‫ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ‬

‫‪Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017‬‬

‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﭼﺎﻩ ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬

‫ﻳﻚ ﻣﺨﺰﻥ ﻛﺮﺑﻨﺎﺗﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬

‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻔﺖ‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺭﺻﻴﺎﻣﻲ*‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻫﺎﺩ ﺧﻮﺷﺒﺨﺖ‬

‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﺭﻳﺰﻱ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﭘﻴﺶﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺪﺭ ﺭﻓﺘﻦ ﮔﻞ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺭﻳﺰﺵ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﭼﺎﻩ ﻭﮔﻴﺮﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﻲ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻫﻴﺪﺭﻭﻟﻴﻜﻲ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻳﻚ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻨﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ ﺷﺒﻴﻪﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ ﻛﺮﺑﻨﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻔﺘﻲ‪/‬ﮔﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﻣﺨﺰﻧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺪﺍﻭﻟﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺗﺮﻭﻥ ﻭ ‪ ...‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﭘﺮﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺭﺯﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﺍﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﻝﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﺭﻭﻛﺮﺑﻨﻲ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻻﺯﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﺨﺰﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺪﻳﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺪﻝﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬

‫ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﻭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﮔﻞ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻪﻭﺟﻮﺩﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺎﺯ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻣــﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﺎ ﻻﻳﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ‬
‫‪ 1955‬ﺷﺮﻛﺖ ﻧﻔﺘﻲ ﺷﻞ‪ 2‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬ ‫ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻨــﮕﺎﻡ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﻚ ﭼــﺎﻩ ﻳﺎ ﻃــﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪ 3‬ﺭﺍ ﺍﺳــﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﻱ‬ ‫ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻞ ﺳﻨﮕﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﺍﻱ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻚ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻫﻴﺪﺭﻭﻟﻴﻜﻲ‬ ‫ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺸﻜﻞﺳﺎﺯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺖﮔﻴﺮ ﻭ ﭘﺮﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﺍﻱ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻪﭼﺎپ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ ]‪.[1‬‬ ‫ﻫــﺮﺯﺭﻭﻱ ﮔﻞ ﺭﺥ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨــﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﻀــﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺰﺭﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺳــﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺑﺮ ﻫﻢ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ‪، σ1‬‬ ‫ﺳــﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻫــﺮﺯﺭﻭﻱ ﮔﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﺘﻮﺳــﻂ ‪ σ2‬ﻭ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ‪ σ3‬ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺨﻤﻴــﻦ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫــﺮ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﭼﺎﻩ ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈــﻮﺭ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﺭﻳــﺰﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﺼﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻮﻟﻪﺟﺪﺍﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻯ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻏﻴﺮﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﻫﻴﺪﺭﻭﻟﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﺮﻳــﻚ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻔﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﺎﻝ‪ 1940‬ﺁﻏﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺷــﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﺎﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ‬

‫* ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﺓ ﻋﻬﺪﻩﺩﺍﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﺗﺒﺎﺕ )‪(poursiamih@ripi.ir‬‬

‫‪34‬‬
 ‫ﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻭﻳﺠﻰ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺎﺯ‪ /‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ / 103‬ﻣﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﺎﻩ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﻣﻴﻦﺷﻨﺎﺳــﺎﻥ ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫‪S 2P‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ]‪.[1‬‬ ‫ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﺎﻥ ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻱ ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫‪F D D‬‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫)‪(2‬‬ ‫ﻛﺸﺸــﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﺩﻭﻡ‪،‬‬
‫‪Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017‬‬

‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 2-‬ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺣﻮﺿﻪ ﺭﺳﻮﺑﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺁﺭﺍﻡ ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ ﻭ ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪﺍﻱ‪ ،‬ﺷــﻜﻞ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﭼﺎﻩ ﻭ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺳــﻴﺎﻝ ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﻗــﻮﺕ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺿﺮﺍﻳﺐ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ]‪.[1‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪ -2-1‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺘﺌﻮﺱ‪-‬ﻛﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ 1967‬ﻣﺘﺌﻮﺱ ﻭ ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﺽ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﭘﻮﻧــﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻮﺕ ﻧﺘﺎﻳــﺞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ ﻣﺎﺳﻪﺳﻨﮕﻲ‬
‫ﮔﻠﻒﻛﻮﺋﺴﺖ‪ 6‬ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻤﻨــﻲ ﻭ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎ ﺷــﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻜﻤﻴﻞ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ؛ ﭼﺮﺍﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺘﺌﻮﺱ‪-‬ﻛﻠﻲ )ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ (3-‬ﺍﺯ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺑﻪﻧﺎﻡ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﻤﻴﺮﻩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﭘﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺗﺸــﻜﻴﻞ ﮔﺴــﻞ ﻧﻮﺍﺣﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺳﻴﻌﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﻣﺤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ ]‪1‬ﻭ‪2‬ﻭ‪.[3‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻻﺯﻡ‬
‫ﺑــﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺧﺎﺻﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﺎﺯﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﺳــﺖ ]‪1‬ﻭ‪ .[2‬ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪-1-1‬ﻣﺪﻝﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻭ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺭژﻳﻢ ﺗﻨﺸﻲ ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﮔﺴﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺮﻣﺎﻝ ‪ 60‬ﺩﺭﺟﻪ ﺗﺸــﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺍﻗــﻞ ‪ 1/2-1/3‬ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬــﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻙﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺴــﻤﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻛــﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻛﺸﺸــﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶﻫﺎ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎً ﺻﻔﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻭ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪1-‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ]‪1‬ﻭ‪.[2‬‬
‫)‪( S  P‬‬ ‫)‪(1‬‬
‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪ σ3‬ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺩﻩﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬
‫ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻻﻳﻪﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﭘﻮﮔﺮﺍﻓﻲ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ )‪(σ1‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﭼﻮﻥ ﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎ ﺍﻳﺰﻭﺗﺮﻭﭘﻴﻚ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺳــﻨﮓ ﻭ ‪ σ1‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷــﻮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻧﺎﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺩﻳﮕــﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻟــﺖ ‪ σ2‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﻣــﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ‬
‫‪ σ3‬ﺩﺭ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺑﺮ ‪ σ2‬ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺸﺸﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﺶ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻛﺸﺸﻲ‬
‫ﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﺷــﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻛﺸﺸﻲ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻃﻮﻝ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺑﻪﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ‪σ1‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻭ ﺣﻮﺿﻪ ﺭﺳﻮﺑﻲ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴــﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺸﺸﻲِ ﻋﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﻭ ﻫﻢﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺎ ‪σ2‬‬
‫ﺑﻪﻭﺟــﻮﺩ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺑﻴﺸــﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ σ1 ،‬ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺘﻮﻧﻴﻜــﻲ ﻭ ‪ σ3‬ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﻜﺴﺘﮕﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻛﻤﻲ‬
‫‪0‬‬

‫‪F P‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪2000‬‬ ‫‪2000‬‬

‫‪ K‬‬
‫‪i‬‬ ‫)‪(3‬‬
‫‪D D‬‬ ‫‪D‬‬ ‫ﮔﻠﻒ ﻛﻮﺋﺴﺖ ﺗﮕﺰﺍﺱ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﻰ‬ ‫‪4000‬‬
‫‪4000‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬

‫‪ σ‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﻤﻴﺮﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ ﭘﻮﻧﺪ‬ ‫‪6000‬‬ ‫‪6000‬‬

‫ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﻭ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﻤﻴﺮﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﻤﻘﻲ‬ ‫‪8000‬‬ ‫‪8000‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻯ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻖ )ﻓﻮﺕ(‬

‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻧﺮﻣﺎﻝ ﺧﻤﻴﺮﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪10000‬‬ ‫ﮔﻠﻒ ﻛﻮﺋﺴﺖ ﻟﻮﺋﻴﺰﻳﺎﻧﺎ‬ ‫‪10000‬‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺷــﻜﻞ‪ 1-‬ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﻭ‬ ‫‪12000‬‬ ‫‪12000‬‬

‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪14000‬‬ ‫‪14000‬‬

‫‪7‬‬
‫‪16000‬‬ ‫‪16000‬‬
‫‪ -3-1‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫‪18000‬‬ ‫‪18000‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺳــﺎﻝ ‪ 1969‬ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﻣﺪﻟﻲ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪20000‬‬ ‫‪20000‬‬

‫ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺿﺮﻳــﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ )‪ (μ‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬ ‫‪Ki‬ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﻤﻴﺮﻩ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻛﻨﺘﺮﻝﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬

‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺤﺎﺳــﺒﻪ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ‬ ‫‪ 1‬ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ‪ Ki‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻖ ]‪7‬ﻭ‪[8‬‬

‫‪35‬‬
 ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ‬

‫ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻚ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﺎﻳﻌﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻏﻴﺮﻗﺎﺑﻞﺗﺮﺍﻛﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺪﻭﻝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺻﻔﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﺳــﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺘﻮﻟﻮژﻱ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻣﻲﺍﻓﺘﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ‪ 2-‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺩ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧــﻮﻉ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺻﺪ ﺗﺨﻠﺨﻞ‪ ،‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺷــﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻫﻤﮕﻨﻲ ﻭ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ ]‪.[4‬‬ ‫ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ‪ 1‬ﺑﻪ ‪ 3‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺗﻨﺶ‬
‫‪Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017‬‬

‫ﺭﺧﺴﺎﺭﻩ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻮﺿــﻮﻉ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﻓﺮﺽ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻲ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ]‪1‬ﻭ‪ [6‬ﻛﻪ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺟﺎﻳﻲﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬ ‫‪ 0/25‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ]‪4‬ﻭ‪.[5‬‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻨﺪ ﺍﺯ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪S P‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺷــﻜﻞ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬ ‫(() ‪ ( ‬‬ ‫‪)‬‬ ‫)‪(4‬‬
‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪D D 1 ‬‬ ‫‪D‬‬
‫‪ -1-2‬ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺲ ﺷﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺭژﻳﻢﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﻨﺶ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺎﺳﻪﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺣﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﭘﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﮔﻠﻒﻛﻮﺋﺴــﺖ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﺳــﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ‬ ‫ﻼ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻮﺕ ﻭ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ‪ 0/25‬ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺮﺑﻨﺎﺗﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺧﻄﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 5-‬ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻓﻘﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ ]‪.[5‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪D‬‬
‫‪ -2-2‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪﺩﻟﻴﻞ‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫)‪(5‬‬
‫‪D‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻤــﻮﻻً ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻘــﻲ ﻛــﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺍﻛﺘﺸــﺎﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺒﻮﺩ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳــﻌﻪﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻃﻼﻋــﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻓــﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺿﻌﻴــﺖ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 5-‬ﻫﻤــﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺻﺮﻑﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭﻛﻪ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪ ﺷﺪ‬
‫ژﺋﻮﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪﺩﺭﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪،‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺑــﺮﺍﻱ ﺣﺪﺍﻗــﻞ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺷــﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻯ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻗﺎﺑﻞﺗﻬﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌــﻪ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻠﻒﻛﻮﺋﺴﺖ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ژﺋﻮﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡﻧﺸﺪﻩﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑــﺎ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﻋﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺪﺩ ‪ 0/5‬ﻣﺠﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻛﺮﻧﺶ ﻃﻮﻟﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﺮﻧﺶ ﻋﺮﺿﻲ ‪ -2‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺩﺭ ‪ -3-2‬ﻟﻴﺘﻮﻟﻮژﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻴــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺲ ﺁﻧﺴــﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻟﻴﺘﻮﻟﻮژﻱ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫‪0‬‬
‫ﺁﺏ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ‬
‫ً‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﻣﺨﺰﻥ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬ ‫‪GOM‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ‬ ‫‪2000‬‬

‫ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻱ‬

‫‪4000‬‬ ‫ﮔﻠﻒ ﻛﻮﺋﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺘﻮﻟﻮژﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫‪6000‬‬

‫‪ -4-2‬ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ‬ ‫‪8000‬‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﮔﻠﻒﻛﻮﺋﺴــﺖ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﺧﻠﻴﺞ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺰﻳﻚﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻲﺑﺮﺍﻱﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦﻓﺸﺎﺭﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬ ‫‪10000‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻖ )‪(ft‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ‬

‫ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺧــﺎﺹ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬ ‫‪12000‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ‬

‫‪14000‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘــﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫‪16000‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪18000‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪ -5-2‬ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ‪ K‬ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶ ‪LOT‬‬
‫ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳــﺶ ‪ LOT‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳــﺖ‬ ‫‪20000‬‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪0.05‬‬ ‫‪0.10‬‬ ‫‪0.15‬‬ ‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫‪0.25‬‬ ‫‪0.30‬‬ ‫‪0.35‬‬ ‫‪0.40‬‬ ‫‪0.45‬‬ ‫‪0.50‬‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻟﻮﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﭼﺎﻩ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮ ﺁﺳﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪ LOT .‬ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺸــﻲ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬ ‫‪ 2‬ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻖ ]‪7‬ﻭ‪[8‬‬

‫‪36‬‬
 ‫ﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻭﻳﺠﻰ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺎﺯ‪ /‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ / 103‬ﻣﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﺎﻩ ‪1392‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺪﻝﺳــﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺣﻔﺎﺭﻱ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫‪Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017‬‬
‫‪  P 2 S2‬‬
‫ﺳﻦ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻥ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺸــﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭ ﺣﻠﻘﻪ ﭼﺎﻩ‪-‬‬
‫ﻭ‪ B‬ﻛــﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﺴــﺒﺘﺎً ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻭ ﺁﻣﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻭ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ ﻣﺬﻛــﻮﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﭼﮕﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺗﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﻪﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻓﻘﺮ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺳــﭙﺲ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪﺍﻱ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ‬
‫ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳــﺎﺱ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ -‬ﻭ‪ B‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻮﺕ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 12-‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫ﻛﻴﻠﻮﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪304.8‬‬ ‫)‪(12‬‬
‫‪VP ‬‬
‫‪DT‬‬
‫‪D‬‬
‫‪T‬‬
‫ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪﺍﻯ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ VP ،12-‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻛﻴﻠﻮﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﻭ ‪ DT‬ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴــﺐ‬
‫ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻮﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ)ﻣﺪﻝ‪ I-‬ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪(11-‬ﻭﻣﺪﻝﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ‬
‫)ﻣﺪﻝ‪ -‬ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ (8-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷــﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺷــﺪ ﻭ ﺳــﭙﺲ ﺑــﺎ ﺍﺳــﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪7-‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞﻫﺎﻱ‪3-‬ﻭ‪4‬‬
‫ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴــﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺗــﺮﻙ‪ 1-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺯﻣــﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ‬
‫)‪ (DT‬ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴــﺐ ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻮﺕ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ‬
‫ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ )‪ (VP‬ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻴﻠﻮﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻙ‪-‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷــﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳــﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏــﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ)‪ (VS I‬ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ ) ‪VS‬‬
‫( ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴــﺐ ﻛﻴﻠﻮﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻙ‪ 3-‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ‬
‫ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ )‪( I‬‬
‫( ﻧﺸــﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ )‬
‫ﺗﺮﻙ‪ 4-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ )‪،(OBG‬‬
‫ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ )‪ (PPG‬ﻭ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ) ‪FPG‬‬
‫(‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖﺁﻣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ ) ‪ (FPG‬ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ‬
‫ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﺑﻪﺩﺳــﺖﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫)‪ (FPG I‬ﻫﻤﮕــﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴــﺐ ﭘﻮﻧﺪ ﺑــﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ‬
‫‪37‬‬
‫ﺑــﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳــﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫‪V 2  2V 2 ‬‬
‫‪2VP  VS ‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ )‪(7‬‬
‫)‪ (K‬ﻳﺎ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶ ‪ LOT‬ﺭﺍ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 6-‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫)‪K=(FPG–PPG)/(OBG–PPG‬‬ ‫)‪(6‬‬
‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷــﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ‪ FPG‬ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ PPG ،‬ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ ﻣﺎﺳﻪﺳﻨﮕﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﻭ ‪ OBG‬ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺨﺎﺯﻥ ﻛﺮﺑﻨﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ‪ LOT‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ 1993‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ‪ 9‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﻜﺎﺭﺍﻧﺶ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻗﺎﺑﻞﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ]‪ .[1‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺁﻫﻚ ﻭ ﺷﻴﻞ ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ‪8-‬ﻭ‪ 9‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ‬ ‫‪ -6-2‬ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎﻱ ژﺋﻮﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎﻱ ژﺋﻮﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶ ﺳﻪﻣﺤﻮﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻛﺮﻧﺶ ﻋﺮﺿﻲ ﺑﻪ )‪V  0.05509V  1.0168V  1.0305 (8‬‬
‫‪S‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪P‬‬
‫= ‪V‬‬ ‫‪V‬‬‫‪P‬‬ ‫ﻃﻮﻟﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻭ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻛﺮﺩ‪(9) .‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴــﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺶﻫﺎﻱ ژﺋﻮﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺿﺮﺍﻳﺐ ﺍﻻﺳــﺘﻴﻚ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻮﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻮﺱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﻭ‬
‫‪ -7-2‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﻋﺼﺒﻲ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻳــﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺑــﺰﺍﺭﻱ ﺑــﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﺠــﺎﺩ ﺍﺭﺗﺒــﺎﻁ ﺑﻴﻦ )ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪.(10-‬‬
‫=‪V‬‬ ‫‪VP‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺍ ً ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺳﺎﺩﻩﺍﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ )‪(10‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﻋﺼﺒﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺸــﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﺳــﻨﮓﺁﻫﻚ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬ ‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﭼﺎﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺷــﺒﻜﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﺘﺄﺳــﻔﺎﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻮﺱ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﮓﺁﻫﻚ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺨﻤﻴﻦ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻜﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻟﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬ ‫‪ -8-2‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺍﻣﻮﺍﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻤــﻮﻻً ﺩﺭ ﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﭼﺎﻩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣــﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫــﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﺩ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻐﺰﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺷــﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻣﺨﺰﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷــﺖ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ‬
‫ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﺴــﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻱ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ‪ DSI‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫــﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻩﭘﻴﻤﺎﻳــﻲ ‪ DSI‬ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﺭﺟﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷــﺖ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﻳــﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺸــﮕﺎﻩ ﺭﻭﻱ ﻣﻐﺰﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺷــﻲ ﻭ ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﻴــﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﮔــﺮ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ )ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪.(11-‬‬
‫‪VS  0.5243VP  0.451‬‬ ‫ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺷــﻲ ﺩﺭ ﭼــﺎﻩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ )‪(11‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ ،7-‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺑــﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑــﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﻴــﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ‬ ‫ﭘﻮﺍﺳﻮﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ VP ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ‪ VS‬ﺳــﺮﻋﺖ ﻣﻮﺝ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺑﺮﺷﻲ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ‪ DSI‬ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻛﻴﻠﻮﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴــﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩﺷــﺪﻩ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻢﺑﺴــﺘﮕﻲ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﻭﺟــﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ‪ DSI‬ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺳــﺮﻋﺘﻲ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌــﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 11-‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻐﺰﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﻳﺸﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
 Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017

2000
1800
1600
WELL A
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ‬-‫ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬

A-‫ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‬3

38
 ‫ﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻭﻳﺠﻰ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺎﺯ‪ /‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ / 103‬ﻣﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﺎﻩ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﺑﺮ ﻓــﻮﺕ ﺁﻣــﺪﻩ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗــﺮﻙ‪ 5-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ )‪ (FP-EC‬ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ )‪ ،(OBP‬ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ)‪ (PP‬ﻭ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ )‪ ،(FP-HW‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﭘﻮﺍﺳــﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺻــﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻣــﺪﻝ ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏــﺮﺏ ﺍﻳــﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫)‪ (FP-EI‬ﻫﻤﮕﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﭘﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﭻﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ‬ ‫‪WIRE>FPG_EC vs. WIRE>FPG_HW_1 vs. WIRE>FPG_EI_1 Crossplat‬‬
‫‪Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017‬‬

‫‪Well:A‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪A-‬ﻭ‪ ،B‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥﻧﺰﺩﻳﻜﻲﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻱﺭﺍﻧﺴﺒﺖﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎﻧﺸﺎﻥﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥﻓﺸﺎﺭﺷﻜﺴﺖﺣﺎﺻﻞﺍﺯﻣﺪﻝﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪A-‬‬
‫ﻭ‪0/562 ،B‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 0/627‬ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥﻓﺸﺎﺭﺷﻜﺴﺖﻣﺪﻝﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﭼــﺎﻩ‪ 0/697 ،A-‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭼــﺎﻩ‪ 0/686 ،B-‬ﺍﺳــﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷــﻜﻞ‪ 5-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳــﻪﺑُﻌﺪﻱ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺩﺭ ﭼــﺎﻩ‪ A-‬ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻧﺴــﺒﺖ ﺑﻪﻫﻢ ﻧﺸــﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫‪Functons:‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﺩ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬‬ ‫‪o: Regression Logs: WIRE.FPG_EI_1. WIRE.FPG_HW-1. CC: 0.995707‬‬
‫))‪FPG_HW = (0.379415 + 0.433285*(FPG_EI‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻲ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻏﻴﺮﺧﻄﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﻪﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪A-‬‬
‫ﻣﺸــﺎﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﻐﻴﻴــﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ B-‬ﻧﻴﺰ ﻭﺟــﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﭘﺮﻫﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺷــﻜﻞﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﺝ‬
‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪A-‬ﻭ‪B‬‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺻﺮﻑﻧﻈﺮ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪1-‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ )‪(psi/ft‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﻩ ﻣﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬ ‫ﭼﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ ﻭ‬ ‫)‪(psi/ft‬‬ ‫)‪(psi/ft‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ )‪ 0/562‬ﺗﺎ ‪(0/571‬‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ )‪0/686‬‬ ‫‪0/627‬‬ ‫‪0/571‬‬ ‫‪0/697‬‬ ‫‪0/409‬‬ ‫‪1/063‬‬ ‫‪A‬‬
‫ﺗﺎ ‪ (0/697‬ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪0/622‬‬ ‫‪0/562‬‬ ‫‪0/686‬‬ ‫‪0/404‬‬ ‫‪1/057‬‬ ‫‪B‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ‪ 6-‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﻪﺑُﻌﺪﻱ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﺎﻣﺒﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ B-‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﻭ ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‪ A -‬ﻭ ‪B‬‬
‫ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕﻓﺸﺎﺭﺷﻜﺴﺖﺑﻴﻦﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ )‪(psi‬‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎً‬ ‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬‬ ‫)‪(psi‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬ ‫ﭼﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬‬ ‫)‪(psi‬‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻚﺑﻪﻳﻚ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻭﺍﮔﺮﺍ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬

‫ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ‬ ‫‪883‬‬ ‫‪640‬‬ ‫‪979‬‬ ‫‪494‬‬ ‫‪1053‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏــﺮﺏ ﺍﻳــﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‪-‬ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﻧﻴﺰ‬ ‫‪1425‬‬ ‫‪1346‬‬ ‫‪1611‬‬ ‫‪953‬‬ ‫‪2393‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫‪A‬‬
‫ﺧﻂ ﺑــﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻳﻚﺑﻪﻳﻚ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎً ﺧﻄﻲ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ِ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻲ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺣــﺪﻭﺩﺍ ً ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ‬ ‫‪1276‬‬ ‫‪1188‬‬ ‫‪1422‬‬ ‫‪842‬‬ ‫‪2140‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻖ ‪2000 ft‬‬

‫ﺭﺍ ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ 2-‬ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﻭ ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬ ‫‪869‬‬ ‫‪751‬‬ ‫‪948‬‬ ‫‪551‬‬ ‫‪1484‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﺬﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ‬
‫‪1497‬‬ ‫‪1456‬‬ ‫‪1749‬‬ ‫‪1044‬‬ ‫‪2480‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫‪B‬‬
‫ﭼﺎﻩ‪ A-‬ﻭ‪ B‬ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‪-‬ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ )‪1611‬‬ ‫‪1216‬‬ ‫‪1064‬‬ ‫‪1330‬‬ ‫‪762‬‬ ‫‪2126‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻖ ‪2000 ft‬‬

‫‪39‬‬
 Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017

2200
2000
1800
1600
WELL B
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ‬-‫ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬

B-‫ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‬4

40
 1392 ‫ ﻣﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﺎﻩ‬/ 103 ‫ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‬/‫ ﺗﺮﻭﻳﺠﻰ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﮔﺎﺯ‬-‫ﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ‬

‫( ﻭ ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ‬1749psi ‫ﺗــﺎ‬ WIRE>FP_EI vs. WIRE.FP_HW vs. WIRE.FP_EC Crossplat
.‫( ﺍﺳﺖ‬751psi ‫ ﺗﺎ‬640) ‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬-‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬ Well:B
Downloaded from ekteshaf.nioc.ir at 10:38 IRST on Wednesday February 22nd 2017

‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬
0
‫ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﺘﺮﻭﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﻲ‬
‫ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬.‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺪﻝﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬
،‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‬-‫ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺲ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬-‫ﻛﺎﺳــﺘﺎﮔﻨﺎ ﻭ ﻫﻮﺑﺮﺕ‬-‫ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺰﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻣﺨــﺰﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ‬
.‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻳﻜﻨﻮﺍﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺸﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ‬
‫ ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖ‬0/628 ‫ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ‬B‫ﻭ‬A-‫ﭼﺎﻩ‬
‫ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭ‬Pf .‫ ﺍﺳــﺖ‬Pf=0/628×D ‫ﺑﻪﺷــﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﻪ‬
.‫ ﺍﺳﺖ‬ft ‫ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ‬D ‫ ﻭ‬psi ‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﺩﻭ‬
‫ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺑﺨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬B‫ﻭ‬A-‫ﭼﺎﻩ‬
.‫ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ‬
Functons:
‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ‬-‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﻳﺘﻮﻥ‬ reg: Regression Logs: WIRE.FP_EC. WIRE.FP_HW. CC: 0.997575
،‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ‬ FP_HW = (20.2799 + 0.890464*(FPG_EC))

‫ﺍﺯ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻲﻫــﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻲﺗــﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌــﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﻭ‬

.‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‬ B-‫ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﻪﺑﻌﺪﻱ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺪﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﻩ‬6

‫ﭘﺎ ﻧﻮﻳﺲ ﻫﺎ‬

1.
khoshbakhtf@ripi.ir 6.
Gulf Coast
2.
Shell 7.
Eaton
3.
Hubbert 8.
Leak Of Test
4.
Hubbert-Willis 9.
Castagna
5.
Matthews –Kelly 10.
Bastos

‫ﻣﻨــــﺎﺑﻊ‬

16-18 October 2012.

[5] Marongiu-Porcu M., Ehlig-Economides C. A., Economides M.
J., Global Model for Fracture Falloff Analysis, North American
Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, , 14-16 June 2011.
[6] Nadeev A., Yudin A., Sudeev I., Pestrikov A., Nikitin A., Sitdikov
S., Timonov А., Improved Hydraulic Fracture Modeling Based on
Geomechanical Correlation Functions to Optimize Development
of Priobskoe Oilfield, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia,
16-18 October 2012.
[7] T.J.H., Blaise Manual: Pressure Evaluation Software, version 1.23,
June 2004.
[8] Davletbaev A., Baikov V., Doe T., Emchenko O., Zainulin A.,
Igoshin A, Fedorov A., Fracture-Based Strategies for Carbonate
Reservoir Development, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October 2010.
‫ ﭼﺎپ‬،‫ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ‬،‫ ﺭﺣﻴﻤﻲ ﺑﻬﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻛﺒﺮ‬،‫[ ﭘﻮﺭﺻﻴﺎﻣﻲ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ‬1]
1389،‫ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻔﺖ‬،‫ﺍﻭﻝ‬
[2]. Shuling Li, and Shiguo Wu, Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient
Prediction in Shale Gas Formations; Accounting for Complex Rock
Properties and Anisotropies, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Tech-
nology Conference and Exhibition, Tianjin, China, 9-11 July, 2012.
[3] Espina C., Baldassa D., Sorenson F., López E., Bonapace J., Quin-
tavalla C., Hydraulic Fracturing: Modeling & Optimization Using
Latest Generation Logs and Conductivity Optimization Technolo-
gies, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Wood-
lands, Texas, USA, 19-21 January 2009.
[4] Nadeev A., Yudin A., Sudeev I., Pestrikov A., Nikitin A., Sitdikov
S., Timonov А., Improved Hydraulic Fracture Modeling Based on
Geomechanical Correlation Functions to Optimize Development of
Priobskoe Oilfield, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration and Pro-
duction Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, ,

41