Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 1207–1227 | Cite as

Rate-independent fracture toughness of gray and black kerogen-rich shales

  • Pooyan Kabir
  • Franz-Josef Ulm
  • Ange-Therese AkonoEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

The objective of this investigation is to characterize the influence of the loading rate, scratch speed, mineralogy, morphology, anisotropy, and total organic content on the scratch toughness of organic-rich shale. We focus our study on a gray shale, Toarcian shale (Paris basin, France) and a black shale, Niobrara shale (northeastern Colorado, USA). Microscopic scratch tests are performed for varying scratch speeds and loading rates. We consider several orientations for scratch testing. For all gas shale specimens, the scratch toughness is found to increase with increasing scratch speed. In the asymptotic regime of high speeds, there is a convergence toward a single constant value irrespective of the loading rate. To understand this evolution of the scratch toughness, a nonlinear fracture mechanics model is built that integrates fracture dissipation with the various forms of viscous processes. In particular, a coupling is shown between the fracture energy and the viscoelastic characteristics. An inverse approach which combines scratch and indentation testing makes it possible to represent all tests in a single curve and retrieve the rate-independent fracture toughness of kerogen-rich shale materials. The presence of organic matter drastically alters the creep and fracture properties at the microscopic length-scale. The fracture behavior is anisotropic with the divider orientation yielding the highest fracture toughness value and the short transverse orientation yielding the lowest fracture toughness. Elucidating the fracture-composition-morphology relationships in organic-rich shale will promote advances in science and engineering for energy-related applications such as hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs or \(\hbox {CO}_2\) sequestration in depleted reservoirs.

Keywords

Fracture Kerogen-rich shale Scratch test Viscoelasticity 

List of symbols

A

Scratch projected load-bearing contact area

\(a_U\)

Indentation contact radius

C

Contact creep modulus

\(\tilde{C}\)

Closed contour including the crack tip

c

Material constant

\(\mathbb {C}_0\)

Initial stiffness tensor

d

Scratch penetration depth

\(\mathcal {D}\)

Energy dissipated

\(\varepsilon _{xx}\), \(\varepsilon _{zz}\)

Strain tensor components

\(\underline{e}_x\), \(\underline{e}_y\), \(\underline{e}_z\)

Unit base vectors in Cartesian reference frame

\(F_T\)

Scratch horizontal force

\(F_V\)

Scratch vertical force

\(\dot{F}_V\)

Scratch loading rate

\(\mathcal {F}_2\)

Dimensionless function

\(\mathcal {G}\)

Energy release rate

\(G_{\rm f}\)

Fracture energy

h

Indentation depth

\(\mathcal {H}(t)\)

Viscoelastic correction factor

I

Blade-material scratch interface

\(K_{\rm s}\)

Scratch toughness

\(K_{\rm c0}\)

Rate-independent fracture toughness

\(\mathcal {L}^{-1}\left( \cdot \right)\)

Inverse Laplace operator

\(\widehat{M}(t)\)

Relaxation plane strain modulus

\(M_0\)

Initial plane strain modulus

\(\underline{n}\)

Outward unit vector

\(n_x\), \(n_z\)

Components of outward unit vector on x-axis and z-axis

p

Scratch perimeter

\(p_i\)

Prony series constant

R

Tip radius

\(\underline{T}\)

Stress vector

U

Volume density of frozen energy

\(V_0\)

Critical speed

\(\bar{\gamma }\)

Energy ratio

\(\varGamma\)

Fracture surface

\(\underline{\underline{\varepsilon }}\)

Strain tensor

\(\underline{\underline{\varepsilon }}^{el}\)

Elastic strain tensor

\(\underline{\underline{\varepsilon }}^v\)

Viscous strain tensor

\(\underline{\underline{e}}\)

Deviatoric portion of strain tensor

\(\epsilon\)

Volumetric strain

\(\theta\)

Probe half-apex angle

\(\widehat{\kappa }(t)\)

Relaxation bulk modulus

\(\kappa _0\)

Initial bulk modulus

\(\bar{\lambda }\), \(\bar{\lambda }_i\)

Plane strain viscoelastic factors

\(\ell\)

Crack length

\(\widehat{\mu }(t)\)

Relaxation shear modulus

\(\mu _0\)

Initial shear modulus

\(\underline{\xi }\)

Displacement field vector

\(\underline{\underline{\sigma }}\)

Stress tensor

\(\underline{\underline{s}}\)

Deviatoric portion of stress tensor

\(\sigma _{xx}\), \(\sigma _{yy}\)

Stress tensor components

\(\sigma _m\)

Volumetric stress

\(\tau\), \(\tau _i\)

Relaxation characteristic time

\(\tau _{\rm cr}\)

Creep characteristic time

\(\psi\)

Volume density of Helmholtz free energy

\(\psi ^{el}\)

Volume density of elastic strain energy

\(\varOmega\)

Material volume

\(P_{\max }\)

Maximum indentation load

S

Indentation unloading stiffness

t

Time increment

V

Scratch speed

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Total Corp., Paris, France, for providing the gas shale specimens tested and analyzed in this investigation. The research was funded by Prof. Akono’s Start-Up fund account which was provided by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering as well as the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In addition, we acknowledge the Distinguished Structural Engineering Fellowship that supported Pooyan Kabir during his Ph.D. studies. We are thankful to Total Corp. (France) and the MIT X-Shale Project for providing the Toarcian shale and Niobrara shale specimens. The work was carried out in part in the Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory Central Research Facilities, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbas S, Lecampion B, Prioul R (2013) Competition between transverse and axial hydraulic fractures in horizontal wells. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. doi: 10.2118/163848-MS
  2. 2.
    Abedi S, Slim M, Ulm F-J (2016) Nanomechanics of organic-rich shales: the role of thermal maturity and organic matter content on texture. Acta Geotech 11(4):775–787. doi: 10.1007/s11440-016-0476-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abedi S, Slim M, Hofmann R, Bryndzia T, Ulm F-J (2015) Nanochemo-mechanical signature of organic-rich shales: a coupled indentation-EDX analysis. Acta Geotech 11(3):559–572. doi: 10.1007/s11440-015-0426-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abousleiman YN, Hull KL, Han Y, Al-Munasheri G, Hosemann P, Parker S, Howard CB (2016) The granular and polymer composite nature of kerogen-rich shale. Acta Geotech 11(3):573–594. doi: 10.1007/s11440-016-0435-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abousleiman YN, Tran M, Hoang S, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J (2010) Geomechanics field characterization of Woodford Shale and Barnett Shale with advanced logging tools and nano-indentation on drill cuttings. Lead Edge 29(6):730–736. doi: 10.1190/1.3447787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmadov R, Vanorio T, Mvko G (2009) Confocal laser scanning and atomic-force microscopy in estimation of elastic properties of the organic-rich Bazhenov Formation. Lead Edge 28(1):18–23. doi: 10.1190/1.3064141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Jaroudi SS, Ul-Hamid A, Mohammed AI, Saner S (2007) Use of X-ray powder diffraction for quantitative analysis of carbonate rock reservoir samples. Powder Technol 175(3):115–121. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2007.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akono A-T, Reis PM, Ulm F-J (2011) Scratching as a fracture process: from butter to steel. Phys Rev Lett 106(20):204–302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.204302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2011) Scratch test model for the determination of fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech 78:334–342. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akono A-T, Randall NX, Ulm F-J (2012) Experimental determination of the fracture toughness via micro scratch tests: application to polymers, ceramics and metals. J Mater Res 27(2):485–493. doi: 10.1557/jmr.2011.402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2012) Fracture scaling relations of axisymmetric shape. J Mech Phys Solids 60(3):379–390. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2011.12.009 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J, Bazant ZP (2014) Discussion: Strength-to-fracture scaling in scratching. Eng Fract Mech 119:21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.02.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2014) An improved technique for characterizing the fracture toughness via scratch test experiments. Wear 313(1):117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.wear.2014.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akono A-T (2016) Energetic size effect law at the microscopic scale: application to progressive-load scratch testing. J Nanomech Micromech 6(2):04016001. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NM.2153-5477.0000105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akono A-T, Kabir P (2016) Microscopic fracture characterization of gas shale via scratch testing. Mech Res Commun. doi: 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2015.12.003 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akono A-T, Ulm F-J (2017) Microscopic toughness of viscous solids via scratching: from amorphous polymers to gas shale. J Nanomech Micromech (in press) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akono A-T (2017) Reply to “Discussion on the Fracture mechanics interpretation of the scratch test by Akono et al”. Eng Fract Mech 178:14--21. doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.04.004Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alfi M, Yan B, Cao Y, An C, Killough JE, Barrufet MA (2015) Microscale porosity models as powerful tools to analyze hydrocarbon production mechanisms in liquid shale. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 26:1495–1505. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman SJ, Aminzadeh B, Balhoff MT, Bennett PC, Bryant SL, Cardenas MB, Chaudhary K, Cygan RT, Deng W, Dewers T (2014) Chemical and hydrodynamic mechanisms for long-term geological carbon storage. J Phys Chem C 118(28):15103–15113. doi: 10.1021/jp5006764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bai B, Elgmati M, Zhang H, Wei M (2013) Rock characterization of Fayetteville shale gas plays. Fuel 105:645–652. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bažant ZP, Chau, VT (2016) Vast system of dense intersecting fractures: a key feature of hydraulic fracturing of gas shale. In: 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bažant ZP, Chau VT (2016) Recent advances in global fracture mechanics of growth of large hydraulic crack systems in gas or oil shale: a review. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 435–460Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bažant ZP, Salviato M, Chau VT, Viswanathan H, Zubelewicz A (2014) Why fracking works. J Appl Mech 81(10):101010. doi: 10.1115/1.4028192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bennett KC, Berla LA, Nix WD, Borja RI (2015) Instrumented nanoindentation and 3D mechanistic modeling of a shale at multiple scales. Acta Geotech 10(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11440-014-0363-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregory B, Akono AT (2016) Shallow and deep scratch tests as powerful alternatives to assess the fracture properties of quasi-brittle materials. Eng Fract Mech 158:23–38. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bousige C, Ghimbeu CM, Vix-Guterl C, Pomerantz AE, Suleimenova A, Vaughan G, Garbarino G, Feygenson M, Wildgruber C, Ulm F-J (2016) Realistic molecular model of kerogen’s nanostructure. Nat Mater 15(5):576–582. doi: 10.1038/nmat4541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowden FB, Tabor P (1964) The friction and lubrication of solids, vol 2. Clarendon, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brochard L, Hantal G, Laubie H, Ulm FJ, Pellenq RJM (2013) Fracture mechanisms in organic-rich shales: role of kerogen. In: Fifth biot conference on poromechanicsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bunger AP, Sarout J, Kear J, Delle Piane C, Detournay E, Josh M, Dewhurst DN (2014) Experimental chemoporoelastic characterization of shale using millimeter-scale specimens. J Petrol Sci Eng 118:40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2014.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Butt H-J, Cappella B, Kappl M (2005) Force measurements with atomic force microscope: technique, interpretation and applications. Surf Sci Rep 59(1):1–152. doi: 10.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cherepanov GP (1967) Crack propagation in continuous media. J Appl Math Mech 31(3):476–488. doi: 10.1016/0021-8928(67)90034-2 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaves EWV (2013) Notes on continuum mechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chandler MR, Meredith PG, Brantut N, Crawford BR (2016) Fracture toughness anisotropy in shale. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121(3):1706–1729. doi: 10.1002/2015JB012756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chiantore VT, Gera F (1986) Fracture permeability of clays: a review. Radioact Waste Manage Nucl Fuel Cycle 7(3):253–277Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Christensen R (2012) Theory of viscoelasticity: an introduction. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Christensen RM (2003) Theory of viscoelasticity. Dover Publications, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christensen RM (1982) Theory of viscoelasticity. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clifton RJ, Simonson ER, Jones AH, Green SJ (1976) Determination of the critical-stress-intensity factor KIC from internally pressurized thick-walled vessels. Exp Mech 16(6):233–238. doi: 10.1007/BF02329274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Coussy O, Ulm F-J (1996) Creep and plasticity due to chemo-mechanical couplings. Arch Appl Mech 66(8):523–535. doi: 10.1007/BF00808142 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Curtis ME, Cardott BJ, Sondergeld CH, Rai CS (2012) Development of organic porosity in the Woodford Shale with increasing thermal maturity. Int J Coal Geol 103:26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Windt L, Cabrera J, Boisson JY (1999) Radioactive waste containment in indurated shales: comparison between the chemical containment properties of matrix and fractures. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 157(1):167–181. doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.157.01.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Deirieh A, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J, Abousleiman YN (2012) Nanochemomechanical assessment of shale: a coupled WDS-indentation analysis. Acta Geotech 7(4):271–295. doi: 10.1007/s11440-012-0185-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Detournay E (2016) Mechanics of hydraulic fractures. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48:311–339. doi: 10.1146/annurev-fluid-010814-014736 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dieterich JH, Kilgore BD (1994) Direct observation of frictional contacts: new insights for state-dependent properties. Pure Appl Geophys 143:283–302. doi: 10.1007/BF00874332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dieterich JH, Conrad G (1984) Effect of humidity on time- and velocity-dependent friction in rocks. J Geophys Res 89(B6):4196–4202. doi: 10.1029/JB089iB06p04196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eliyahu M, Emmanuel S, Day-Stirrat RJ, Macaulay CI (2015) Mechanical properties of organic matter in shales mapped at the nanometer scale. Mar Petrol Geol 59:294–304. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eseme E, Urai JL, Krooss BM, Littke R (2007) Review of mechanical properties of oil shales: implications for exploitation and basin modeling. Oil Shale 24(2):159–175Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fantner GE, Hassenkam T, Kindt JH, Weaver JC, Birkedal H, Pechenik L, Cutroni JA, Cidade GAG, Stucky GD, Morse DE, Hansma PK (2005) Sacrificial bonds and hidden length dissipate energy as mineralized fibrils separate during bone fracture. Nat Mater 4:612–616. doi: 10.1038/nmat1428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frailey SM, Damico J, Leetaru HE (2011) Reservoir characterization of the Mt. Simon Sandstone, Illinois Basin, USA. Energy Procedia 4:5487–5494. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Graham GAC (1968) The correspondence principle of linear viscoelasticity theory for mixed boundary value problems involving time-dependent boundary regions. Q Appl Math 26:167CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Han Y, Al-Muntasheri G, Hull KL, Abousleiman YN (2016) Tensile mechanical behavior of kerogen and its potential implication to fracture opening in kerogen-rich shales (KRS). In: 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hantal G, Brochard L, Laubie H, Ebrahimi D, Pellenq RJ-M, Ulm F-J, Coasne B (2014) Atomic-scale modeling of elastic and failure properties of clays. Mol Phys 112(9–10):1294–1305. doi: 10.1080/00268976.2014.897393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holloway S (1997) An overview of the underground disposal of carbon dioxide. Energy Convers Manag 38:S193–S198. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(96)00268-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hull KL, Abousleiman YN (2016) Insights on the REV of source shale from nano-and micromechanics. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hulstrom LC (1979) The determination of fracture toughness in Westerly granite using the double cantilever beam technique. M.S. thesis, Michigan Technological UniversityGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jeffrey RG, Bunger A, Lecampion B, Zhang X, Chen Z, Van As A, Allison DP, De Beer W, Dudley JW, Siebrits E (2009) Measuring hydraulic fracture growth in naturally fractured rock. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. doi: 10.2118/124919-MS
  57. 57.
    Jin Z-H, Paulino GfH (2002) A viscoelastic functionally graded strip containing a crack subjected to in-plane loading. Eng Fract Mech 69:1769–1790. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7944(02)00049-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Johnson CV, Chen J, Hasparyk NP, Monteiro PJM, Akono A-T (2017) Fracture properties of the alkali silicate gel using microscopic scratch testing. Cem Concr Compos 79:71–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139171731 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Josh M, Esteban L, Delle Piane C, Sarout J, Dewhurst DN, Clennell MB (2012) Laboratory characterization of shale properties. J Petrol Sci Eng 88:107–124. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2012.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kabir P, Akono A-T (2016) Nano-scale characterization of organic-rich shale via indentation methods. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 209–233Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kang SM, Fathi E, Ambrose RJ, Akkutlu IY, Sigal RF (2011) Carbon dioxide storage capacity of organic-rich shales. SPE J 16(04):842–855. doi: 10.2118/134583-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kataruka A, Mendu K, Okeoghene O, Puthuvelil J, Akono A-T (2016) Microscopic assessment of bone toughness using scratch tests. Bone Rep 6:17–25. doi: 10.1016/j.bonr.2016.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Killough JE, Wei C, Liu H, Yan B, Qin G, Wang H, Guo W (2013) Characterization and analysis on petrophysical parameters of a marine shale gas reservoir. In: SPE western regional & AAPG pacific section meeting 2013 joint technical conference. doi: 10.2118/165380-MS
  65. 65.
    King GE (2012) Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. doi: 10.2118/152596-MS
  66. 66.
    King GE (2010) Thirty years of gas shale fracturing: what have we learned? In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. doi: 10.2118/133456-MS
  67. 67.
    Kumar V, Sondergeld CH, Rai CS (2012) Nano to macro mechanical characterization of shale. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. doi: 10.2118/159804-MS
  68. 68.
    Lakes RS (2009) Viscoelastic materials. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lecampion B, Desroches J (2014) Simultaneous initiation of multiple transverse hydraulic fractures from a horizontal well. In: 48th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Li W, Jin C, Cusatis G (2016) Integrated experimental and computational characterization of shale at multiple length scales. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 389–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lin Y-H (2011) Polymer viscoelasticity: basic molecular theoreis, experiments and simulations. World Scientific Publishing Co, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee EH, Radok JRM (1960) The contact problem for viscoelastic bodies. J Appl Mech 27(3):438–444. doi: 10.1115/1.3644020 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lemaître A (2002) Rearrangements and dilatancy for sheared dense materials. Phys Rev Lett 89(19):1995503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.195503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Li W, Jin C, Cusatis G (2016) Integrated experimental and computational characterization of shale at multiple length scales. In: Jin C, Cusatis G (eds) New frontiers in oil and gas exploration. Springer, Berlin, pp 389–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Liu Y (2015) Fracture toughness assessment of shales by nanoindentation. Master Thesis, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lomnitz C (1962) Application of the logarithmic creep law to stress wave attenuation in the solid earth. J Geophys Res 67(1):365–368. doi: 10.1029/JZ067i001p00365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lomnitz C (1956) Creep measurements in igneous rocks. J Geol 64(5):473–479. doi: 10.1086/626379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Loucks RG, Reed RM, Ruppel SC, Jarvie DM (2009) Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. J Sediment Res 79(12):848–861. doi: 10.2110/jsr.2009.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Miller M, Bobko C, Vandamme M, Ulm F-J (2008) Surface roughness criteria for cement paste nanoindentation. Cem Concr Res 38(4):467–476. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Monfared S, Ulm F-J (2016) A molecular informed poroelastic model for organic-rich, naturally occurring porous geocomposites. J Mech Phys Solids 88:186–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2015.12.006 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Moore DM, Reynolds RC (1997) X-ray diffraction and the identification and analysis of clay minerals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res 7(6):1564–1583. doi: 10.1557/JMR.1992.1564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Oyen ML (2006) Analytical techniques for indentation of viscoelastic materials. Philos Mag J 86:5625–5641. doi: 10.1080/14786430600740666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Paulino GH, Jin Z-H (2001) A crack in a viscoelastic functionally graded material layer embedded between two dissimilar homogeneous viscoelastic layersantiplane shear analysis. Int J Fract 111(3):283–303. doi: 10.1023/A:1012207008887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pipkin AC (1972) Lectures on viscoelasticity theory. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rassouli FS, Zoback MD (2016) A comparison of short-term and long-term creep experiments in unconventional reservoir formations. In: 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35(2):379–386. doi: 10.1115/1.3601206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Richard T, Detournay E, Drescher A, Nicodeme P, Fourmaintraux D (1998) The scratch test as a means to measure strength of sedimentary rocks. In: SPE/ISRM rock mechanics in petroleum engineering. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ruina A (1983) Slip instability and state variable friction laws. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 88(B12):10359–10370. doi: 10.1029/JB088iB12p10359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Salençon J (2000) Handbook of continuum mehcnaics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Sayers CM (2013) The effect of kerogen on the elastic anisotropy of organic-rich shales. Geophysics 78(2):D65–D74. doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0309.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schapery RA (1984) Correspondence principles and a generalized J integral for large deformation and fracture analysis of viscoelastic media. Int J Fract 25(3):195–223. doi: 10.1007/BF01140837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Schapery RA (1975) A theory of crack initiation and growth in viscoelastic media I. Theoretical development. Int J Fract 11(1):141–159. doi: 10.1007/BF00034721 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Schmidt RA (1976) Fracture-toughness testing of limestone. Exp Mech 16(5):161–167. doi: 10.1007/BF02327993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Schmidt RA (1977) Fracture mechanics of oil shale—unconfined fracture toughness, stress corrosion cracking, and tension test results. In: American Rock Mechanics Association: ARMA-77-0082Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Sergeyev YM, Grabowska-Olszewska B, Osipov VI, Sokolov VN, Kolomenski YN (1980) The classification of microstructures of clay soils. J Microsc 120(3):237–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1980.tb04146.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sierra R, Tran MH, Abousleiman YN, Slatt RM (2010) Woodford shale mechanical properties and the impacts of lithofacies. In: 44th US rock mechanics symposium and 5th US-Canada rock mechanics symposium. 27–30 June, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sondergeld CH, Ambrose RJ, Rai CS, Moncrieff J (2010) Micro-structural studies of gas shales. In: SPE unconventional gas conference. doi: 10.2118/131771-MS
  99. 99.
    Sone H, Zoback MD (2013) Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir rocks—part 1: static and dynamic elastic properties and anisotropy. Geophysics 78(5):D381–D392. doi: 10.1190/geo2013-0050.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sone H, Zoback MD (2013) Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir rocks—part 2: ductile creep, brittle strength, and their relation to the elastic modulus. Geophysics 78(5):D393–D402. doi: 10.1190/geo2013-0051.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sone H, Zoback MD (2014) Time-dependent deformation of shale gas reservoir rocks and its long-term effect on the in situ state of stress. Int J Rock Mech Min 69:120–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.04.002 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Torsaeter M, Vullum PE, Nes O-M, Rinna J (2012) Nanostructure vs. Macroscopic properties of mancos shale. In: SPE Canadian unconventional resources conferencesGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ulm F-J, Abousleiman YN (2006) The nanogranular nature of shale. Acta Geotech 1(2):77–88. doi: 10.1007/s11440-006-0009-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ulm F-J, Constantinides G, Delafargue A, Abousleiman YN, Ewy R, Durnati L, McCarty DK (2005) Poromechanics III. Biot centennial (1905–2005). AA Balkema Publishers, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ulm F-J, Delafargue A, Constantinides G (2005) Experimental microporomechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Valsa J, Brançik L (1998) Approximate formulae for numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Int J Numer Model El 11(3):153–166. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1204(199805/06)11:3<153::AID-JNM299>3.0.CO;2-C CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Vandamme M, Tweedie CA, Constantinides G, Ulm F-J, Van Vliet KJ (2012) Quantifying plasticity-independent creep compliance and relaxation of viscoelastoplastic materials under contact loading. J Mater Res 27(01):302–312. doi: 10.1557/jmr.2011.302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Vandamme M, Ulm F-J (2009) Nanogranular origin of concrete creep. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(26):10552–10557. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901033106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Vandamme M (2008) The nanogranular origin of concrete creep: a nanoindentation investigation of microstructure and fundamental properties of calcium-silicate-hydrates. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ulm F-J, Coussy O (2008) Mechanics and durability of solids vol II. Prentice Hall. ISBN-13: 9780131402829Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Vernik L, Nur A (1992) Ultrasonic velocity and anisotropy of hydrocarbon source rocks. Geophysics 57(5):727–735. doi: 10.1190/1.1443286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ward IM, Sweeney J (2013) Mechanical properties of solid polymers, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wenk H-R, Lonardelli I, Franz H, Nihei K, Nakagawa S (2007) Preferred orientation and elastic anisotropy of illite-rich shale. Geophysics 72(2):E69–E75. doi: 10.1190/1.2432263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Xie H, Li X, Fang Z, Wang Y, Li Q, Shi L, Bai B, Wei N, Hou Z (2014) Carbon geological utilization and storage in China: current status and perspectives. Acta Geotech 9(1):7–27. doi: 10.1007/s11440-013-0277-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Xu T, Apps JA, Pruess K (2005) Mineral sequestration of carbon dioxide in a sandstone-shale system. Chem Geol 217(3):295–318. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yan B, Alfi M, Wang Y, Killough JE (2013) A new approach for the simulation of fluid flow in unconventional reservoirs through multiple permeability modeling. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. doi: 10.2118/166173-MS
  117. 117.
    Yang Y, Sone H, Hows A, Zoback MD (2013) Comparison of brittleness indices in organic-rich shale formations. In: 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposiumGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yoon H, Dewers TA, Health JE (2013) Nanopore control on shale gas transport in shale mudstones. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Zargari S, Prasad M, Mba KC, Mattson ED (2013) Organic maturity, elastic properties, and textural characteristics of self resourcing reservoirs. Geophysics 78(4):D223–D235. doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0431.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zeszotarski JC, Chromik RR, Vinci RP, Messmer MC, Michels R, Larsen JW (2004) Imaging and mechanical property measurements of kerogen via nanoindentation. Geochim Cosmochim Ac 68(20):4113–4119. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2003.11.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Science and EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations