Pore Volume and Porosity Changes under Uniaxial Strain Conditions

Zimmerman, Robert W.

doi:10.1007/s11242-017-0894-0

Cited by 39 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…)

ε_{zz} = \frac{Δ h}{h} = - C_{uni} Δ P_{p},

where C uni is the uniaxial pore volume compressibility (defined as the fractional change in volume with pore pressure change when lateral strain constrained to be zero), and Δh the reduction in thickness. According to Zimmerman (), in a porous rock the uniaxial pore volume compressibility, C uni , is related to the hydrostatic pore compressibility, C pp (defined as the fractional change in volume with pore pressure change with no constraints) via the relation

C_{uni} \approx (1 - \frac{2 (1 - 2 ν) α}{3 (1 - ν)}) C_{pp},

…”

Section: The Magnitude Of 4d Seismic Time‐shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

MacBeth

Mangriotis

Amini

2018

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review and analysis of post‐stack time‐lapse time‐shifts has been carried out that covers published literature supplemented by in‐house datasets available to the authors. Time‐shift data are classified into those originating from geomechanical effects and those due to fluid saturation changes. From these data, conclusions are drawn regarding the effectiveness of post‐stack time‐shifts for overburden and reservoir monitoring purposes. A variety of field examples are shown that display the range and magnitude of variation for each class of application. The underlying physical mechanisms creating these time‐shifts are then described, and linked to a series of generic and field‐specific rock physics calculations that predict their magnitudes. These calculations serve as a guide for practitioners wishing to utilize this information on their own datasets. Conclusions are drawn regarding the reliability of this attribute for monitoring purposes, and the extent to which further development is required and how it should be reported by authors.

show abstract

“…)

ε_{zz} = \frac{Δ h}{h} = - C_{uni} Δ P_{p},

C_{uni} \approx (1 - \frac{2 (1 - 2 ν) α}{3 (1 - ν)}) C_{pp},

…”

Section: The Magnitude Of 4d Seismic Time‐shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

MacBeth

Mangriotis

Amini

2018

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the absence of gas adsorption (i.e., ε L = 0 and/or ∂ε s /∂ P p = 0), uniaxial strain conditions (as described above) allow Eq. (16) to reduce to (Gambolati et al 2000;Jaeger et al 2007;Zimmerman 2017;Andersen et al 2017) lim…”

Section: Imposing Uniaxial Strain Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analytical solutions for porosity change due to pore pressure under uniaxial strain conditions have also been derived in the context of fluid production/injection in aquifers (e.g., Gambolati et al 2000;Jaeger et al 2007;Zimmerman 2017;Andersen et al 2017). Associated authors presented a single common equation for the storage coefficient, which they rigorously derived from poroelastic theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, we derive equations for this aforementioned storage coefficient using the three different porosity models of Cui and Bustin (2005), Palmer and Mansoori (1998), and Shi and Durucan (2004). We look at the limits of these equations for when there is no GSIS and compare these with the widely accepted uniaxial strain storage coefficient associated with fluid movement in aquifers (e.g., Gambolati et al 2000;Jaeger et al 2007;Zimmerman 2017;Andersen et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Storage Coefficients and Permeability Functions for Coal-Bed Methane Production Under Uniaxial Strain Conditions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This geometry model has been considered the best physical representation of coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs given that a good agreement has been obtained between theoretical and laboratorial permeability data when using this model [6]. Based on coal geometry being represented as a bundle of matchsticks, many analytical models have been proposed to predict dynamic changes in coal permeability during primary gas production under the uniaxial strain condition, which is regarded as the best replicated in-situ boundary conditions of CBM reservoirs [7][8][9][10][11]. Of the existing models, the most commonly used are the ones presented by Palmer and Mansoori [12] (P&M model), Shi and Durucan [13] (S&D model), and Cui and Bustin [14] (C&B model).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Analytical Models Developed under the Uniaxial Strain Condition for Predicting Coal Permeability during Primary Depletion

Wang

Shi

et al. 2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The stress-dependent permeability of coal during coalbed methane production has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically. However, how permeability changes as a function of stress variation is somewhat unclear to date, and currently used analytical models fail to accurately predict permeability evolution with gas depletion. Considering that the role played by changes in in situ stress in permeability evolution is critical, a comprehensive theoretical study was first conducted, through which it was found that coal permeability is determined by mean effective stress. Moreover, the influence of matrix shrinkage on cleat deformation and then coal permeability was overestimated by currently used models, leading to inaccuracy of the predicted permeability. By taking both mean effective stress and the influence of matrix shrinkage on cleat deformation into account, a new permeability model was developed under the uniaxial strain condition in order to precisely estimate permeability evolution during gas depletion. An in-depth investigation and comparison among four commonly-used permeability models, the Palmer and Mansoori (P&M) model, Improved P&M model, Shi and Durucan (S&D) model, and Cui and Bustin (C&B) model, was then conducted. It was experimentally verified that a good match can be achieved between the lab data and the results predicted by the proposed model. Permeability variation of coalbed reservoirs associated with gas depletion is a consequence of two opposing effects: mechanical compaction and matrix shrinkage. In comparison, it was found that the coefficients of these two effects incorporated in those four models have a significant impact on permeability variation; and the accuracy of the values of initial cleat porosity and cleat compressibility, the bridges connecting permeability, and those two effects in analytical models, is extremely critical to permeability estimations. This study can shed light on improving the accuracy of analytical coal permeability models and the prediction of gas production.

show abstract

Pore Volume and Porosity Changes under Uniaxial Strain Conditions

Cited by 39 publications

References 25 publications

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

Storage Coefficients and Permeability Functions for Coal-Bed Methane Production Under Uniaxial Strain Conditions

Analysis of Analytical Models Developed under the Uniaxial Strain Condition for Predicting Coal Permeability during Primary Depletion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About