The granular and polymer composite nature of kerogen-rich shale

Abstract

In the past decade, mechanical, physical, and chemical characterization of reservoir shale rocks, such as the Woodford shale, which is kerogen-rich shale (KRS), has moved toward micro- and nanoscale testing and analyses. Nanoindentation equipment is now widely used in many industrial and university laboratories to measure shale anisotropic Young’s moduli, kerogen stiffness, plastic yield parameters, and other isotropic and anisotropic poromechanical and viscoelastic properties. However, to date, failure analyses of KRS and the effects of organic components on the tensile strength have not been observed or measured at the micro- or nanoscales. In this study, preserved kerogen-rich Woodford shale samples manufactured in micro-beam and micro-pillar geometries were mechanically tested and brought to failure in tension and compression, respectively. These tests were conducted in situ using a nanoindenter inside a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The load versus displacement curves of prismatic micro-cantilever beams were analyzed in light of high-resolution images collected during tensile fracture initiation, propagation, and ultimately sample failure. The micro-pillar geometries were subjected to a uniaxial compressive load and were also brought to failure while capturing measurements of stress and strain. It was found that, within just a few hundred microns of the KRS micro-cantilever beams, both brittle and ductile failure modes were observed. In the ductile plastic domain, strain-softening and strain-hardening behaviors were identified and characterized. These were not due to confining stress variations, but due to the volume of the organic matter and the way it is interlaced with the shale minerals in and around the failure planes. The tensile strength characteristics and the large modulus of toughness of kerogen, which is a cross-linked polymer, definitely weigh heavily in our engineering field applications, such as hydraulic fracking, which is a Mode I tensile fracture opening and propagation phenomenon. This practice demands that, due to the complex composite nature of KRS, mechanical characterization be not only for unconfined compressive strength but also for unconfined tensile strength and moduli of ruptures. At the end of this study, the need for nanometer scale mechanical characterization of KRS will become apparent. These nano- and micro-scale shale failure tests reinforce our previous understanding of the heterogeneous composite nature of Woodford KRS and its complex behavior, as well as other source shale reservoir formations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

References

  1. 1.

    Abad MD, Parker S, Frazer D, Robelo de Figueiredo M, Lupinacci A, Kikuchi K, Hosemann P (2015) Evaluation of the material properties of the multilayered oxides formed on HCM12A using small scale mechanical testing. Oxid Met 84:211–231. doi:10.1007/s11085-015-9551-6

  2. 2.

    Abousleiman Y, Cui L (1998) Poroelastic solutions in transversely isotropic media for wellbore and cylinders. Int J Solids Struct 35(34–35):4905–4930

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Abousleiman Y, Ulm F-J (2003) “TheGeoGenome™ Industry Consortium”. JIP internal report, The Poromechanics Institute, Oklahoma University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  4. 4.

    Abousleiman Y, Cheng AH-D, Jiang C, Roegiers J-C (1993) A micromechanically consistent poroviscoelasticity theory for rock mechanics applications. Int J Rock Mech Min 30(7):1177–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Abousleiman Y, Cheng AH-D, Cui L, Detournay E, Roegiers J-C (1996) Mandel’s problem revisited: consolidation of a porous anisotropic rock. Geotechnique 46(2):187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Abousleiman Y, Cheng AH-D, Jiang C, Roegiers JC (1996) Poroviscoelastic analyses of borehole and cylinder problems. Acta Mech 119:199–219

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Abousleiman Y, Tran M, Hoang S, Bobko C, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J (2007) Geomechanics field and lab characterization of woodford shale: the next gas play. In: SPE annual technical conference, society of petroleum engineers, Anaheim, CA, 11–14 November

  8. 8.

    Abousleiman Y, Tran M, Hoang S, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J (2009) GeoMechanics field characterization of the two prolific U.S. mid-west gas plays with advanced wire-line logging tools. In: SPE annual technical conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4–7 October

  9. 9.

    Abousleiman Y, Hoang S, Tran M (2010) Mechanical characterization of small shale samples subjected to fluid exposure using the inclined direct shear testing device. Int J Rock Mech Min 47(3):355–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Abousleiman Y, Tran M, Hoang S, Ulm F-J, Ortega JA, Bobko C (2013) Method of predicting mechanical properties of rocks using mineral compositions provided by in-situ logging tools. U.S. Patent: 8,380,437

  11. 11.

    Abousleiman Y, Hoang S, Liu C (2014) Anisotropic porothermoelastic solution and hydro-thermal effects on fracture width in hydraulic fracturing. Int J Numer Anal Met 38(5):493–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Allan M, Kanitpanyacharoen W, Vanorio T (2015) A multiscale methodology for the analysis of velocity anisotropy in organic-rich shale. Geophysics 80(4):C73–C88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ananthan H, Raghuprasad BK, Iyengar KTSR (1990) Influence of strain softening on the fracture of plain concrete beams. Int J Fract 45:195–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ballice L (2003) Solvent swelling studies of Goynuk (kerogen type-I) and Beypazari oil shales (kerogen type-II). Fuel 82(11):1317–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bazant ZP, Oh BH (1984) Deformation of progressively cracking reinforced concrete Beams. ACI J 81(3):268–278

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bazant ZP, Zubelewicz A (1988) Strain-softening bar and beam: exact non-local solution. Int J Solids Struct 24(7):659–673

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bennett KC, Berla LA, Nix WD, Borja RI (2015) Instrumented nanoindentation and 3D mechanistic modeling of a shale at multiple scales. Acta Geotech 10:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bhandari A, Han J, Parsons RL (2015) Two-dimensional DEM analysis of behavior of geogrid-reinforced uniform granular bases under a vertical cyclic load. Acta Geotech 10(4):469–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bobko CP, Gathier B, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J, Borges L, Abousleiman Y (2010) The nanogranular origin of friction and cohesion in shale—a strength homogenization approach to interpretation of nanoindentation results. Int J Numer Anal Met 35(17):1854–1876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Boskey AL, Wright TM, Blank RD (1999) Collagen and bone strength. J Bone Min Res 14(3):330–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chen SH, Feng B (2011) Size effect in micro-scale cantilever beam bending. Acta Mech 219(3):291–307

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Chern JC, You CM, Bazant ZP (1992) Deformation of progressively cracking partially prestressed concrete beams. PCI J 37(1):74–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chupin O, Rechenmacher AL, Abedi S (2012) Finite strain analysis of nonuniform deformation inside shear bands in sands. Int J Num Anal Met 36(14):1651–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Deirieh A, Ortega JA, Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2012) Nanochemomechanical assessment of shale: a coupled WDS-indentation analysis. Acta Geotech 7(4):271–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ekbote S, Abousleiman Y (2006) Porochemoelastic solution for an inclined borehole in a transversely isotropic formation. J Eng Mech-ASCE 132(7):754–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ertas D, Kelemen SR, Halsey TC (2006) Petroleum expulsion part 1. Theory of kerogen swelling in multicomponent solvents. Energy Fuels 20(1):295–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ewy RT (2014) Shale swelling/shrinkage and water content change due to imposed suction and due to direct brine contact. Acta Geotech 9(5):869–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Frazer D, Abad MD, Krumwiede D, Back CA, Khalifa HE, Deck CP, Hosemann P (2015) Localized mechanical property assessment of SiC/SiC composite materials. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 70:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gao H, Ji B, Jager IL, Arst E, Fratzl P (2003) Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: lessons from nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 100(10):5597–5600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Garnero P (2012) The contribution of collagen crosslinks to bone strength. Bonekey Rep 1(182):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Han Y, Cundall PA (2013) LBM–DEM modeling of fluid–solid interaction in porous media. Int J Numer Anal Met 37(10):1391–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hoang SK, Abousleiman Y (2012) Correspondence principle between anisotropic poroviscoelasticity and poroelasticity using micromechanics and application to compression of orthotropic rectangular strips. J Appl Phys 112(4):44907-1–44907-15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hornby BE, Schwartz LM, Hudson JA (1994) Anisotropic effective-medium modeling of the elastic properties of shales. Geophysics 59(10):1570–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hosemann P, Swadener JG, Kiener D, Was GS, Maloy SA, Li N (2008) An exploratory study to determine applicability of nano-hardness and micro-compression measurements for yield stress estimation. J Nucl Mater 375(1):135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hosemann P, Martos JN, Frazer D, Vasudevamurthy G, Byun TS, Hunn JD, Jolly BC, Terrani K, Okuniewski M (2013) Mechanical characteristics of SiC coating layer in TRISO fuel particles. J Nucl Mater 442(1–3):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Iyengar KTRS, Raviraj S, Jayaram TN (2002) Analysis of crack propagation in strain-softening beams. Eng Fract Mech 69(6):761–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kelemen SR, Walters CC, Ertas D, Kwiatek LM, Curry DJ (2006) Petroleum expulsion part 2. Organic matter type and maturity effects on kerogen swelling by solvents and thermodynamic parameters for kerogen from regular solution theory. Energy Fuels 20(1):301–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kolymbas D (2009) Kinematics of shear bands. Acta Geotech 4(4):315–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lam D, Yang F, Chong A, Wang J, Tong P (2003) Experiments and theory in strain gradient elasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 51(8):1477–1508

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Larsen JW, Parikh H, Michels R (2002) Changes in the cross-link density of Paris Basin Toarcian kerogen during maturation. Org Geochem 33(10):1143–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Li X, Bhushan B, Takashima K, Baek C-W, Kim Y-K (2003) Mechanical characterization of micro-nanoscale structures for MEMS/NEMS applications using nanoindentation techniques. Ultramicroscopy 97(1–4):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Maio DD, Roberts SG (2005) Measuring fracture toughness of coatings using focused-ion-beam-machined microbeams. J Mater Res 20(2):299–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ortega JA, Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2007) The effect of the nanogranular nature of shale on their poroelastic behavior. Acta Geotech 2(3):155–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ortega A, Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2009) The nanogranular acoustic signature of shale. Geophysics 74(3):65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ortega JA, Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2010) The effect of particle shape and grain-scale properties of shale: a micromechanics approach. Int J Numer Anal Met 34(11):1124–1156

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Passey QR, Bohacs KM, Esch WL, Klimentidis R, Sinha S (2010) From oil-prone source rock to gas-producing shale reservoir—geologic and petrophysical characterization of unconventional shale gas reservoirs. In: CPS/SPE international oil and gas conference and exhibition in China, Beijing, 8–10 June

  49. 49.

    Podio AL, Gregory AR, Gray KE (1968) Dynamic properties of dry- and water-saturated green river shale under stress. SPEJ 8(4):389–404

  50. 50.

    Richard P, Nicodemi M, Delannay R, Ribière P, Bideau D (2005) Slow relaxation and compaction of granular systems. Nat Mater 4:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Shin C, Lim S, Jin H, Hosemann P, Kwon J (2014) Development and testing of microcompression for post irradiation characterization of ODS steels. J Nucl Mater 444(1–3):43–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sierra R, Tran MH, Abousleiman YN, Slatt RM (2011) Woodford shale mechanical properties and the impacts of lithofacies. In: 44th U.S. rock mechanics symposium and 5th U.S. Canada rock mechanics symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 27–30 June

  53. 53.

    Slatt R, Abousleiman Y (2011) Merging sequence stratigraphy and geomechanics for unconventional gas shales. Lead Edge 30(3):274–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Slatt RM, Buckner N, Abousleiman Y, Sierra R, Philp PR, Miceli-Romero A, Portas R, O’Brien N, Tran M, Davis R, Wawrzyniec T (2012) Outcrop-behind Outcrop (Quarry): multiscale characterization of the Woodford gas shale, Oklahoma. In J. Breyer (ed) Shale reservoirs—giant resources for the 21st century: AAPG Memoir, vol 97, pp 382–402

  55. 55.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Timoshenko S, Gere JM (1972) Mechanics of materials. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York 207

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2006) The nano granular nature of shale. Acta Geotech 1(2):77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Ulm F-J, Constantinides G, Delafargue A, Abousleiman Y, Ewy R, Duranti L, McCarty DK (2005) Material invariant poromechanics properties of shales. In: Ulm F-J, Abousleiman F-Y, Cheng AH-D (eds) Poromechanics III. Biot centennial (1905–2005). A.A. Balkema Publishers, London, pp 637–644

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Vernik L, Nur A (1992) Ultrasonic velocity and anisotropy of hydrocarbon source rocks. Geophysics 57(5):727–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Zeszotarski JC, Chromik RR, Vinci RP, Messmer MC, Michels R, Larsen JW (2004) Imaging and mechanical property measurements of kerogen via nanoindentation. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 68(20):4113–4119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Aramco for allowing the publication of this work. The technical work has benefited from discussions with the following colleagues at Aramco R&D Houston Center: Dan Georgi, Jordan Kone, David Jacobi, Hui-Hai Liu, Jinhong Chen, and Anuj Gupta. The first author would like to specially acknowledge the Geomechanics Gas Shale Consortium at the PoroMechanics Institute, University of Oklahoma, for providing the preserved Woodford shale tested in this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. N. Abousleiman.

Appendix

Appendix

In Fig. 24, the micro-beam cantilever test, T1, is herein detailed for the load–displacement curve. The linear elastic early performance followed by the various slopes in the strain-softening regimes extended the micro-cantilever beam rupture to a very large displacement compared to the 600 nm for the early pure linear elastic deformation. From real-time in the SEM visualization, the dashed line represents the first major fracture observed at the fixed support at a load of 809 μN. In other words, the kerogen after that point was supporting most of the load, thus preventing the beam from reaching its rupture strength. The rebound slope at the bottom after stage 3 shows a linear elastic rebound in the figure. This is the proof that the kerogen cross-linked elastomer nature did not reach its rupture strength, but rather that mass of kerogen extended the initial shale granular deformation and failure by almost 10 times to 4500 nm and still reserving an elastic rebound. Not to overload the paper, micro-beam in Test 2, T2, in strain-hardening (KRS micro-beam) could also be easily explained in a similar way in the loading–unloading and when brought eventually to failure.

Fig. 24
figure24

Linear elastic load and rebound curves, in addition to the step-wise linear strain-softening behavior plotted in details

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abousleiman, Y.N., Hull, K.L., Han, Y. et al. The granular and polymer composite nature of kerogen-rich shale. Acta Geotech. 11, 573–594 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-016-0435-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cantilever beams
  • Gas shale
  • Nano-/micro-failures
  • Pillars