Stress–Strain Modeling and Brittleness Variations of Low-Clay Shales with CO2/CO2-Water Imbibition
- 47 Downloads
A better understanding of the stress–strain behaviors of shale samples after shale-CO2 or shale-water–CO2 interactions is of great importance to CO2 enhanced shale gas exploitation and CO2 sequestrating in shale reservoirs. In this study, a constitutive model that combines with the modified Duncan–Chang model and Weibull distribution-based model is applied to investigate the stress–strain characteristics of low-clay shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2 and sub-/super-critical CO2 + water for different times (10 days, 20 days, and 30 days). The results show that the model could describe well the crack closure stage, the elastic stage, and the inelastic stage of shale samples. The axial strain at the connection point between the two models varies from 28.51 to 43.36% of the axial strain at the failure point. Shale-CO2 or shale-water–CO2 interactions make shale samples more ductile at the crack closure stage, which can be depicted as the increase of initial elastic modulus during the imbibition process. The brittleness index values (BI) which are calculated based on the combined constitutive model increase with increasing soaking time for shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2, and decrease with increasing soaking time for shale samples treated by sub-/super-critical CO2 + water.
KeywordsLow-clay shale CO2/CO2 + water imbibition Constitutive model Brittleness
The authors would like to thank all the technical staffs of the Geo-lab at Monash University for their help with the experimental work, the help of Prof. Jeffrey M. Dick and Dr. Asim Shahzad for the writing revision, and the financial support from the Innovation-Driven Project of Central South University (Grant no.: 502501005), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41872151), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant no.: 2018M630913).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- Duncan JM (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Jour Smf Div 96:1629–1653Google Scholar
- Fan C, Li Q, Li X, Niu Z, Xu L (2018) Dynamic optical fiber monitoring of water-saturated sandstone during supercritical CO2 injection at different sequestration pressures. In: Zhan L, Chen Y, Bouazza A (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international congress on environmental geotechnics volume 1: towards a sustainable geoenvironment. Environmental engineering. Springer Singapore, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Hucka V, Das B Brittleness determination of rocks by different methods. In: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1974. vol 10. Elsevier, pp 389–392Google Scholar
- Jiang YD, Xian XF, Jian SU (2005) Research on distortion of singlerock and constitutive relation. Rock Soil Mechanics 26:941–945Google Scholar
- Kivi IR, Ameri M, Molladavoodi H (2018) Shale brittleness evaluation based on energy balance analysis of stress-strain curves Journal of Petroleum Science & EngineeringGoogle Scholar
- Kolle JJ, Coiled-Tubing Drilling with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. In: CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2000/1/1/ 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE. https://doi.org/10.2118/65534-MS
- Likhtman VI, Shchukin ED, Rebinder PA (1964) Physicochemical mechanics of metals: adsorbtion phenomena in the process of deformation and failure of metalsGoogle Scholar
- Lyu Q, Ranjith P, Long X, Ji B (2016b) Experimental investigation of mechanical properties of black shales after CO2-water. Rock Inter Mater 9:663Google Scholar
- Miyazaki K, Tenma N, Aoki K, Yamaguchi T (2012) A Nonlinear elastic model for triaxial compressive properties of artificial methane-hydrate-bearing. Sediment Samples Energies 5:4057–4075Google Scholar
- Profit M, Dutko M, Yu J, Cole S, Angus D, Baird A (2016) Complementary hydro-mechanical coupled finite/discrete element and microseismic modelling to predict hydraulic fracture propagation in tight shale reservoirs. Comput Part Mech 3:229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-015-0081-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rickman R, Mullen MJ, Petre JE, Grieser WV, Kundert DA (2008) Practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale plays are not clones of the barnett shale. In: Spe Technical Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
- Rogala A, Krzysiek J, Bernaciak M, Hupka J (2013) Non-aqueous fracturing technologies for shale gas recovery Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing 49Google Scholar