Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bale Et Al Gullfaks-Test Minifract PDF
Bale Et Al Gullfaks-Test Minifract PDF
IPTC 11968
Comprehensive Mini-Frac Testing in the Gullfaks Field as a Tool for Characterization of
Reservoir Structure and Rock Mechanics.
Arthur Bale, StatoilHydro, SPE, Haakon Fossen, University of Bergen, Eirik Berg, StatoilHydro, SPE, ystein Mjelde,
StatoilHydro, SPE, Trond Kui, StatoilHydro, SPE.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 35 December 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and
are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper describes the stress field and rock mechanical
aspects in the Gullfaks Field reservoirs. The data analyses are
mainly based on large volume water and gel mini-fracs
associated with data gathering in conjunction with propped
fracture stimulation jobs. A few data points represent results
from Pump-In/Decline Tests after perforating/before start-up
of single zone water injectors. The data are based on state of
the art mini-frac analysis techniques which also are discussed
in this paper.
The tests have been carried out over a 20 year period with
varying or cycled reservoir pressure. The systematized data
from 52 mini-frac tests executed in sandstone with high
porosity, high permeability and very low effective stresses
give results that cohere with linear elastic rock mechanical
theory. The connection between faults, tectonics and local
stress is discussed. The data represent a unique gathering of
information which has supplemented to the understanding of
the overall geological structural picture. Further, this paper
discusses how the analysis of data founded a revised approach
to solve drilling challenges as a result of small drilling margins
and localized depletion. Also, this paper presents a new
graphical solution illustrating the depletion dependant stress
change versus reservoir configuration or structural boundaries.
Introduction
The Gullfaks Field is located in the central part of the East
Shetland Basin in the Northern North Sea. The StatoilHydro
operated field has been developed with 3 Condeep platforms
and started production (Phase-1 Development from GFA and
GFB) in December 1986. Production from GFC (Phase-2
Development) commenced in Janauary 1990. A total of 188
2
IPTC 11968
Fig. 1-The Gullfaks Field and its setting on the west side of the
Viking Graben, looking NNW. 3D model based on DEM of the base
Cretaceous surface.
core data, dipmeter data and other well log data from close to
150 km drilled reservoir have provided the basis for the
current picture of the severely faulted Gullfaks reservoirs3.
The Gullfaks Field is divided into three structural domains,
Fig. 2. The largest domain is a domino-style fault system with
easterly dipping faults and westerly dipping bedding separated
from a deeply eroded eastern horst complex of elevated
subhorizontal layers and steep faults by a transitional zone
graben system. Most of the reservoir volume is located within
the domino system, where the main faults (100-300 m throw)
trend N-S and dip 25-30 to the east. Minor faults in this area
show a considerable variation in orientation and are mainly the
results of local adjustments within the main N-S oriented fault
blocks in the field.
It has, based on deep seismic data, been suggested that a
low-angle detachment fault underlies the Gullfaks Field
fault pattern of the field had been established and after the
field was established as a positive structure in the late Jurassic.
The northern North Sea is influenced by at least two main
phases of post-Devonian extension. The first of these is a
Permo-Triassic stretching phase during which the northern
North Sea was established as a rift zone. Many of the major
faults, such as the Statfjord and Gullfaks faults, were
established during this phase. After a rather quiescent period,
stretching commenced during deposition of the uppermost part
of the Brent Group, i.e. in the late Middle Jurassic and lasted
until the earliest Cretaceous. The faults in the Gullfaks
reservoirs all formed during this phase.
The late Jurassic deformation of the field was extensional,
and map-view restoration indicates approximately plane strain
with extension in the E-W direction5, Fig. 3. Total JurassicCretaceous E-W extension is estimated to ~40%, with a
Fig. 3Map of the top Statfjord Formation of the Gullfaks Field and
the displacement field that emerge from fault block
reconstruction, i.e. by closing the gaps between fault blocks.
Modified from Rouby et al. (1996).
IPTC 11968
3.
1.
2.
3.
4
IPTC 11968
Inj. Period
34/10-C-42 T3 Cook
15.01
340
C a lc_ BH P(b a r)
350
(minutes)
Start of
Pseudo-radial Flow
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
100
(tp+dt)/dt
P* 312.314
350
340
P
k
2
t Ct X f
330
Calc_BHP (bar)
360
34/10-C-42 T3 Cook
330
0
Pext 357.656
Qext 1.169
10
20
S_rate (bpm)
30
40
Fig. 5SRT with slick water prior to gel mini-frac in Gullfaks Well
C-42T3
CL H p E
P
H2
ts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
IPTC 11968
Blessed
Pc 338.399
Tc 13.734
EFFc 0.398392
Isip 349.235
dPs 10.836
C L H p E TP
P
=
= P *
G
H2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
x = P / 0.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
34 0
C alc_ B H P (bar)
3 50
Blessed
Pc 344.467
Tc 5.375
EFFc 0.227618
Isip 349.235
dPs 4.768
34/10-C-42 T3 Cook
dP/d[G]
Early
Tp
15.010
Late
Isip
sqrt(dt)
Less Smoothing
E
QL t
2
Pnet H L Pnet
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
350
345
330
325
0.5
1.0
1.5
G(dt)
Less Smoothing
2.0
2.5
3.0
More Smoothing
and
Ps = 0.8 x
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
with reference to Fig. 910, give nearly identical result, 15.2 bar
and 13.5 bar, respectively, with respect to stress differential.
Ps
340
More Smoothing
Fig. 7Sq. rt of time (ts) plot of gel mini-frac in Gullfaks Well C42T3 revealing false and true fracture closure pressures
Cf
Isip
Calc_BHP(bar)
PsRad
335
330
349.235
Delta P*
9.116
Delta Ps
10.884
Eff
0.388
Pc
338.351
Tc
13.732
Effc
0.398
0,4 x
Pressure data
6
IPTC 11968
34/10-C-42 T3 Cook
dP/d[G]
PsRad
Tp
15.010
Isip
Isip
349.235
Delta Ps
10.909
Pc
338.326
Gc
1.255
Tc
14.306
Effc
0.406
Horizontal
3 30 .0
Initiation of
pseudo-radial flow
3.2
6 .4
3 4 0 .0
G d P/dG
C alc_ BH P(b a r)
9.6
12 .8
3 6 0.0
Vertical
3 50 .0
Pivoting
50
34/10-C-42 T3 Cook
2.0
G(dt)
Less Smoothing
3.0
More Smoothing
10
20
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
100
200
dt
eff =
wavg
wavg + 3C t + 2 S p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
20
0.50
15
0.20
0.10
10
0.050
0.050
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.0
dp
2.0
5.0
Indication of closure
after 12 min.
10
15
Time (min)
20
25
IPTC 11968
x = Y =
1 2
(1 )p = p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9.
1
Formation
A-11
A-12
A-15
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-40
A-40
A-41B
B-3A
B-3A
B-3A
B-3A
B-07A
B-07A
B-07A
B-12
B-19A
B-20A
B-31
B-31
B-31
B-32
B-38
B-39B
B-40A
B-40A
B-40A
C-9A
C-9A
C-9A
C-11
C-11
C-12
C-12
C-13
C-22
C-22
C-23A
C-23A
C-24T2
C-24T2
C-26
C-26
C-28
C-28
C-35
C-35
C-40
C-42T3
C-45
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Cook
Cook I1
Rannoch I1
Rannoch
Cook
Cook
Cook
Ness-3D
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Shetland/Shale
Rannoch
Cook
Drake/Rannoch
Cook H3
Drake/Cook H3
Rannoch
Cook I2A
Rannoch
Statfjord
Statfjord
Statfjord
Cook-2A
Cook-2C
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Rannoch
Cook
Statfjord
Cook
Rannoch
Cook
Ness/Shale
Statfjord
Statfjord
Cook
Rannoch
Cook
Rannoch
Cook
Rannoch
Cook
Cook
Cook
Top perf.
TVDMSL
1988.3
1967.1
2038.2
1872.0
1754.8
1792.3
1751.9
1747.6
1816.0
1964.6
1964.3
1955.7
1900.3
1745.8
1745.2
1742.8
1918.0
1841.3
2044.0
1794.3
1808.2
1830.0
1788.5
1844.0
1770.8
2185.3
2165.3
2145.0
1950.4
1915.7
1782.6
1863.0
1791.0
1837.7
1996.8
2038.6
1980.3
1844.4
2046.7
1874.5
1981.9
1940.5
2034.0
1887.2
1926.0
1779.7
1912.8
1772.4
1835.0
1864.5
1790.3
Measured
(Bar)
378.7
372.0
397.5
327.0
319.8
296.1
296.2
335.9
319.8
399.0
397.5
398.3
337.8
320.3
311.5
285.0
387.5
335.6
380.8
333.7
343.0
342.0
312.0
319.0
324.7
427.2
423.8
395.2
331.0
334.2
318.5
324.5
324.8
308.0
330.5
368.5
350.8
333.9
365.7
347.5
375.9
344.0
350.0
327.8
297.9
313.7
311.0
297.0
331.9
338.3
315.3
Original
stress (Bar)
399.0
397.5
419.6
360.8
340.8
352.4
326.2
339.7
358.6
399.0
397.5
398.3
367,1
321.8
322.0
321.8
387.5
352.9
379.7
333.7
345.1
342.0
352.5
352.0
328.4
433.1
431.3
429.6
366.4
361.4
338.4
344.8
326.7
336.5
380.0
387.6
379.3
348.2
377.0
347.5
375.9
357.9
385.3
349.8
363.2
338.5
362.5
341.3
341.1
353.3
334.8
Pp
(Bar)
27.0
34.0
29.4
45.0
28.0
75.0
40.0
5.0
51.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
39,0
2.0
14.0
49.0
0.0
23.0
-1.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
54.0
44.0
4.9
7.9
10.0
45.8
47.2
36.2
26.5
27.0
2.5
38.0
66.0
25.5
38.0
19.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
18.5
47.0
29.3
87.0
33.0
68.6
59.0
12.2
20.0
26.0
IPTC 11968
1740
1741
0,11 bar/m
Virgin local
stress gradient
TVD MSL,
1742
1743
1744
1746
290
300
310
320
330
2130
Virgin local
stress gradient
2140
0,13 bar/m
2150
TVD MSL,
2170
2180
2190
2200
390
400
410
420
430
440
x = C =
( V Pp ) + Pp . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
Petrological Implications
A -factor of 0.75 suggests, according to Eq. A-9, a Poissons
ratio,, of 0.20, since (=1-Cr/Cb), as defined in Appendix
A, must be close to 1.0. A Poissons ratio of 0.20 seems
reasonable despite the wide scatter of data found for this
parameter in the Gullfaks core laboratory database. Much of
the laboratory data are of poor quality due to the
10
IPTC 11968
= 0.124I sh + 0.27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
Ish =
S D
S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
1 ts 2
( ) 1
2 t p
(dynamic) =
t
( s )2 1
t p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
13
IPTC 11968
11
P
C
= K ( V ) + (1 K )( p ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
d
d
d
Further, assuming K = 0.25 ( = 0.20) and V/d equal to the
local Overburden gradient of 0.214 bar/m (0.945 psi/ft), Fig.
13, internal closure stress gradients, c/d, can be tabulated,
Table-2, as a function of different fluid densities or pore
pressure gradients. Specific fluid density varys from of 0.6 to
1.034 s.g. in the Gullfaks Field. The local Overburden
gradient is based on an average log derived bulk density of
2.15 g/cc through the reservoir. Hence, different formations
containing hydrocarbons with slightly different fluid densities
may have contributed to several uneven original local
horizontal stress gradients across this field.
Fluid density
(g/cc)
0.60
0.70
0.070 (0.308)
0.106 (0.467)
0.80
0.080 (0.352)
0.113 (0.500)
1.034
0.103 (0.455)
0.131 (0.578)
Table-2- Internal gradients for different fluid densities.
1750
P
x
= K ( v ) + (1 K )( p )
d
d
d
x (Phase-1)
x (Phase-2)
0.11 bar/m
0.21 bar/m
K =
1 v
0.30 bar/m
1950
Pressure
12
IPTC 11968
x =
y =
( v Pp ) + Pp +
E
E
+
y . . . . . . . (14)
2 x
1
1 2
( v Pp ) + Pp +
E
E
y +
x . . . . . . . (15)
1 2
1 2
1740
A-40
1750
B-7A
1760
A-36
'y
TVD MSL,
1770
B-39B
1780
1790
1800
A-41B
1810
1820
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
350
IPTC 11968
different OWCs,
different rock mechanical parametes ( and ),
different fluid densities,
diminishing tectonic impact (parallel to horizontal
maximum stress) towards the east across the field,
diminishing tectonic stress towards the north where
the north-south faults pinches out,
local increases in stress or stress relaxation due to
nearby fault activity, and, finally
additional compressional tectonic forces with depth.
C r 1 0 -5 b a r -1
40
30
20
10
0
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
pressure (bars)
Effective Stress
13
Compacting region,
large, constant Cb
Compacting,
Hardening region,
increasing Cb
Elastic region,
small constant Cb
Quasi-Elastic
Unloading region,
small, relativelyconstant Cb
Strain
Fig. 24-Typical rock stress-strain curve during loading (i.e.,
reservoir pressure drawdown) and unloading (i.e., subsequent
reservoir pressure increase from injection)
14
IPTC 11968
Pbd = f Pp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
f1: x = y , independant of Pp
f2: y = x +10 bar, Pp = 20 bar
1,2
1
0,8
f1
0,6
f3
0,4
0,2
f2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
IPTC 11968
equal to 348 bar and 330 bar, respectively) and original pore
pressure (302.5 bar) at 1750 m TVD MSL in Phase-1.
The obvious tectonic stress component in the Gullfaks
reservoirs calls for future mapping of maximum horizontal
stress based on historical field drilling information and
iteration of input by use of this advanced prediction tool. The
revised and more accurate way of calculate formation strength
for future wells also calls for continuous and more accurate
mapping of formation minimum principal stress. Extensive
mapping of local stress will contine and hopefully also entail
to enhanced understanding of lateral stress variations,
horizontal stress anisotropy and thus improved well planning.
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Nomenclature
Cb
Cf
CL
Cr
Ct
E
H
Hp
k
L
P
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
15
Pnet
Pp
q
Sp
T
t
ts
ts
tp
vL
wawg
v
x
y
x
y
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Pbd
Pnet
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank StatoilHydro and Petoro for
permission to publish this paper.
References
1.
Arthur Bale and Kjell Owren, Statoil A/S, and M.B. Smith, NSI
Technologies Inc., Propped Fracturing as a Tool for Sand Control and
Reservir Management, SPE 24992, presented at the European
Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18 November 1992.
2.
Arthur Bale, Statoil, Michael B. Smith, NSI-Tech, Tony Settari,
Simtech Consulting Services,Ltd: Post-Frac Productivity Calculation
for Complex Reservoir/Fracture Geometry, SPE 28919.
3.
Fossen, H. & Hesthammer, J. 1998. Structural geology of the Gullfaks
Field, northern North Sea. In: Structural geology in reservoir
characterization (edited by Coward, M. P., Johnson, H. & Daltaban, T.
S.).Geol.Soc.Spec.Publ.127,231-261.
4.
Fossen, H., Odinsen, T., Frseth, R. B. & Gabrielsen, R. H. 2000.
Detachments and low-angle faults in the northern North Sea rift
system. In: Dynamics of the Norwegian margins (edited by Nttvedt,
A.) 167. Geological Society of London, Special Publications, 105-131.
5.
Rouby, F., Fossen, H. & Cobbold, P. 1996. Extension, displacement,
and block rotation in the larger Gullfaks area, northern North Sea:
determined from map view restoration. AAPG Bull.80, 875-890.
6.
Frseth, R. B., Knudsen, B.-E., Liljedahl, T., Midbe, P. S. &
Sderstrm, B. 1997. Oblique rifting and sequential faulting in the
Jurassic development of the northern North Sea. J. Struct. Geol.19,
1285-1302.
7.
Seismically Determined Predrill Stresses for Improved Petroleum
Production and Exploration, study by John K. Davidson, Predrill
Stresses International, 2000.
8.
GERMAN-NORWEGIAN JOINT RESEARCH PROJECT ON
BASIN ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH STUDIES-Project A2:
Determination of stress trajectories in Northern Europe and the
significance of stress field orientation for hydrocarbon production and
local and regional tectonics, by Prof. Dr. Karl Fuchs and Dr. Holger
Spann, Geophysical Institute, University of Karsruhe, September
13./14., 1990.
9.
Hydraulic Fracturing Manual, 2nd edition, 1992 NSI Techn. Inc.
10. SPE 25845, A Systematic Method for Applying Fracturing Pressure
Decline: Part 1, K.G. Nolte, M.G. Mack, and W. L. Lie, Dowell
Schlumberger.
16
IPTC 11968
11. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of Pressure
Dependant Leakoff and its Effects on Fracture Geometry paper SPE
36424 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October.
12. Kumar, J.: The Effect of Poissons Ratio on Rock Properties, SPE
6094, presented for the 51st Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in
New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
13. Anderson, R.A., Ingram, D.S., and Zanier, A.M.: Determining
Fracture Pressure Gradients from Well Logs, JPT (Nov, 1973) 125968.
14. Alger, R.P. et al.:Formation Density Log Applications in LiquidFilled Holes, JPT (March 1963) 321-32; Trans., AIME, 228.
15. N. Morita and D.L. Whitfill, Conoco Inc., and O. Nygaard and A.Bale,
Statoil A.S: A Quick Method To Determine Subsidence, Reservoir
Compaction, and In-Situ Stress Induced By Reservoir Depletion, SPE
17150, presented for the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium
held in Bakerfield, California, February 8-9,1988 and also Journal of
Petroleum Technology, January 1989 (p 71 79).
16. M. J. Thiercelin, Schlumberger Cambridge Research and R. A. Plumb,
Schlumberger-Doll Research,: A Core-Based Prediction of Lithologic
Stress Contrasts in East Texas Formations, SPE 21847, presented at
the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA (April 15-17, 1991),
also in SPE Formation Evaluation (Desember 1994) pg. 251- 258.
17. D. Wiprut, M. Zoback, Department of Geophysics, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-2215, USA.: Constraining the stress
tensor in the Visund field, Norwegian North Sea: Application to
wellbore stability and sand production, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37 (2000) 317-336.
18. L.P. DAKE, Fundamentals of reservoir engineering, ElsevierScientific Publishing Company, 1978. p 101.
19. Merle, H.A., Kentie, C.J.P., van Opstal, G.H.C., and Schneider,
G.M.G., The Bachaquero Study A Composite Analysis of the
Behaviour of a Compaction Drive/Solution Gas Drive Reservoir.
J.Pet.Tech. September 1976 pg.1107 1115.
20. Antonin (Tony) Settari and Dale A. Walters, Duke Engineering &
Services (Canada) Inc.: Advances in Coupled Geomechanical and
Reservoir Modeling With Application to Reservoir Compaction, SPE
51927, presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium
held in Houston, Texas, 14 17 February 1999.
21. Deily, F. H., and Owens, T. C.: Stress Around a Wellbore, SPE
2557, 1969
22. Bradley, W. B.: Failure of Inclined Boreholes, J. Energy Res. Tech,
Trans., AIME (Dec. 1979) 102, 232 239.
23. Richardson, R. M.: Hydraulic Fracture in Arbitrarily Oriented
Boreholes: an Analytic Solution, Proc., Workshop on Hydraulic
Fracturing Stress Measurements, Monterey, California (Dec. 1981).
24. Daneshy, A. A.: A Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures, SPEJ
(April 1973) 61-68.
25. Haimson, B. E. and Fairhurst, C.: Initiation and Extension of
Hydraulic Fractures in Rocks, SPEJ (September 1967).
26. Y. Yang, M. B. Dusseault, Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fracture
Initiation in Poorly Consolidated Rock Strata Part I. Impermeable
Media, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 28, No.
4, pp. 235 246, 1991.
27. Y. Yang, M. B. Dusseault, Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fracture
Initiation in Poorly Consolidated Rock Strata Part II. Permeable
Media, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 28, No.
4, pp. 247 260, 1991
28. P. Horsrud, R. Risnes, R. K. Bratteli,: Fracture Initiation Pressures in
Permeable Poorly Consolidated Sands ,Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci &
Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 19, pp. 255 266, 1982..
29. Terzagi, K. van:Die Berechnung der Durchlassigkeitsziffer des Tones
aus dem Verlauf der Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen,
Sber. Akad. Wiss., Wien (1923) 132, 105.
30. Biot, M. A.: General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,
J. Appl. Phys. (1941) 12, 155-164.
31. Handin, J., Hager, R.V. Jr., Friedman, M., and Feather, J.N.:
Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary Rocks Under Confining
Pressure: Pore Pressure Tests, Bull., AAPG (1963) 47, 717-755.
'= p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
IPTC 11968
17
' = p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
c
= 1 r
cb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
32
1
x = ( 'x ( ' y + 'z )) T T . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
E
which can be expanded to the form below, Eq. A-7, where
again two additional equations could be written for x and y.
1
12
x = (x (y +z ))
(1)pTT . . . . (A-7)
E
E
x = Y =
1 2
E
(1 )p +
Z +
T T . . . . . . (A-8)
1
1
1
x = Y =
1 2
(1 )p = p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9)
1
x = Y = p( 1- 1 (
4
n1
1 + n12
n2
1 + n22
)) . . . . (A-10)
where
H
H
) / a , n2 = ( z ) / a ,
2
2
is the material parameter described in Eq. A-9, and z is
described in Fig. A-1.
Consider the case where a is very large and z equal to
0 (e.g. the very center of the cylindrical, disk shaped
region). In such a case, n1 and n2 approximately equal 0, and
the relationship between changes in pore pressure and changes
n1 = ( z +
18
IPTC 11968
z
H