Chapter Three: Basic Constitutive Laws

Topics
• Elasticity and Plasticity
• Effective Stress and Poroelasticity
• Viscoelasticity
• Viscoplasticity
• Thermoporoelasticity
 Laboratory Testing
60

50 Failure

Onset of
Inelastic Behavior
40
Stress (MPa)

Unloading
30
(Dynamic)
Elastic Behavior Young's Modulus

E
20
Loading
(Static)
Young's Modulus
10

Crack Closing

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Deformation, mm

Figure 3.2 – pg.58

Constitutive Laws

Figure 3.1 a,b – pg.57

Constitutive Laws

Figure 3.1 c,d – pg.57

 Common Elastic Modulii

Bulk Modulus, K S 00
K=
(Compressibility, β = K-1) ε 00

Young’s Modulus, E
S11 only non-zero stress
Possion’s Ratio, ν ε 33
S11 S11 only non-zero stress ν = −
E= ε11
ε11

Shear Modulus, G In all cases replace

Sij only non-zero stress stress (S) with effective
1 ⎜⎛ S13 ⎟⎞ stress (σ) for fluid
G= ⎜ ⎟ saturated porous rock.
2 ⎝ ε 13 ⎠
 Elastic Modulii and Seismic Waves
In an elastic, isotropic, homogeneous solid

K + 4G G
P wave Vp = 3 Shear Wave Vs =
ρ ρ
Liquid G = 0 , Vs = 0

Equation 3.5 – pg.63

4G
“M” Modulus M = Vp2 ρ = K + Poisson Solid λ=G
3
Vp 1
ν = 0.25 * = = 1.73
Poisson’s Ratio Vp2 − 2Vs2 Vs 3
ν=
Liquid ν = 0.5 (
2 Vp2 − Vs2 ) * common value for rocks

Equation 3.6 – pg.64

 Relationships Among Elastic Modulii

K E λ ν G M
2G 3λ + 2G λ
λ+ G - 2(λ + G ) - λ + 2G
3 λ+G
K−λ λ K−λ
- 9K - 3 3K − 2λ
3K − λ 3K − λ 2
- 9K − G K−
2G 3K − 2G
- G
K+4
3K − G 3 2(3K + G ) 3
EG - E − 2G E - 4G − E
G −1 G
3(3G − E ) 3G − E 2G 3G − E
3K − E 3K − E 3KE 3K + E
- - 3K 3K
9K − E 6K 9K − E 9K − E
1+ ν (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 1− ν
λ λ - - 1 − 2ν λ
3ν λ ν
ν 2ν
2(1 + ν ) 2ν 2 − 2ν
G 2G (1 + ν ) G - -
3(1 − 2ν ) 1 − 2ν G
1 − 2ν
ν 1 − 2ν 1− ν
3K (1 − 2ν )
- 3K - 3K 3K
1+ ν 2 + 2ν 1+ ν
E Eν E E(1 − ν )
- -
3(1 − 2ν ) (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 2 + 2ν (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν )
Table 3.1 – pg.64
Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio & Porosity

Figure 3.4 – pg.62

 Continuum Approach to Effective Stress
Assumptions:
•Volume large compared to elements
•Interconnected porosity
•Statistically Averaged Volumes

S = Total Stress
For an impermeable Force Balance at Grain
membrane: Scale:
Stress = Force/AreaTotal FT = Fg
S = F/AT
S AT = Acσc + (AT - Ac)Pp
Ac

S = aσc + (1 - a)Pp
Intergranular Stress:
lim aσc = σg
a 0

Effective Stress:
σg = S - (1 - a) Pp = S - Pp
 Effective Stress

Simple (Terzaghi) form “Exact form”

σ ij = Sij − δ ij Pp σij = Sij − δijαPp

Equations 3.8 & 3.10 – pg.66 & 68
Pp does not affect shear stress or shear strain, but does
affect elastic moduli, rock strength, frictional strength

Biot Constant
K Kb ≡ Drained bulk modulus of porous rock
α = 1− b 0 ≤ α ≤1 Kg ≡ Bulk modulus of solid grains
Kg

Lim α = 0 • Solid rock without pores. No pore pressure influence

φ→0
Lim α = 1 • Extremely compliant porous solid. Maximum pore pressure influence
Kb → 0
Laboratory Measured Values of Alpha

Figure 3.5 c – pg.67

 Dispersion

5000
100 cp

Vp 10 cp

4000 1 cp
Velocity (m/s)

3000 Log Lab

Vs
2000

4 5
Log Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3.6 b – pg.70

 Poro-Elastic Response to a Change of Pp (ΔPp)
(Within a Reservoir)
Sv
SH

Using instantaneous application of force and pressure with no lateral strain:

⎛ ν ⎞
S H − αPp = ⎜
− ν
(
⎟ S v − αPp )
⎝ 1 ⎠
Take the derivative of both sides and simplify

ΔS H =α
(1 − 2ν )
ΔPp α = 1−
Kb
(1 − ν ) Kg

2
if ν = 0.25, α = 1 ΔS H = ΔPp
3
 Viscoelastic/Viscoplastic Deformation of
Unconsolidated Sands

• To a significant degree, the deformation and failure of most

sedimentary rocks can be described using a strength of materials
approach – the rocks deform elastically until they fail

• This is not true of uncemented sands and immature shales.

• The fact that the grains are not cemented allows these materials to
creep (deform as a function of time at a constant stress or at
constant strain, for stress to relax with time).

• The presence of clay greatly exacerbates creep in uncemented

sands.
Loading History
Ottawa Sand with Montmorillonite Clay
Observations of instantaneous and viscous deformation in dry
Wilmington sand

Drained Hydrostatic Load Cycling

Cleaned and Dried Wilmington Sand

0.03 0.035 0.04

30
Creep Strain
25
Confining Pressure (MPa)

Instantaneous
20

Strain

Axial Strain (in/in)

0.02 0.025
15

0.01 0.015
10

Confining Pressure
5

0.005
0
10

20

30

40
0

Time (hr)
Figure 3.8 a – pg.73
Creep and Clay Content
Incremental creep strain is independent of pressure...

Figure 3.9 a,b – pg.74

 Ideal Viscoelastic Materials
(Time-Dependent Stress and Strain)
Applications of Linear Viscoelasticity Theory

Figure 3.10 a-d – pg.75

Wilmington Sand Stress Relaxation

Figure 3.11 a – pg.77

 Wilmington Creep and Standard Linear Solid

0.0016

0.0014

0.0012

0.001
strain

0.0008
t S
S tna nad dar rdL
i L
ien enra arS
o S
olid lidM M
od odel el

Ε2
0.0006 E1

0.0004

0.0002 η
0
4 4 4 4
0 5000 1 10 1.5 10 2 10 2.5 10
time s
Figure 3.12 – pg.78
 Experimental Procedure - Attenuation
Constant Frequency Test Procedure
Cleaned and Dried WIlmington Sand
Load Frequency = 1MPa/hr

0.07
35
Confining Pressure

0.06
30

0.05
Confining Pressure (MPa)

25

Axial Strain (in/in)

0.04
20

0.03
Axial Strain
15

0.02
10

0.01
Stress
5

0
-0.01
Strain
20

40

60

80

100

120
0

Time (Hr)
 Modeling Attenuation using
creep parameters

Viscoelastic Attenuation Modeling

1.00E+02
Dry Wilmington Sand
data
S.L.Solid
1.00E+01 Power
Burgers
1.00E+00 Best Model

1.00E-01

1.00E-02
Mean Pressure = 27.5 MPa
1.00E-03 Pressure Amplitude = 5

1.00E-04
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01
Frequency (Hz)
Experimental Procedure - Modulus Dispersion

Frequency Cycling Test Procedure

0.02
20
Axial Strain
Confining Pressure (MPa)

0.015
15

Axial Strain (in/in)

0.01
10

Mean
Pressure

0.005
5

Confining Pressure
Pressure Amplitude

0
10

20

30

40

50

60
0

Time(hr)
 Best-Fitting Power Law Model

Fits very low frequency (reservoir compaction)

Intermediate frequency (laboratory testing)
High Frequency (seismic to sonic to ultrasonic
modulus dispersion)

0.9 Well-log data Ultrasonic

data
0.8

0.7
Quasi-static load cycling data
0.6
Extrapolate to 30
year simulated
reservoir lifespan
0.5
Data
0.4
S.L.Solid
Burgers
0.3 Power/Maxwell

0.2 Mean Pressure = 22.5 MPa

Pressure Amplitude = 5 MPa
0.1

0
1.00E-09 1.00E-07 1.00E-05 1.00E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+01 1.00E+03 1.00E+05

Frequency (Hz)
 Best-fitting Model (Low Frequency)

Both the instantaneous (φj) and time-dependent components of

long term strain have power law functional forms.

Written in terms of porosity (to simulate compaction), we have

φ ( Pc , t ) = φ j − ( Pc / A)t b
Equation 3.15 – pg.80
where the first term describes the instantaneous porosity change
and the second term describes the normalized creep strain, where:

φ =φ P
j 0 c
d

Equation 3.16 – pg.81

Which leaves 4 unknowns:
2 constants (A, φ0) and 2 exponents (b,d).
Modeling creep strain in dry
Field X (GOM) sand

φ(Pc,t) = φi - (Pc/A)tb
 Best-Fitting Model: Wilmington

− 0.046 Pc
φ ( Pc , t ) = 0.271Pc −( )t 0.164
5410.3
Equation 3.17 – pg.81

Maximum field compaction predicted: ~1.5%

Best-Fitting Model: Field X, GOM

− 0.152 Pc
φ ( Pc , t ) = 0.246 Pc −( )t 0.232
6666.7
Equation 3.20 – pg.82

Maximum field compaction predicted: >10%

 Creep Parameters For Two Uncemented Sands

A b Φ0 d
Reservoir sand (creep) (creep) (instant) (instant) Notes
Wilmington 5410.3 0.1644 0.271 -0.046 Stiffer and more viscous
GOM – Field X 6666.7 0.2318 0.246 -0.152 Softer and less viscous

Table 3.2 – pg.82

 Thermoporoelasticity

How temperature changes affect stress and strain

Sij = (λδ ij ε 00 + 2Gε ij ) − αδ ij P0 − Kα T δ ij ΔT

Equation 3.21 – pg.83

1 δL
Where, αT = coefficient of thermal expansion
L δT

To be applied to problems of thermally-

induced stresses around a wellbore
 Coefficients of Thermal Expansion versus Percent of Silica

1.2E-05
Coeff. of Thermal expansion [1/C]

1.0E-05
Cherts, quartzites
8.0E-06 Sandstones
Granitoid rocks
6.0E-06
Slates
Andesites
4.0E-06
Gabbros, basalts, diabase

2.0E-06

0.0E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Silica [%]
 Thermoelastic Effects on Wellbore Stresses

The effect at the wellbore wall of a temperature difference ΔT

between the wellbore fluid and the rock surrounding well is given
by the equation:
σθθΔT = (α E ΔT)/(1-ν)
where α is the linear coefficient of thermal expansion and E is
Young's modulus.

For drilling-induced tensile fractures in the Visund field in the North

Sea, a cooling of ~30° C at a depth of ~2750 m resulted in σθθΔT =
1.7 MPa based on the following: α = 2.4x10-6 °C-1 (corresponding to
a rock composed of 50% quartz), E = 1.9x104 MPa (from the
measured P-wave velocity) and ν = 0.2 (based on the P to S-wave
velocity ratio).