HUANG Qiwen, LI Awei, 2019. STRESS INDUCED CHANGES IN THE ELECTRICAL-MAGNETIC PROPERTIES OF ROCK CORESHUANG. Journal of Geomechanics, 25 (4): 453-458. DOI: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.04.042
Citation: SONG Huizhen, 1999. A ATTEMPT OF QUANTITIVE PREDICTION OF NATURAL CRACK ON BRITTLE ROCK RESERVOIR. Journal of Geomechanics, 5 (1): 78-86.

A ATTEMPT OF QUANTITIVE PREDICTION OF NATURAL CRACK ON BRITTLE ROCK RESERVOIR

More Information
  • This paper consists of four parts:(1)According to the Griffith theory of brittle strength the formulae of a criterion of failure were derived by author under the stress field (convention is that the tensile stress is positive) and applied them to analysis of the natural crack for reservoir; (2)Three numerical models and computative method of the quantitative analysis for paleo-stress as well as a method of the quantitative prediction for paleo-naturil crack were given in the reservoir of the carbonate rock; (3)A concept of effect tensile stress was presented a description of the natural tensile crack was provide for reservoir; (4)To provide a predicted tensile crack distribution map for reservoir of the carbonate rock and test it through drilling holes.

     

  • Brady[1, 2], Li[3], Anastasiadis[4], Jensen[5], Niu[6], Ma[7, 8], and Yao[9] have researched the electromagnetic properties of rocks under stress, and the electromagnetic (EM) waves produced and their interaction with the ionosphere.

    To measure the electric current pulse produced under stress of fracturing rock samples, the charge measuring digital electrometer[4], and the short-circuit(to ground) streaming current[5] method have been used. Both show that at the onset of fracture there is a DC current pulse.

    This experiment uses a third method: a closed series circuit to measure the induced exoelectron cloud. A battery is in series with a digital voltmeter, oscilloscope, and the rock sample. The digital voltmeter measures the DC current flow caused by the battery's electric field, while the oscilloscope measures the AC component induced as the exoelectron cloud absorbs EM waves. The advantage of this closed setup is that both DC and AC currents are measured and it is easier to explore the physical origins of the exoelectron current.

    Various phenomenological models have been proposed to explain the data: piezoelectric effect[1], and the moving charge dislocation model[4] (MCD). The existing Standard Lattice Model (SLM) popularized by physicists, and chemists is adopted here.

    Poly-crystalline rocks (where the crystals are randomly oriented) can be modeled as a lattice array of predominantly Si-O-Si bonds(Figure 1). Other atoms can substitute for Si, eg. Li, Al, Ca, Na, etc.

    Figure  1.  Quartz lattice structure, interstitial space between atoms where exoelectrons can move in

    Under high pressure, the outer shell electron of the Si-O dipole will get squeezed into the interstitial space between atoms, creating a loosely bound exoelectron cloud that increases as the stress increases. This phenomenon which appears at high stress, is due to two sources: (a) the quantum mechanical electron tunneling effect[10], and (b) breaking bond electrons.

    (a) The outermost electron of the oxygen atom is bound in a shallow potential well (~0.38 volts); when stress energy is applied, this electron absorbs part of this energy, thus increasing its kinetic energy. By itself, this slight increase in energy is insufficient for the electron to overcome and jump out of its potential well; but it is enough to increase its probability of tunneling through the well wall into the lattice interstitial between atoms. This probability multiplied by the number of available oxygen atoms gives the number of the electrons that tunnel out and form the exoelectron cloud: typically of the order of picocoulombs to nanocoulombs.

    (b) Electrons released by breaking bonds from micro-crack initiation. Crack nucleation centres most probably start in parallel. Whenever a Si-O bond breaks, a dangling +Si bond is created along with a free electron attached to the -O atom which will hop from atom to atom. This electron current is proportional to the cracks'surface area, and the collection efficiency of the battery electrodes. The broken bond electron cloud is much more than the tunneling cloud.

    The measured current pulse will have an initial slowly rising tunneling part, followed by a suddenly rising broken bond current.

    The lattice under high pressure will also give rise to the following phenomena:

    ① strain-creep related EM radiation: due to the changes in Si-O dipole moment as the lattice contracts, and flows in different directions.

    ② light emission from breaking, and recombining Si-O bonds.

    ③ charge accumulation, and separation resulting in spark discharges and the concurrent light and EM emissions.

    ④ sound emissions from the strained lattice, and eventually crack propagation.

    Further experiments are underway to measure these effects as a function of pressure.

    Generally speaking, the exoelectron current effect is measurable in hard insulator rocks (granite, basalt, limestone, marble, etc.): the stress energy goes into distorting and breaking the Si-O bonds. In soft rocks (sandstone, shale, etc.) the stress energy is dissipated as the rock grains are forced into the inter-granular voids thus reducing the energy that could go into stressing the lattice bonds: consequently the exoelectron current is not measurable. Conducting rocks (pyrite, etc.) which have a relatively high background current flow would mask the normally weak exoelectron current(nano-amp range).

    For this experiment granite (large grained, igneous rock) and basalt (fine grained) samples were chosen to differentiate between the piezoelectric explanation and the SLM explanation for the tunneling and broken bond current measured. Sandstone (porous) and shale (sedimentary rock) were also measured and show no clear exoelectron current effect. Marble (metamorphic rock) has been measured by others[4], and shown to have the DC exoelectron effect.

    When the stressed core sample is placed in series with a battery, voltmeter and oscilloscope, the electron cloud will flow. The voltmeter detects the direct current (DC) I, and the oscilloscope measures the alternating current (AC) component.

    The exoelectron cloud will also absorb, and scatter an E.M. wave. The wave's energy E (a constant) is converted into the induced alternating (AC) current's power: V(f)×I(f). The frequency of the current is also the wave's frequency f.

    The energy of the EM wave is a constant during the experiment: E=V×I. Thus when the current I increases (as when tunneling electrons and breaking bond electrons move into the interstitial lattice), V drops. This drop in the AC amplitude as the stress increases is measured with the oscilloscope's Fourier Transform feature.

    Figure  2.  Experimental setup (200 ton press, with the sample (25 mm×50 mm cylinder), voltmeter, oscilloscope, and battery in a series circuit, and 50 Hz background radiation)

    The direct current I (mV) vs Stress curves measured by the digital voltmeter (DVM) for granite (Figure 3), and basalt follow (Figure 4). Both show an initial distinct gradual rise in I (due to the tunneling current), before a sudden rise (due to breaking bonds) at the fracture point.

    Figure  3.  Voltage vs Stress/Time, granite sample
    Figure  4.  Voltage vs Stress/Time, basalt sample

    The next photo shows the AC current results: First is the oscilloscope trace of the 50 Hz AC current component; then immediately below, the Fourier Transform showing the 50 Hz peak bracketed by left cursor at 40 Hz and right cursor at 60 Hz.(Figure 5)

    Figure  5.  Screen photo

    Figure 6 shows the start of the drop in the FT voltage peak as the AC current increases at higher and higher stress. A minimum is reached just before the major fracture, and minor cracks sounds are heard. After complete fracture and the stress drops to zero, the voltage peak rises back to the same level before stress was applied.

    Figure  6.  50 Hz FT peak at different times

    This small experiment confirms that EM waves can actively probe the stress changes in a highly stressed crust zone just before crack initiation. As the stress increases to breaking point, the exoelectron cloud increases in size.

    It has been suggested that the DC exoelectron current effect can be due to a piezoelectric cause. However a careful use of the Standard Lattice Model rules out this explanation: 1) Both granite (with coarse grained randomly oriented crystals, which might have a piezoelectric effect) and basalt (with fine grained crystals, with no known piezoelectric properties) have the same characteristic I(current) vs Stress curve at the approach to rupture, i.e. a slow rise followed by a sharp rise. 2) The strain/stress on a non-central symmetric piezoelectric crystal induces an electric field (voltage), but no free electrons. This is the definition of the piezoelectric effect. 3) Moreover, the piezo-voltage effect is present at low pressures too; Whereas the exoelectron current effect is only observed at high stress close to the rupture point.

    The exo-electron cloud and the induced DC current explains in a simple way the changes in rock sample conductivity (resistance) at high stress or pressures as reported by others. It also is the reason for increases in the measured electric charge field in crushing concrete compression tests.

    Ultra-low-frequency (ULF) waves[3] interacting with the ionosphere are being studied for earthquake precursors. These time-coincident data are complicated and do not show a clear cause-effect relationship. Satellite and ground receivers are used in this research.

    These studies use a 'passive' method unlike the 'active' approach proposed in this research: a radio transmitter transmits an EM wave that reflects off the exoelectron cloud created by a high differential stress fault zone.

    This active method would complement the existing ground station, and satellite receiving networks.

    The AC (alternating current) exoelectron current effect shows that the absorption of EM waves by rupturing rock, though small, is measurable and can be exploited to good effect.

    A probing E.M. wave beam will reflect off the exoelectron cloud produced at a high stress fault zone. When the differential stress reaches a critical intensity, the zone's strained crystal structure starts releasing more and more exoelectrons. Eventually the crystalline rock structure starts to crack producing an event. Further experiments are planned to measure and confirm this remote active sensing method.

    The reflected EM waves data would complement in-situ stress data[6, 7]. These two methods together would be more effective than either one individually.

    It is pointed out that other phenomena: strain-creep radiation, light emission, sound emission, and static electricity are produced concurrently. The detection and measurement of all the above five phenomena would be a necessary condition to anticipate an actual event.

    This research was supported by a Director's Research grant(2016-2018, DZLXJK201605). The assistance, and advice from the following are gratefully noted: PENG Hua, WANG Hongcai, MA Xiumin, JIANG Jingjie, PENG Liguo, WANG Fusheng, MA Yue, SUN Dongsheng, LIU Shengxin

  • Relative Articles

    MENG Wen, TIAN Tao, SUN Dongsheng, YANG Yuehui, LI Ran, CHEN Qunce. 2022: Research on stress state in deep shale reservoirs based on in-situ stress measurement and rheological model. Journal of Geomechanics, 28(4): 537-549. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2022041
    LIU Jian, HUI Chen, FAN Jianming, LYU Wenya, WANG Jiwei, YIN Chen, WANG Haonan. 2021: Distribution characteristics of the present-day in-situ stress in the Chang 6 tight sandstone reservoirs of the Yanchang Formation in the Heshui Area, Ordos Basin, China and suggestions for development. Journal of Geomechanics, 27(1): 31-39. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2021.27.01.004
    LIU Jiageng, LI Jing, SU Yuliang, FAN Zuosong, LIU Xuliang, GUO Hao. 2020: Tectonic stress field research on the Ordovician reservoirs in the Tahe Oilfield. Journal of Geomechanics, 26(1): 48-54. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2020.26.01.005
    WANG Jinduo, SUN Luning, WANG Jun, WANG Min, LI Jing, LIU Xuliang, LIU Chen. 2019: RESEARCH ON THE GROUND STRESS CORRECTION OF RESERVOIRS BASED ON THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD. Journal of Geomechanics, 25(3): 349-356. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.03.032
    SONG Ziyi, WANG Hao, LI Jing, SUN Luning, ZHANG Jiatai, LIU Chen. 2019: RESEARCH ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE COUPLING EFFECT OF SEEPAGE AND STRESS ON RESERVOIR FRACTURES. Journal of Geomechanics, 25(4): 483-491. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.04.046
    ZHANG Jibiao, LIU Shilin, DAI Junsheng, ZHANG Zhongpei. 2019: THE QUANTITATIVE PREDICTION OF STRUCTURAL FRACTURES IN ORDOVICIAN RESERVOIR IN YU-BEI AREA, TARIM BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 25(2): 177-186. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2019.25.02.016
    MAO Zhe, ZENG Lianbo, QIN Longbu, ZU Kewei, LIU Guoping, TIAN He. 2018: RESEARCH ON GROUND STRESS DISTRIBUTION RULES OF DEEP TIGHT VOLCANIC ROCK RESERVOIRS IN THE HUOSHILING FORMATION, XUJIAWEIZI FAULT DEPRESSION. Journal of Geomechanics, 24(3): 321-331. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.03.034
    ZHOU Hanguo, GUO Jianchun, LI Jing, PENG Chengle, WANG Chang, GAO Shuai, ZHENG Jinkai. 2018: DISTRIBUTION OF SURROUNDING ROCK STRESS IN DEEP CARBONATE RESERVOIR KARST CAVE. Journal of Geomechanics, 24(1): 35-41. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.01.004
    ZU Kewei, CHENG Xiushen, LUO Zhouliang, YIN Nanxin, WANG Kai. 2018: THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT METHODS FOR FRACTURE PREDICTION IN COMPLEX CARBONATE ROCK RESERVOIR. Journal of Geomechanics, 24(4): 465-473. doi: 10.12090/j.issn.1006-6616.2018.24.04.048
    ZHAO Jiyong, ZHOU Xingui, LEI Qihong, ZHAO Guoxi, HE You'an, SHI Jianchao, ZHANG Linyan. 2017: STUDY ON PALEO-TECTONIC AND PRESENT TECTONIC STRESS IN CHANG 7 TIGHT RESERVOIR OF MALING OILFIELD, ORDOS BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 23(6): 810-820.
    MIAO Feng-bin, ZENG Lian-bo, ZU Ke-wei, GONG Lei. 2016: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTROLLING FACTORS OF FRACTURES IN RESERVOIRS OF XUJIAHE FORMATION IN ZITONG AREA, SICHUAN BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 22(1): 76-84.
    ZHOU Ju-biao, SHI Xian-da, DING Yu-sheng, KAN Yan-kun, SHI Xin-yue. 2015: THE MULTI-PARAMETER QUANTITATIVE PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR FRACTURE OF FU-2 MEMBER IN TIAN 96 FAULT BLOCK OF JINHU SAG. Journal of Geomechanics, 21(3): 341-350.
    ZHANG Ji-biao, YUN Jin-biao, ZHANG Zhong-pei, LIU Shi-lin, HUANG Wei. 2014: THE DEVELOPMENT MODEL OF STRUCTURAL FRACTURES IN ORDOVICIAN RESERVOIR IN YUBEI AREA, TARIM BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 20(4): 413-423.
    ZHANG Kui-hua, FENG Jian-wei, DAI Jun-sheng. 2013: DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF INHERITED FRACTURES IN DEEP SAND-SHALE RESERVOIR. Journal of Geomechanics, 19(2): 214-224.
    XU Hui-yong, FENG Jian-wei, GE Yu-rong. 2013: RESEARCH PROGRESS ON MECHANISM AND QUANTATIVE PREDICTION OF STRUCTURAL FRACTURES IN TIGHT-SAND RESERVOIRS. Journal of Geomechanics, 19(4): 377-384.
    TIAN Ya-ming, SHI Ze-jin, SONG Jiang-hai, WU Xiao-ming, GAO Xiang, ZOU Yong-dong. 2009: CHARACTERISTICS OF FRACTURES IN THE SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS OF YANCHANG FORMATION IN SOUTHEASTERN ORDOS BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 15(3): 281-288.
    XIANG Shu-an, LING Qing-zhen, TU Shui-jiang, WANG Feng. 2006: CHARACTERISTICS OF INTER-SALT NON-SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS AND GENESIS OF FRACTURES IN THE JIANGHAN OIL FIELD. Journal of Geomechanics, 12(4): 462-468,453.
    WU Li, SHI Wei, DONG Ning, ZHOU Xiao-ying, YU Wen-qin, MA Dian-ren, WEI Wei. 2005: PREDICTION OF GAS POTENTIALS OF SAND RESERVOIRS OF THE LOWER SHIHEZI FORMATION IN THE TABAMIAO AREA, ORDOS BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 11(3): 226-234.
    REN De-sheng, ZHANG Xing-zhou, CHEN Shu-min. 2002: FISSURE FORECASTING OF VOLCANIC ROCK RESERVOIR AT FANGSHENG 9 DRILL AREA OF NORTHERN SONGLIAO BASIN. Journal of Geomechanics, 8(3): 279-287.
    YIN Youquan, CHEN Hu, JIANG Tian, SHAN Wenw en. 1999: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF STRESS FIELD IN RESERVOIR. Journal of Geomechanics, 5(1): 52-61.
  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0405101520
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 19.9 %FULLTEXT: 19.9 %META: 74.8 %META: 74.8 %PDF: 5.3 %PDF: 5.3 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 8.0 %其他: 8.0 %United States: 1.3 %United States: 1.3 %中卫: 0.4 %中卫: 0.4 %临汾: 0.9 %临汾: 0.9 %北京: 4.0 %北京: 4.0 %十堰: 0.4 %十堰: 0.4 %台州: 1.3 %台州: 1.3 %哥伦布: 1.3 %哥伦布: 1.3 %平顶山: 0.4 %平顶山: 0.4 %广州: 0.4 %广州: 0.4 %张家口: 3.1 %张家口: 3.1 %扬州: 0.4 %扬州: 0.4 %昆明: 0.4 %昆明: 0.4 %杭州: 0.4 %杭州: 0.4 %沈阳: 1.3 %沈阳: 1.3 %深圳: 0.4 %深圳: 0.4 %湖州: 0.4 %湖州: 0.4 %濮阳: 0.4 %濮阳: 0.4 %珠海: 0.4 %珠海: 0.4 %芒廷维尤: 18.6 %芒廷维尤: 18.6 %芝加哥: 1.8 %芝加哥: 1.8 %苏州: 0.4 %苏州: 0.4 %西宁: 49.1 %西宁: 49.1 %邢台: 1.3 %邢台: 1.3 %郑州: 0.4 %郑州: 0.4 %金华: 0.4 %金华: 0.4 %首尔特别: 1.3 %首尔特别: 1.3 %龙岩: 0.4 %龙岩: 0.4 %其他United States中卫临汾北京十堰台州哥伦布平顶山广州张家口扬州昆明杭州沈阳深圳湖州濮阳珠海芒廷维尤芝加哥苏州西宁邢台郑州金华首尔特别龙岩

Catalog

    Article Metrics

    Article views (168) PDF downloads(12) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return