ' = cos( x' x), mx ' = cos( x' y ), nx ' = cos( x' z )

l y ' = cos( y ' x), m y ' = cos( y ' y ), n y ' = cos( y ' z ) ..............................(19)

l z ' = cos( z ' x), mz ' = cos( z ' y ), nz ' = cos( z ' z )

The compliance matrix of a jointed rock containing different

joint sets is obtained by summing the contributions of the individual joint sets, resulting in the following equation:

nJ

[F ] = [F ] + S1 [T ] [F ][T ] , ...............................................(20)

t

J =1

l

J

where nJ, is the total number of fracture sets, TJ is the transformation matrix for Set J given by Equation (19) and SJ is the joint

spacing in the joint Set J. FI is the compliance matrix of the intact rock material, which in our calculation is assumed to be linearelastic one, but can be more general. Equation (20) implies that

under a given stress variation in a jointed block the total deformation is simply the sum of the deformations in the intact rock and all

the embedded joints.

Numerical Modelling

(16). The prime notation denotes the effective form of stress in

Equation (15). This form of stress is defined when the porous rock

or fracture contains a pressurized fluid.

We assumed that the compliance matrix, FJ, in Equation (16)

is symmetric. In Equation (16), the off-diagonal terms are obtained

from Equation (13) as:

l x2'

mx2'

nx2'

2lx' mx '

[T ] = lx' l y ' mx' my ' nx' ny ' mx' l y ' + lx' my '

lx' lz ' mx' mz ' nx' nz ' mx' lz ' + lx' mz '

1 ...........................................................(17)

K sW

These terms represent the effect of shear stress on normal deformation (dilation). In Equation (17) it is assumed that the asperity dip angles in both shear directions, strike and tangentional,

are thesame.

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

behaviour, momentum balance for the bulk material requires:

ij , j + b j = 0, ij = ji , ............................................................(21)

where bj is the body force on unit volume of the material. It should

be noted that in Equation (21) the stress term is the total stress.

Strain and displacement relationship gives:

ij =

1

(ui, j + u j , i ) ......................................................................(22)

2

When Equation (21) is written for the displacement, a secondorder nonlinear differential equation will result, which cannot be

solved by an analytical method. A standard method for handling

this type of problem is the finite element method (FEM). A nu81

40

30

20

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Normal Displacement, mm

Fig. 5: Comparison between Bartons experimental data and

the developed code results for normal deformation of a range

of fresh joints.

model and validate it against laboratory data. FEM with brick type

elements was used to model the mechanical behaviour of joints and

jointed rocks. The Galerkin-weighted residual method was employed to approximate the solution of the differential equations for

the jointed rock problem. The variational form of linear momentum

balance for the quasistatic loadings reads:

W = grad N : N b dV N . t dA = 0 , ..........................(23)

the boundary of the control volume. In matrix form, Equation (23)

can be written as:

K u = f , ...................................................................................(24)

~

K= B D

Shear Displacement, mm

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

FEMDilation

0.5

0

(b)

Shear Displacement, mm

1

1.5

JCS =40 MPa, L =2 m

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

FEMDilation

0.5

(c)

JCS =50 MPa, L=1 m 0.5

force and pore pressure,

mat

1

JRC

1.5

B d , ................................................................(25)

0.5

0.02

0.25

(a)

~k

10

Dilation, mm

Symbols=Experiments

Solid Lines=Numerical Models

0.5

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentShear Behavior

FEMDilation

ExperimentDilation

Dilation, mm

50

0.5

Dilation, mm

1)

2)

3)

v max (mm)

0.068

0.088

0.107

4

175

0.1

8.8

182

0.15

7.6

157

0.2

Shear Displacement, mm

f = N t dA + N b dV B m B pdV .................................(26)

Barton experimental data for shear stress and dilation vs.

displacement.

and p is the pore pressure. The constant aB has different meaning

for the joint elements and matrix: aB is a constant for the fracture

[Walsh(25)] and it is equal to Biot constant for porous geo-materials.

JCS

, ......................................(27)

K ni = 7.15 + 1.75 JRC + 0.02

a

j

Model Validation

JCS

a

j

Single Joint

first example to verify the accuracy of the developed code. Bandis

et al.(3)s hyperbolic constitutive model, Equation (2), was applied

in the FEM code and the results were compared with their experimental data. It can clearly be seen from Fig. 5 that the simulation

results agree well with the experiment for the first-loading normal

deformation of three different fresh joints. It should be noted that

the initial-normal stiffness and the maximum fracture closure for

the first loading cycle were correlated as functions of JCS, JRC and

initial unstressed joint aperture, aj, by Bandis et al.(3) as:

82

0.245

.................................(28)

model in predicting the experimental data. A schematic of an initially loaded fracture (normal stress=2 MPa), the way it is sheared

and all the fracture properties are shown in Fig. 6. Here we can

see how closely the proposed model fits the experimental data of

Barton et al.(18) for prepeak shear and dilation behaviour of different tested fractures. The value of gcoef used in the numerical solution is 0.3 which is what was observed in the majority of tested

joints. The suggested hyperbolic model has also proven to be valid

for a wide range of normal effective stress as shown in Fig. 7.

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

(a)

0.5

1.5

0.1

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

FEMDilation

2

0

(c)

0.5

1

1.5

Shear Displacement, mm

0.1

FEMDilation

0.5

1.5

Shear Displacement, mm

0.1

JCS =100 MPa,

L=0.3 m, L ref =0.1 m

15

10

0.05

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

FEMDilation

Dilation, mm

Dilation, mm

0

0

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

20

JCS =100 MPa,

L=0.3 m, L ref =0.1 m

0.2

(b)

0.2

Shear Displacement, mm

0.3

L=0.3 m, L ref =0.1 m

Dilation, mm

Dilation, mm

0.25

ExperimentShear Stress

FEMShear Stress

ExperimentDilation

FEMDilation

0.5

0.5

JCS =100 MPa, L=0.3 m,

L ref=0.1 m

0

0

0.5

1.5

Shear Displacement, mm

(d)

Fig. 7: Comparison of shear stress and dilation vs. displacement between the numerical model and Barton experimental data for

the effect of normal stress.

Despite the large amount of experimental data for shear behaviour of a single fracture, not enough experimental works have been

carried out to investigate the mechanical deformation of a composite fracture/rock or a jointed rock system. Kulatilake et al.(26)

conducted a series of laboratory experiments on jointed material

blocks. His experimental results are used here to validate the proposed shear model for the jointed rock. The jointed blocks were a

mixture of plaster, sand and water, which were carefully mixed, cast

and cured. Approximately 15 wooden frames were constructed to

use as moulds to prepare prismatic-jointed block samples with different joint geometry configurations.

To model stress-strain behaviour of the jointed rock, one

needs to know both the properties of the intact rock as well as

the embedded joints. The average intact rock Poissons ratio, compressive strength and Youngs modulus are 0.24, 5.15 mPa and

1,100 mPa respectively.

Unfortunately not enough measurements were performed to

obtain physical properties of all the joints. The only available experimental data is the normal stress-normal strain of a jointed rock.

It contains a single-horizontal joint, subjected to uniaxial vertical

loading as shown in Fig. 8. Bandiss normal deformation model

with kni=0.55 mPa/mm and vm=1.22 mm in Equation (2) appeared

to be the best fit for the experimental data. JCS and JRC are usually estimated by Schmidt hammer and tilt tests in the laboratory;

however, the experimental data did not include such measurements.

JCS can take a maximum value of the intact rocks compressive

strength when the joint faces are completely mated and nonweathered [Barton and Choubey(12)]. However, in this case study the surfaces were not fully matched because the two slabs of the joints

were moulded separately.

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

1.4mm, the initial guesses for JCS and JRC were obtained to be

4mPa and 4.4, respectively. Because no two real joints are the same

in terms of their physical properties, the resulting simulation data

based on the previously described joint properties will not necessarily match all experimental data.

Fig. 9 shows a picture of the experimental setup as well as the

grid geometry used for modelling the jointed block stress-strain

behaviour with the finite element technique. Four elements, each

containing two conjugate joints, comprise the numerical model.

6

Jointed Rock

n

Experiment

Bandis Model Fit

4

3

2

1

0

0

0.5

Normal Displacement, mm

Fig. 8: Normal stress-normal displacement behaviour of a

single horizontal joint under uniaxial vertical loading.

83

No shear effect

30 cm

10-10

5-5

3

20-20

15-15

1

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Axial Strain

blocks having symmetric joint configurations without

considering the shear effect.

z

x

four vertical elements for numerical modelling [picture from

Kulatilake et al.(26)].

The model is first initialized for the initial stresses caused by the

block weight (body force) and then the strain vector is zeroed. At

low-stress levels, joint deformation is so sensitive to the stress

variation that even the weight of the blocks can lead to a change

in the aperture of the joints. The experimental setup in Fig. 9 indicates the direction along which the jointed block is uniaxially compressed and also how it is freed in lateral directions. It is assumed

that the bottom face is fixed in the z-direction and only a quarter

of the whole block is modelled to take advantage of the lack of displacement boundaries in the vertical planes of symmetry.

Fig. 10 shows the comparison between the experimental data

for four jointed blocks with different joint dip angles, 5 5, 10

10, 15 15 and 20 20, and the numerical model which did

not consider the joints shear effect. Fig. 11 presents the same experimental data in comparison with a model which accounts for the

shear effects, using the method developed here. Fig. 11 indicates

how much better matches can be obtained if the joint shear effect

is accounted for. This deviation in the match caused by neglecting

the shear effects is more noticeable for joints with a larger dipping

angle. The joint properties used to obtain the match for each jointed

block are listed in Table 1.

6

At relatively high-axial stresses in the previously described experiments, Kulatilake et al.(26) reported the main failure mechanism

as tensile fracturing through the intact model material. This failure

mode is also known as the splitting mode. At higher joint dip angles, they also found that a mixed failure mechanism of both intact

rock tensile failure and shear failure of joints were responsible for

the failure of the jointed blocks. Modelling of this behaviour is beyond the scope of this study.

For blocks containing dip angle sets of 5 5, 10 10 and

15 15, as shown in Table 1, the input values for the maximum

joint closure are not the same. This indicates how initial assemblage

of the jointed block constituents can affect the initial aperture and

consequently the maximum deformation of the joints. An abnormal

behaviour is observed in a stress-strain diagram of the sample

20 20. The experimental data shows that in this case, both initial-normal and shear stiffness of the rock are of large magnitude.

From Equation (5), lower JRC results in lower peak shear displacement, which will increase the prepeak shear stiffness at lower stress

levels. It seems that in this jointed block sample (20 20), the embedded joints physical properties are quite different from the physical properties of the sample tested joint.

Conclusions

The stress-strain behaviour of a single-joint and jointed rock depends considerably on the state of stress, is anisotropic and is

nonlinear. For a jointed rock, such deformation behaviour can be

estimated from the summation of the deformations in the solid rock

and the joints in the form of equivalent moduli of pseudocontinuum.

In this paper a new hyperbolic model to estimate the relationship between shear stress and shear displacement of a single joint

is presented and confirmed by experimental data and numerical

5-5

10-10

20-20

MODELLING OF DIFFERENT JOINTED BLOCKS

15-15

Dip Angles

JRC =

1

JCS (Mpa) =

Lref (m) =

0

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Axial Strain

blocks having symmetric joint configurations with shear effect

[picture and experimental data from Kulatilake et al.(26)].

84

55

1010

1515

2020

4.4

4.4

4.4

0.6

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

b =

22

22

22

24

aj (mm) =

0.2

0.4

0.55

0.6

vmax (mm) =

0.15

0.37

0.49

0.55

Kni (MPa/mm) =

0.7

1.0

0.4

0.075

0.075

0.075

0.075

Spacing (m) =

a joint in matrix form has been developed and applied in the FEM

code to predict the mechanical behaviour of a single joint as well

as of a jointed rock.

An inherent simplification always exists in pseudocontinuum

modelling of jointed rocks because the real joints in a joint set do

not have exactly the same physical properties. An accurate modelling would require all the existing joints to be tested for their physical properties, which is impossible.

In this study we have shown how the aperture variation of joints

in jointed rocks caused by different loading conditions can be obtained. Future continuation of this study will first consider the

effect of joint post-peak shear behaviour on the mechanical properties of the jointed rock and then investigate the effect of changes

in joint aperture on the hydraulic conductivity of the jointed rock.

The final goal will be to use these techniques to predict the development of shear fracturing during stimulation and subsequent production of tight gas wells.

Acknowledgements

and of the industry consortium for research in geomechanical fracturing at the University of Calgary. Thanks also go to JCPT for accepting our paper in the journal.

Nomenclature

A = area

b = body force vector

d o = dilation angle

D = material stiffness matrix

F = material compliance matrix, D1

f = force vector

JRC = joint roughness coefficient

JCS = joint compressive strength

kn = fracture normal stiffness

ks = fracture shear stiffness

kt = fracture tangential stiffness

K = stiffness matrix in finite element

L = length

N = shape function matrix

P = pressure

Sf = fracture spacing

t = traction force

T = fracture transformation matrix

u = displacement

V = volume

W = width

aB = Biot constant

g = shear displacement

gcoef = dilation initiation coefficient

d = shear displacement

Dvj = joint closure

e = strain, strain tensor

vm = maximum joint closure

s = normal stress, stress tensor

t = shear stress

fb = basic friction angle

fr = residual friction angle

W = controlled volume

W = boundary of controlled volume

References

1. Goodman, R.E. 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rocks. San Francisco, California: West Publishing Company.

2. Swan, G. 1980. Stiffness and Associated Joint Properties of Rock.

Proc., International Conference on the Applications of Rock Mechanics to Cut-and-Fill Mining, Lulea, Sweden, 13 June.

3. Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C., and Barton N.R. 1983. Fundamentals of

Rock Joint Deformation. Int. Journal of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech Abstr. 20 (6): 249268. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(83)90595-8.

4. Malama, B. and Kulatilake, P.H.S.W. 2003. Models for normal fracture deformation under compressive loading. Int. J. of Rock Mech. &

Min. Sci. 40 (6): 893901. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00071-6.

5. Plesha, M.E. 1987. Constitutive Model for Rock Discontinuities with

Dilatancy and Surface Degradation. Int. J. Num. Analy. Methods in

Geomech. 11 (4): 245362. doi: 10.1002/nag.1610110404.

6. A madei, B. and Saeb, S. 1990. Constitutive Models of Rock Joint.

In Rock Joints: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock

Joints Loen, Norway, 46 June 1990, ed. N. Barton and O. Stephansson, 707712. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.

7. Jing, L. 1990. Numerical modelling of jointed rock masses by distinct

element method for two- and three-dimensional problems. PhD dissertation, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden (5 October

1990).

8. Patton, F.D. 1966. Multiple Modes of Shear Failure in Rock. Proc.,

First Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics,

Lisbon, Portugal, 509513.

9. Ladanyi, B. and Archambault, G. 1969. Simulation of Shear Behavior

of a Jointed Rock Mass. Proc., 11th Symposium on Rock Mechanics:

Theory and Practice, Berkeley, California, USA, 1619 June, 105125.

10. Barton, N. 1973. Review of a New Shear-Strength Criterion for Rock

Joints. Engineering Geology 7 (4): 287332. doi: 10.1016/00137952(73)90013-6.

11. Jaeger, J.C. 1971. Friction of Rock and Stability of Rock Slopes. Geotechnique 21 (2): 97134.

12. Barton, N. and Choubey, V. 1977. The Shear Strength of Rock Joint in

Theory and Practice. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 10 (1

2): 154. doi: 10.1007/BF01261801.

13. Archambault, G., Fortin, M., Gill, D.E., Aubertin, M., and Ladanyi, B.

1990. Experimental Investigation for an Algorithm Simulating the Effect of Variable Normal Stiffness on Discontinuities Shear Strength.

Proc., International Symposium on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway, 46

June, 141156.

14. Boulon, M. and Nova, R. 1990. Modeling of Soil-Structure Interface BehaviorA Comparison Between Elastoplastic and Rate

Type Laws. Computers and Geomechanics 9 (12): 2146. doi:

10.1016/0266-352X(90)90027-S.

15. Roberds, W.J. and Einstein, H.H. 1978. Comprehensive Model for

Rock Discontinuities. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 104 (5): 553569

16. Desai, C.S. and Fishman, K.L. 1987. Constitutive Models for Rocks

and Discontinuities. Proc., 28th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,

Tucson, Arizona, USA, 29 June1 July, 609619.

17. Clough, G.W. and Duncan, J.M. 1971. Finite Element Analysis of Retaining Wall Behavior. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (12): 16571673.

18. Barton, N., Bandis, S., and Bakhtar, K. 1985. Strength, Deformation and Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints. Int. J. Rock Mech.

Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 22 (3): 121140. doi: 10.1016/01489062(85)93227-9.

19. Barton, N. and Bandis, S. 1982. Effects of block size on the shear behaviour jointed rock. Proc., 23rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,

Berkeley, California, USA, 2527 August, 739760.

20. Seidel, J.P. and Haberfield, C.M. 1995. The Application of Energy Principles to the Determination of Sliding Resistance of Rock Joints. Rock

Mech. Rock Engng. 28 (4): 211226. doi: 10.1007/BF01020227.

21. Hill, R. 1963. Elastic Properties of Reinforced Solids: Some Theoretical Principles. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 11 (5):

357375. doi: 10.1016/0022-5096(63)90036-X.

22. Singh, B. 1973. Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses.

Part I-The Constitutive Equations. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 10 (4): 311335. doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(73)90041-7.

23. Gerrard, C.M. and Pande, G.N. 1985. Numerical Modeling of Reinforced Jointed Rock Masses I. Theory. Computers and Geotechnics 1

(4): 293318. doi: 10.1016/0266-352X(85)90005-9.

24. Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., and Plesha, M.E. 1989. Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, third edition. New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

25. Walsh, J.B. 1981. Effect of Pore Pressure and Confining Pressure on

Fracture Permeability. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 18

(5): 429435. doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(81)90006-1.

85

SPE

26. Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Liang, J., and Gao, H. 2001. Experimental and

Numerical Simulation of Jointed Rock Block Strength under Uniaxial Loading. J. Engrg. Mech 127 (12): 12401247. doi: 10.1061/

(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:12(1240).

27. Roosta, R.M, Sadaghiani, M.H., Pak, A., and Saleh, Y. 2006. Rock

Joint Modeling Using a Visco-Plastic Multilaminate Model at

Constant Normal Load Condition. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 24 (5): 14491468. doi: 10.1007/s10706-005-1217-8.

PROJECTS,

FACILITIES &

CONSTRUCTION

This paper (2009-059) was accepted for presentation at the 10th Canadian

International Petroleum Conference (the 60th Annual Technical Meeting of

the Petroleum Society), Calgary, 1618 June, 2009, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 26 June 2009. Revised paper

received for review 13 June 2010. Paper peer approved 15 June 2010 as SPE

Paper 140119.

Authors Biographies

Mohammad Nassir is a Ph.D. candidate in

petroleum engineering at the University of

Calgary. In his Ph.D. research, he has focused

on geo-mechanical aspects of fractured reservoirs, especially fracture shear behaviour associated with high-pressure fluid injection.

He holds an M. Eng. degree from the University of Calgary in petroleum engineering and

a B.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from

Amirkabir University of Technology in Iran.

He is a member of SPE.

the world of petroleum engineering.

Onshore and offshore

facilities design

Subsea, fixed, and floating

production systems

Pipelines and flow

assurance

Human factors

Carbon capture and

storage

Environmental

management systems

control

terminals, storage and

transportation

operations

Subscribe now!

www.spe.org/journals

Antonin (Tony) Settari holds the Encana/Petroleum Society of CIM endowed chair in petroleum engineering at the University of

Calgary, and is among the principals in

TAURUS Reservoir Solutions Ltd., a hightechnology simulation consulting firm in

Calgary. He works primarily in reservoir simulation and engineering, hydraulic fracturing

and reservoir geomechanics. He is a co-author of a classical textbook on petroleum reservoir simulation (by Aziz and Settari) and has written over 120

technical publications. He previously worked for Intercomp Inc. and

founded SIMTECH Consulting Services in 1983 and TAURUS Reservoir Solutions Ltd. in 2000. He holds a B.Sc. degree from the Technical University of Brno in Czechoslovakia and a Ph.D. degree in

mechanical engineering from the University of Calgary. His SPE activities include serving on the editorial board of JPT, as a technical

and as distinguished lecturer (1989 and 2000). Settari became a distinguished member of SPE in 2003 and received the SPE Anthony B.

Lucas Gold Medal in 2008. In 2009, he received the Eni Prize Frontiers in Hydrocarbons.

Richard Wan is a professor of civil engineering with the University of Calgary. His

research interests are in numerical and constitutive modelling of geomaterials, micromechanics, failure issues such as material

instability and experimental mechanics and

biomedical engineering. Wan was awarded

the R.J Melosh medal in finite element modelling from Duke University, North Carolina.

He holds a civil engineering degree from

cole Nationale des Travaux Publics de ltat, in France, an M.Sc.

degree in geotechnical engineering from the University of Ottawa

and a Ph.D. degree in geomechanics from the University of Alberta.

He is member of the Canadian Geotechnical Society, the International Society for Rock Mechanics and APEGGA.

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.