Analytical Failure Surfaces for Oil Shales of Varying Kerogen Content

  • J. N. Johnson
  • E. R. Simonson

Abstract

A subject of current national interest is the fracture of oil shale and other rock for energy and mineral resource recovery. Successful prediction of the nature of explosive rock breakage depends significantly on the completeness of understanding the material constitutive relations that are used. That is, all of the important physical properties related in any way to fracture must be included in the material description; shear strength is obviously one of these quantities. Since it is impractical to measure all material properties as functions of position every few feet in regions that are to be rubblized, it would be quite advantageous to be able to express the shear yield strength in terms of some easily measurable quantity, such as density. Correlation of other material properties with density has already been done for kerogen (the organic material) content [1], sonic velocities [2,3], and high-pressure Hugoniot response [4]. In the past there has been a considerable number of experimental measurements of compressive strength of oil shale as a function of sample orientation, confining pressure, and kerogen content [5,6]. Theoretical representations of the failure surfaces for these materials have been obtained [7,8], but no correlation with material density has been attempted over a significant range of confining pressures.

Keywords

Porosity Anisotropy Rubber Sandstone Shale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. W. Smith, Ind. Eng. Chem. 48, 441 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. D. Parker, M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Texas (1968).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Olinger, “Elastic Constants of Oil Shales.” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Progress Report to ERDA, unpublished (March 1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. J. Carter, “Hugoniots of Green River Oil Shale,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Progress Report to ERDA, unpublished (March 1976).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. C. Heard, in Symposium on Engineering with Nuclear Explosives, Vol. 1 American Nuclear Society, Report CONF-700101 (19700, p. 127.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. McLamore and K. E. Gray, J. Eng. Ind. 89, 62 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. K. Dienes, J. L. Norton, and H. M. Ruppel, “Anisotropic Modeling,” Explosively Produced Fracture of Oil Shale, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-6594-PR (December 1976).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. N. Johnson, “Dynamic Anisotropic Constitutive Relations for Oil Shale,” Terra Tek Report TR 75–25 (June 1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. R. Simonson, J. N. Johnson, and L. Buchholdt, “Anisotropic Mechanical Properties of a Moderate and Rich Kerogen Content Oil Shale,” Terra Tek Report TR 76–72 (December 1976).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. A. Schmidt and K. R. Schuler, “Mechanical Properties of Oil Shale from Anvil Point Under Conditions of Uniaxial Compression,” Sandia Laboratories Report SAND-74–0035 (August 1974).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. K. Dropek, J. N. Johnson, and J. B. Walsh, “The Influence of Pore Pressure on the Mechanical Properties of Kayenta Sandstone,” Terra Tek Report TR 77–2 (January 1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Terzaghi, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wein, Math. Naturwiss. Kl. 2A, 132, 105 (1923).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. R. Simonds, A. J. Weith, and M. H. Bigelow, Handbook of Plastics, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey (1949), p. 80.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Marin, Mechanical Behavior of Engineering Materials, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1962), p. 494.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. W. Schuler and J. R. Tillerson, in Sandia Laboratories Report SAND 76–0541, A. L. Stevens, ed. (September 1976), p. 52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Johnson
    • 1
  • E. R. Simonson
    • 2
  1. 1.Los Alamos Scientific LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaLos AlamosUSA
  2. 2.Terra Tek, Inc.Salt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations