Geotechnical Factors and

Guidelines for Storage of

Compressed Air in Solution
Mined Salt Cavities
R. D. Allen
T. J. Doherty
R. 1. Thorns

M a y 1982

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
by Battelle Memorial Institute
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied. or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com-
pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recornmerodation,or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state c;r reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY

operated by
BATTELLE
for the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 7830

Printed in the United States of America

Available from
National Technical Information Service
United States Department of Commerce
5285 Port Rcval Road
Springl~eld.Virginia 22151

NTlS Price Codes

Microfiche A01

Printed Copy
Price
Pages Codes
GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS AND
GUIDELINES FOR STORAGE OF
COMPRESSED AIR I N SOLUTION
MINED SALT CAVITIES

R. D. A l l e n
T. J. Doherty
R. L. Thorns

May 1982

Prepared f o r
t h e U.S. Department o f Energy
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830

P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory
Rich1and, Washington 99352
 FOREWORD

The Compressed A i r Energy Storage (CAES) Technology Program i s

funded by t h e D i v i s i o n o f Energy Storage Technology (EST) o f t h e U.S.
Department o f Energy (DOE). The program i s charged w i t h developing t h e
advanced technology base necessary f o r t h e c y c l i c a l storage o f compressed
a i r i n geologic r e s e r v o i r s by e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s . Low c o s t baseload
e l e c t r i c i t y , a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g off- peak periods, i s used t o compress a i r
and d e l i v e r i t t o t h e underground r e s e r v o i r . The p o t e n t i a l mechanical
energy i s u t i l i z e d t o generate e l e c t r i c i t y d u r i n g peak- load periods.
T h i s storage technique reduces o r e l i m i n a t e s t h e burning o f f l u i d f o s s i l
f u e l s t h a t c u r r e n t l y power i n e f f i c i e n t peaking t u r b i n e generators. The
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s technology r e q u i r e s e f f e c t i v e l i a i s o n among t h e
government sponsor, prime and subcontractors, e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s and
t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a r c h i t e c t - e n g i n e e r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , machinery
manufacturers, and environmental s p e c i a l i s t s .

T h i s document provides these o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h t h e l a t e s t research

on s t a b i 1it y t o p i c s s p e c i f i c t o CAES u s i n g s o l ution- mined s a l t c a v i t i e s
f o r a i r storage. C u r r e n t l y , t h e o n l y CAES o p e r a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y i n t h e
w o r l d i s l o c a t e d a t Huntorf, West Germany. T h i s CAES f a c i l i t y uses two
solution - mined s a l t caverns f o r a i r storage and has been o p e r a t i n g
s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r more than 2 years. S t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a f o r solution-
mined s a l t caverns from t h e H u n t o r f f a c i l i t y and r e c e n t f i e l d and l a b o r a t o r y
studies are included i n t h i s report.
 SUMMARY

The s t a t e o f knowledge about u t i l i z a t i o n o f solution- mined s a l t

c a v i t i e s f o r CAES i n c l u d i n g l a b o r a t o r y experiments, numerical modeling,
f i e l d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , s o l u t i o n m i n i n g experience, and o p e r a t i n g
parameters i s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s r e p o r t . S a l t caverns f o r CAES systems
w i 11 undergo d a i l y c y c l e s o f pressure, temperature, and humidity.
Effects t h a t c o u l d damage t h e cavern must be c o n t r o l l e d . Topics evaluated
i n r e c e n t s t u d i e s include:
cavern geometry and s i z e
long- term creep and creep r u p t u r e o f r o c k s a l t
e f f e c t s o f pressure and temperature l o a d i n g r a t e s
low frequency f a t i g u e , coupled w i t h c y c l i c pressure, temperature,
and w e t t i n g c o n d i t i o n s
progressive deterioration o f s a l t f a b r i c w i t h possible a i r penetration
cavern m o n i t o r i n g methods
s a l t p r o p e r t i e s a t nonambient c o n d i t i o n s .

Studies c i t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t have i d e n t i f i e d several c r i t e r i a t h a t

c o u l d serve as g u i d e l i n e s f o r long- term s t a b i l i t y o f s a l t c a v i t i e s :

C a v i t y f l o o r depths t o 1524 m may be acceptable depending on s i t e

conditions. For t h e a n t i c i p a t e d maximum o p e r a t i n g pressures o f 9.0
MPa o r less, optimal depth t o cavern r o o f i s about 800 m. (Maximum
a i r pressure i s t o be 1.639 MPa p e r 100 m o f depth. )

C a v i t y w a l l temperatures should n o t exceed 80°C.

C a v i t y s e p a r a t i o n ( c e n t e r - t o - c e n t e r ) t o diameter r a t i o (S/D) should

be a t l e a s t 4. S a l t t h i c k n e s s between a cavern w a l l and t h e l a t e r a l
s a l t dome boundary should be a t l e a s t 3 times t h e cavern diameter.

Mininlum t h i c k n e s s o f s a l t above a s o l u t i o n c a v i t y should be 150 m.

The r a t i o o f overburden s a l t thickness t o c a v i t y span i s t o be a t
l e a s t 2.5. Cavern span should n o t exceed 60 m.

C a v i t y h e i g h t t o diameter r a t i o (H/D) should be i n t h e range o f 1

t o 5.
 Octahedral shear strength should l i e between 3.8 and 5.2 MPa.
In-situ horizontal stress should not exceed 120% of overburden
pressure.
Depressurization should not exceed 1 MPa/hr.
Salt cavities must be protected against ground water encroachment.
Surface subsidence i n the region overlying a CAES cavity must not be
significant.
Accessory minerals i n s a l t reduce self-healing of fractures and
contribute to irregular cavern shapes. Site selection w i 11 take
t h i s into consideration.
This document i s not a general geotechnical engineering manual for
solution mining and use of s a l t caverns for storage, b u t confines i t s e l f
to those topics which will be of concern to cavern designers who are
dealing specifically with the CAES application. Familiarity w i t h the
concepts of geologic engineering i s assumed as i s some knowledge of the
compressed a i r energy storage technology.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Technical d i r e c t i o n o f the o v e r a l l CAES Program has been provided

since i n c e p t i o n by W. V. L o s c u t o f f and L. 0. Kannberg. Substantial
technical c o n t r i b u t i o n s have been supplied by R. L. Thorns o f Louisiana
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ( a l s o an author) and S. Serata o f Serata Geomechanics
i n p r i o r documentation. Susan J. Arey meticul uously prepared the several
drafts. Steven E. Farkas o f Central Washington U n i v e r s i t y developed the
f i r s t compilation o f s a l t CAES cavern guide1 ines w h i l e working a t PNL
under a National Science Foundation fellowship.
 CONTENTS

FOREWORD ............................. iii

SUMMARY ............................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................... v ii
FIGURES ............................. xiii
TABLES .............................. xiv
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 STORAGE I N SALT CAVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.0 GEOLOGICAL ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .................. 9
3.2 PETROLOGYANDMINERALOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 STRATIGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5 HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6 SITE QUALIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6.1 I n i t i a l Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6.2 Geophysical Surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.3 Exploratory D r i l l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.4 Rock C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6.5 Hydrologic C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.6 H u n t o r f Q u a l i f i c a t i o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.0 SOLUTION MINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 BASIC PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 CIRCULATION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2.1 Direct Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2.2 Reverse C i r c u l a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 CAVERNDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.1 Conductor Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.2 Surface Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3.3 I n t e r m e d i a t e Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3.4 Product Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 4.4 HUNTORF EXPERIENCE .................... 29
4.5 BRINE DISPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.6 BRINE DISPOSAL WELLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.1 Conductor Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.2 Surface Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.3 Product Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.4 I n j e c t i o n Tubing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.0 CAVERN STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1 MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1.1 T r i a x i a l Compression T e s t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1.2 Creep Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.3 Compressed A i r Energy Storage Environment . . . . . 44
5.1.4 Loading Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2 CYCLIC LOADING TESTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.3 NUMERICAL MODELING OF MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . 49
5.4 VARIABLES OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4.1 Cavern Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4.2 Cavern A i r Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4.3 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.4.4 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.4.5 Other P r o p e r t i e s o f S a l t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.4.6 Cavern Height/Diarneter R a t i o . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4.7 Cavern Separation Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5 PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF SINGLE CAVERNS . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5.1 Cavern Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5.2 Cavern A i r Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5.3 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5.4 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h o f S a l t . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5.5 Other P r o p e r t i e s o f S a l t ............. 57
5.5.6 ...........
Cavern Height/Diameter R a t i o 57
5.6 TWO-CAVERN INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.6.1 Cavern Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 5.6.2 Cavern Air Pressure . . . . . . . ......... 58
...............
5.6.3 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s 59
5.6.4 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h............. 59
5.6.5 O t h e r P r o p e r t i e s o f S a l t . . . .
......... 59
5.6.6 Cavern Separation Distance ............ 59
5.7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA ............... 60
5.7.1 Basis of C r i t e r i a ................. 60
5.7.2 CavernDepth . . . . . . . . . . ......... 60
5.7.3 Cavern Depressurization .............. 60
5.7.4 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s . . . . . .
......... 61
5.7.5 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h. . . .
......... 61
.............
5.7.6 Other P r o p e r t i e s of S a l t 61
5.7.7 Cavern HeightlDiameter Ratio . . ......... 61
5.7.8 Cavern Separation/Distance Ratio ......... 62
5.8 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . ......... 62
5.8.1 Long-Term S t a b i l i t y. . . . . . .
......... 62
5.8.2 Design C r i t e r i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 62
5.8.3 Measure of Cavern S t a b i l i t y . . . . . . . ..... 62
5.8.4 C o n s t i t u t i v e Equations . . . . . . . . . ..... 63
5.8.5 Cyclic Loading T e s t s . . . . . . . . . . ..... 63
................
5.8.6 Temperature E f f e c t s 63
6.0 CAVERN DESIGN AND OPERATION .................. 65
6.1 DESIGN GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . .
......... 65
6.2 GEOLOGIC FACTORS ..................... 66
6.2.1 E f f e c t of Impurities on Mining .
......... 66
6.2.2 Caprock I n s t a b i l i t y . . . . . . .
......... 67
6.2.3 Creep Deformation ................. 67
6.2.4 Surface Subsidence ................ 68
6.3 CAVERN CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . .
......... 69
.............
6.3.1 Octahedral S h e a r s t r e n g t h 69
...............
6.3.2 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s 69
6.3.3 Depth t o Cavern Top. . . . . . .
......... 70
 6.3.4 L a t e r a l S a l t Thickness .............. 70
6.3.5 V e r t i c a l S a l t Thickness and Span . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3.6 Height.to-DiameterRatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.4 INJECTION AND DECOMPRESSION PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . 72
6 * 4 . l Cavern Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.4.2 Cavern A i r Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.4.3 D e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.4.4 I n j e c t i o n Parameters a t H u n t o r f . . . . . . . . . 75
6.5 COMPARISON OF NONCOMPENSATED AND COMPENSATED CAVERNS . . 75
6.5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.5.2 R e l a t i v e E f f e c t s on Cavern S t a b i l i t y . . . . . . . 76
6.6 CAVERN MONITORING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.0 D E S I G N A N D S T A B I L I T Y C R I T E R I A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 FIGURES

Major Salt Deposits and Mines in the United States ...... 7

Casing Configuration for Sump and Cavity Construction. . . . . 20
Typical Cavern Construction Using Direct Circulation . . . . . 22
Typical Cavern Construction Using Reverse Circulation. .... 25
Typical Development Concept . ................. 26
Typical Cavern Development Well Configuration. . . . . . . . . 27
NWK Huntorf Cavern Shape Complying with Requirements
of Rock Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 31
Typical Disposal We1 1 Casing Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 33
General Response of Rock Salt to Load Applied at to. . . . . . 36
Brazilian Test Results for Salt from Different Sources . . . . 37
Typical Stress Strain Curves for Rock Salt .......... 39
Strength of Rock Salt at 2% Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Strength of Rock Salt at 10% Deformation ..... . . .... 41
Strength of Rock Salt at 20% Deformation . . . . . . . .... 42
In Situ Representation by Triaxial Extension Test . . . .... 43
Triaxial Extension Creep Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 45
Uniaxial Compression Creep Tests . . . . . . . . . . . .... 45
1 Geology o f Major U.S. S a l t Basins ........... . . .. 8

2 Variables Considered i n Analyzing CAES Cavern Design . . . .. 52

3 Values and Ranges o f CAES Cavern Parameters . . . . . . . . .. 53

4 M a t e r i a l P r o p e r t i e s o f Rock S a l t a t Room Temperature . . . .. 54

5 Base Values and Ranges o f P r i n c i p a l Parameters Used i n

Two-Cavern Analysis ...................... 58

6 R e l a t i v e E f f e c t s f o r Compensated Versus Noncompensated CAES

Caverns i n S a l t Domes ..................... 76

7 Design and S t a b i l i t y C r i t e r i a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
 GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS AND GUIDELINES FOR STORAGE OF COMPRESSED AIR
IN SOLUTION-MINED SALT CAVITIES

INTRODUCTION

Compressed a i r energy storage (CAES) involves the reversible conversion

of electrical to mechanical energy and effects the storage of low cost
base load e l e c t r i c i t y for recovery during peak demand periods. Geologic
space w i t h i n a hard rock cavern, solution-mined s a l t cavity, or naturally
porous, water-bearing formation i s used to store the required large
volumes of compressed a i r . Electrical energy i s produced by heating
the compressed a i r and passing i t through staged surface turbines.
Heat may be added by combustion of fossil fuel or by addition of the
original heat of compression from a thermal storage reservoir.
Massive s a l t deposits exist in many locations throughout the world
(Fenix and Scisson 1978). Many of these deposits have been used for
constructing underground solution-mined caverns in which such diverse
hydrocarbon fuels as natural gas, hydrogen, propane, butane, ethylene,
and gasoline, have been stored. Because of i t s unique combination of
characteristics, s a l t i s an ideal rock for cavern construction. I t i s
general ly inipervious to 1i q u i d or gaseous hydrocarbons, has a compressive
strength comparable t o concrete, moves plastically to seal fractures or
voids, and can be easily mined by dissolution in water. Three basic
conditions must e x i s t a t the location where storage f a c i l i t i e s are
needed i f solution mining i s to be used. for cavern construction: 1 ) a
sufficient thickness of structurally competent s a l t a t a proper depth,
without an excess of interbedded insolubles; 2 ) an adequate supply of
raw water for leaching the s a l t ; and 3 ) an environmentally acceptable
and economical means of brine disposal.
In cavern storage (hard rock and s a l t ) the compressed a i r reservoir
may be either compensated or uncompensated (Chang e t a l . 1980). In a
compensated reservoir the a i r pressure i s determined by the height of a
water or brine column extending from the cavern base to a surface pond.
This height and the a i r pressure will remain nearly constant, whereas the
effective reservoir volume will vary considerably in accord with the
compression-utilization cycle. In an uncompensated reservoir the a i r
pressure will vary b u t the volume will remain constant. Because turbine
performance i s dependent upon maintaining pressure w i t h i n a reasonably
narrow band, the cavern must be sufficiently oversized to prevent catastrophic
pressure drops during power generation. This over-sizing requirement i s
economically more attractive in s a l t cavern solution mining than in hard
rock excavation.
D u r i n g the proposed 30- to 50-year operational lifetime of a CAES
cavern the subterranean system of containment and shafts could be
subjected to between 15,000 and 20,000 loading/unloading cycles. The
cyclic effects produced will result from pressurization/depressurization,
temperature additions and subtractions associated with compression and
expansion of the a i r , and waterlhumidity concentrations associated with
pressure compensation and the presence of water vapor within the compressed
a i r . Degradation of the exposed rock surface can be caused by fatigue
from expansion/contraction and by accelerated weathering produced by
heated oxygenlwater contact with rock surface and crevices. To minimize
the risk of either structural or airlwater leakage i n s t a b i l i t y , the
geotechnical characteristics and material properties of any rock mass
m u s t be quantified before designing a cavern.
The primary objective of the studies reported herein was to
compile prel iminary c r i t e r i a to ensure stabi 1i t y of CAES caverns sol ution-
mined from domal or bedded rock s a l t . This report summarizes essential
numerical modeling results, as well as laboratory work, and field- scale
research. The material i s based upon pub1 i shed and unpubl ished information
relating to the geotechnical behavior of rock s a l t masses and describes the
principal factors affecting CAES i n solution-mined s a l t cavities. Most
factors r e l a t e to cavern design, s i t e geology, and operating conditions.
 Section 2 presents background information about storage of natural
gas and petroleum i n s a l t caverns developed by solution mining. The
Huntorf CAES plant caverns are described. The candidate s a l t deposits
of the United States and prospects for their utilization are described.
Section 3 t r e a t s the geological factors and includes: 1 ) general
( s i t i n g ) requirements, 2 ) petrology and mineralogy, 3 ) structural features,
4) stratigraphy, 5) hydrology, and 6 ) s i t e qualification ( i n i t i a l screening,
geophysical surveying, exploratory d r i l l ing, rock characterization,
hydro1ogical characterization and Huntorf qua1 i fication).
Section 4 describes basic elements of solution mining. These
include drilling, water injection and brine displacement. The solution
mining experience a t Huntorf i s described.
Section 5 describes cavern stabi 1i ty based upon numerical model ing
and laboratory studies of rock mechanics. The parameters addressed are
cavern depth, cavern a i r pressure, excess lateral s t r e s s , rock s a l t strength,
cavern heightldiameter ratio, and cavern separation/diameter ratio.
Section 6 t r e a t s six aspects of cavern design and operation: 1 )
design guide1 ines, 2 ) geologic factors, 3) cavern characteristics, 4)
injection and decompression parameters, 5) comparison of noncompensated
and compensated caverns, and 6) cavern monitoring.
Preliminary design and s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a are tabulated in Section 7 .
Although many are assigned numbers, others are handled with qualitative
statements. Reservoir properties such as rock s a l t strength, horizontal
stress, temperature, pressure, depth, wall thickness, and rate of depressurization
are specified in the light of previous storage or CAES experience,
numerical modeling and rock mechanical experiments.
 2.0 STORAGE I N SALT CAVITIES

Caverns have been solution- mined from both bedded and domal s a l t
f o r s t o r i n g n a t u r a l gas and petroleum. The f i r s t c a v i t y f o r n a t u r a l
gas storage was leached from bedded s a l t a t M a r y s v i l l e , Michigan i n 1948.
Since then t h e m a j o r i t y o f c a v i t i e s have been solution- mined w i t h i n
G u l f Coast s a l t domes (Weinstein e t a l . 1978).

Both types o f s a l t d e p o s i t s have been s t u d i e d t o d e t e r n i n e t h e i r

feasi b i 1 it i es f o r 1ong-tern1 containment of hazardous nuclear and chemical
wastes. The r e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s and experience w i t h s t o r i n g
hydrocarbon f l u i d s p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n germane t o t h e storage o f compressed
air. However, CAES storage r a i s e s more concerns w i t h s t a b i l i t y than
r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c forms o f storage (Thorns 1978).

The concept o f u t i l i z i n g surplus baseload e l e c t r i c a l power t o

compress a i r f o r o p e r a t i n g gas t u r b i n e s t o decrease conventional e l e c t r i c a l
p r o d u c t i o n peaks can be c r e d i t e d t o Professor Bozidar D j o r d j e v i t c h o f
Yugoslavia (Weinstein e t a1 1978). . The CAES method was patented i n t h e
U.S. i n 1948 (Gay 1948) and i n t h e Federal Republic o f Germany i n March 1956.
The Geological Survey o f t h e Federal Republic o f Germany recommended
abandoned s a l t and potash mines as t h e most t e c h n i c a l l y and economically
f e a s i b l e geologic containments f o r compressed a i r . The development o f
t h e s o l ution- mined cavern concept permi t t e d t h e CAES design t o specify
cavern depth, shape and w a l l q u a l i t y .

I n l a t e 1978, t h e w o r l d ' s f i r s t CAES p l a n t went o n - l i n e a t Huntorf,

3
West Germany. Two c a v i t i e s o f about 150,000 m each were s o l u t i o n -
mined w i t h i n a domal s t r u c t u r e i n t h e Zechstein s a l t . A i r i s stored a t
pressures up t o 7.0 MPa (Quast and Lorenzen 1979). The t o p of t h e s a l t
mass i s about 500 m below ground and t h e c a v i t y tops a r e a t l e a s t 600 m
be1ow ground surface. The maximum c a v i t y diameter i s 60 m. Cavity
h e i g h t i s 180 m. The s a l t p i l l a r thickness between c a v i t i e s i s 160 m.
The s a l t thickness above t h e c a v i t i e s i s 100 m. The maximum s t o r a g e
pressure permissible i s computed a t 10.0 MPa. Design and development of
the Huntorf f a c i l i t y i s described in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.
Massive bedded s a l t deposits occur in sedimentary basins within the
west-central , southern, and north-central United States (Figure 1 ).
Diapiric s a l t domes, which are intrusions of relatively pure s a l t from
their original beds into the overlying sediments, occur in the Gulf
Coast region of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Bedded s a l t deposits
occur in the Paradox Basin of Colorado and Utah. Depths and thicknesses
of major U.S. s a l t basins are shown in Table 1 (Querio 1980). Many
deposits have been or are currently being mined by both room-and-pillar
excavation and solution extraction techniques.
The s a l t deposits are located mostly in areas of known low seismic
risk and long term geologic s t a b i l i t y . Faulting near s a l t domes i s
associated with t h e i r diapiric emplacement and i s not attributable to
large regional tectonic stresses. Domal and some bedded s a l t s have
excellent structural properties, including high compressive strength
(comparable t o concrete) and plasticity, which under ideal conditions
may passively re1 ieve stress by deformation rather than fracture.
Properties of s a l t domes that make them most compatible with controlled
solution-mining of CAES chambers are:
nearly homogeneous lithology consisting of about 95% halite with
minor accessory minerals
large deposits occurring a t relatively shallow depths
.
.
imperviousness to saturated, stagnant ground water
chemical compatibility w i t h oxygen.
The value of the U.S. s a l t dome resource i s now being recognized.
Development of s a l t domes for hydrocarbon storage, radioactive waste
isolation, waste disposal, and other important uses requires a serious
consideration of space utilization. Systematic planning i s necessary t o
permit future accommodation of current and potential uses.
 TABLE 1 . Geology of Major U.S. Salt Basins (Querio 1980)

Location Range in Depth Maximum Thickness

Sabin Basin
Michigan 150 - 1920 m
New York 215 - 915 m
Ohio 245 - 1830 m
Pennsylvania 670 - 2750 m
Gulf Coast Basin Over 300 s a l t domes Not measured
a t various depths
Williston Basin Generally 1525 m 92 m
Permian Basin 61 - 1220 m 150 m inter-
s t r a t i f i e d with
shale
Paradox Basin 65 m
Supai Basin 31 m

Early development of s a l t domes a t shallow depths may preclude

future deep development i f allowances are not made for additional
access space. For example, the Bayou Choctaw Salt Dome i s extensively
used for light hydrocarbon storage. Twenty-three cavities have been
created in t h i s dome w i t h storage capacities ranging between 3,000 and
17,000 barrels. The current space utilization pattern of t h i s dome may
preclude some types of future development such as CAES systems. For
example, hydrocarbon storage cavities usually are su:~jectedto less
severe loading environments than those expected for CAES systems. As
a result, a system of cavities ideally spaced for hydrocarbon storage
may disqualify the dome for safe containment of CAES cavities a t an optimal
depth (Martinez and Thoms 1977).
Geologic, operational, and institutional issues must be resolved
a t each potential s i t e during the design, construction, and utilization
of a solution-mined cavity for CAES. The remainder of this report
concentrates on the geologic and operational issues revealed in the
l i t e r a t u r e on rock s a l t cavities.
 3.0 GEOLOGIC ISSUES

Geologic issues embrace a l l aspects of rock s a l t ' s natural

occurrence. These include i t s mi neralogi c and petrologic characteristics,
structure, stratigraphy, and interactions w i t h vadose, saturated and
confined aquifer zones.

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The s a l t deposit must be of sufficient diameter and thickness to
accommodate one or more solution-mined openings a t substantial distances
from the top, bottom, and sides of the formation. If multiple cavities
are to be mined the s a l t walls separating them m u s t be sufficiently
thick to prevent any cavern-to-cavern interaction. The s a l t quality
should be adequate to contain conipressed a i r without compromise due to
extensive impure zones or solution channels. The s a l t deposit may be a
dome, anticline or possibly a flat-bedded formation. The s a l t deposit
should not exhibit effects of significant dissolution, e.g., saline plumes
in normally fresh water aquifers. If the s a l t i s considered, the ideal
caprock would be impervious and tightly sealed to the underlying dome.
The history of the s a l t deposit should not divulge uncontrolled brining,
petroleum, or sul fur recovery operations that have compromised the
s a l t ' s integrity.

3.2 PETROLOGY AND MINERALOGY

Rock s a l t formations consist dominantly of halite, often in coarse
crystal sizes with individual orientations measuring up to many
millimeters parallel to each crystallographic axis. Other saline minerals
associated w i t h rock s a l t deposits include gypsum, anhydrite, sylvite,
and carnallite. More rarely, kainite and polyhalite may be associated
(Hurl b u t 1941). Calcite, clay minerals, and quartz are also found,
usually within particular zones. These relatively insoluble minerals
may represent indigenous impurities deposited due to interruptions i n
the evaporative process, e.g., an interim fresh water flood during prior
sedimentation periods.
 Weak s a l t , gas, b r i n e , i n c l u s i o n s , and gas o u t b u r s t s a r e known t o
occur i n s p a t i a l trends o r "zones" i n some Louisiana s a l t domes mined by
t h e room and p i l l a r method (Kupfer 1976, Kupfer 1978, Thoms and M a r t i n e z
1978a). Such trends a r e p o s s i b l y t h e c h i e f concern w i t h t h e i n t e g r i t y o f
s a l t domes f o r a l l kinds of storage. I n t h e g e n e r a l l y homogeneous and
r e l a t i v e l y l i g h t s a l t away from these zones, few problems a r e encountered
r e l a t i v e t o b r i n e , gas, w a l l s p a l l i n g , o r r o o f f a l l s . Furthermore, t h e
s a l t i n such areas i s r e l a t i v e l y impermeable. I n t h e t r e n d zones t h e
s a l t i s d a r k e r because o f i m p u r i t i e s and h i g h e r a n h y d r i t e content, and
i t may e x h i b i t g e n e r a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e f e a t u r e s o f inhomogeneity, s t r u c t u r a l
weakness, and r e l a t i v e permeabi 1i ty. Whether these f e a t u r e s " d i e o u t "
w i t h g r e a t e r depth remains t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . I n any case, t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n
o f such zones w i t h CAES caverns must be avoided; otherwise, t h e i n t e g r i t y
o f t h e a i r r e s e r v o i r c o u l d be jeopardized. Establishing the locations
o f these t r e n d s o r zones a p p a r e n t l y can be accomplished o n l y by thorough
g e o l o g i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g cored d r i l l holes. It has been
suggested t h a t some i n d i c a t i o n s o f such zones may be o b t a i n e d by mapping
t h e dome s u r f a c e w i t h complementary shallow seismic methods. Other
p o t e n t i a l i n d i r e c t methods i n c l u d e gravimetry, magnetometry and a c o u s t i c
holography (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

The Zechstein s a l t s t o c k u t i l i z e d f o r a i r storage a t H u n t o r f i s

composed m a i n l y o f r o c k s a l t w i t h 5 t o 10% a n h y d r i t e and c l a y , as w e l l
as some t h i n l a y e r s o f potash ( Q u a s t and Lorenzen 1979). Potash seams
and a n h y d r i t e l a y e r s were i d e n t i f i e d a l s o a t t h e f l a n k s o f t h e dome.

3.3 STRUCTURE

The cores of s a l t domes i n t h e U.S. are essentially circular i n

plan, and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y range i n diameter from 0.8 t o 3.2 km w i t h
some up t o 8 km i n diameter ( B i l l i n g s 1972). German s a l t domes a r e
comparable i n diameter. Russian s a l t domes on t h e n o r t h e a s t shore o f
t h e Caspian Sea range from 4.8 t o 12 km i n diameter. The cores o f t h e
Rumanian s a l t domes a r e e l l i p t i c a l i n p l a n w i t h t h e l o n g e r axes p a r a l l e l
t o t h e t r e n d o f associated f o l d s .
 I n many s a l t domes t h e w a l l s d i p s t e e p l y outward;t h e top niay be
f l a t o r domed. Some cores a r e symmetrical, t h e w a l l s d i p p i n g a t e s s e n t i a l l y
t h e same angle on a l l sides; o t h e r cores a r e asymmetrical, t h e w a l l s
d i p p i n g steeper on some sides than on others. I n many American domes
t h e upper c o r e overhangs o r "mushrooms". I n o t h e r words, although i n
t h e uppermost l e v e l s t h e core diameter increases downward, a t g r e a t e r
depth i t narrows again. Adequate p r o s p e c t i n g i s necessary t o p r e v e n t
s o l u t i o n m i n i n g t o o c l o s e t o a concealed overhung v e r t i c a l c o n t a c t
(Thorns and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

I n n o r t h e r n Louisiana, w e l l s have been d r i l l e d more than 1500 m

i n t o s a l t domes, and i n Germany w e l l s have been d r i l l e d 1220 m through
salt. The depths t o t h e bottoms o f these w e l l s a r e c o n j e c t u r a l .

Caprocks u s u a l l y o v e r l i e s a l t domes and may be over 30 m t h i c k , b u t

i n some domes they a r e absent. The caprock c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y c o n s i s t s
o f 1imestone, gypsum, and anhydri t e from top t o bottom. Comniercial
deposits o f s u l f u r and o t h e r m i n e r a l s occur i n some caprocks. For example,
uranium m i n e r a l s occur i n caprocks found i n southern Texas.

The domed sediments o v e r l y i n g t h e cores o f some s a l t domes a r e

t r a n s e c t e d by normal f a u l t s . These f a u l t s may be r a d i a l , 'but more
commonly they tend toward p a r a l l e l i s m i n which one o r more grabens a r e
identifiable. These f a u l t s show t h a t t h e sediments were subjected t o
t e n s i o n d u r i n g s a l t emplacement.

The depth of t h e c o r e beneath t h e s u r f a c e v a r i e s widely, and s a l t

domes a r e sometimes c l a s s i f i e d on t h i s basis ( B i l l i n g s 1972). Deep
domes a r e those i n which t h e t o p o f t h e c o r e i s 1525 m o r more beneath
t h e surface; i n some s o - c a l l e d deep domes, t h e evidence f o r t h e i r
e x i s t e n c e may be e n t i r e l y geophysical. Intermediate- depth domes a r e
those w i t h c o r e tops 1067 t o 1525 m below surface. Shallow domes a r e
those whose c o r e tops a r e l e s s than 1067 m deep. The shallow domes a r e
most s u i t a b l e f o r CAES.
 The s a l t anticlines of the Paradox Basin in Colorado and Utah are
folded rather than intrusive structures. This region probably has
substantial ly higher horizontal stresses than the Gulf Coast region
because i t l i e s within an orogenic belt. However, significant strain i s
likely a t depths of 915 m and greater in the Paradox Basin (Serata and
McNamara 1980). When the s a l t becomes viscoplastic no vertical/horizontal
stress differential can be maintained.

3.4 STRATIGRAPHY
The typical sedimentary sequence intruded by a s a l t dome shows
vertically variable lithology due to diverse epochs of sedimentation and
horizontal ly variable 1i thology due to facies changes. This variabi 1 i ty
i s further compounded by faulting caused by the upward diapiric movement
of the s a l t stock. The sediments surrounding a s a l t dome core are
uplifted into an anticlinal dome (Billings 1972). The sediments in
many instances are sharply truncated by the rock s a l t core, whereas in
other occurrences the bedding planes are parallel to the s a l t contact.
On t h i s basis s a l t domes may be classified as "piercement" and "non-
piercement" domes. Some domes may show both relationships; the cores
may trunc.ate the older formations on their flanks, b u t not the younger
s t r a t a near their tops.
The sedimentary rocks adjacent t o the cores have been dragged
upward many thousands of feet. The exact measurements may be calculated
by comparing the depth of a bed adjacent to a s a l t core w i t h i t s depth
where i t has not been disturbed by the s a l t intrusion.
Materials derived tectonically from intruded formations may be
incorporated within the peripheral regions of the s a l t . Such material
may e x i s t as gouge, breccia or larger horsts, reducing the contact
definition between s a l t and country rock. Gouge zones have been discovered
a t salt-sedimentary contacts in the Gulf Coast domes. Thick breccias
are reported locally surrounding Rumanian domes. The breccia fragments
are embedded in matrices of halite and gypsum.
3.5 HYDROLOGY

The G u l f Coast Embayment i s an h y d r o l o g i c basin o f considerable

s i z e w i t h a t h i c k sequence o f s o u t h e r l y d i p p i n g sedimentary s t r a t a .
Large volumes of ground water m i g r a t e o r a r e contained i n h i g h p e r m e a b i l i t y
a q u i f e r s i n these s t r a t a . A q u i f e r recharge takes p l a c e along t h e n o r t h e r n
p e r i m e t e r o f t h e embayment as a r e s u l t o f annual r a i n f a l l i n excess o f
100 cm (Aamodt e t a l . 1975).

N a t u r a l h y d r o s t a t i c pressure causes ground water t o r i s e t o t h e

surface i n areas o f f a u l t i n g o r s a l t dome i n t r u s i o n . Water- saturated
s t r a t a surround t h e s a l t domes t o considerable depths. The h y d r o l o g i c
regime o f each s a l t dome i s d i f f e r e n t , and i n f o r m a t i o n concerning h y d r o l o g i c
c o n d i t i o n s i s sparse, d e s p i t e t h e g r e a t d e n s i t y o f d r i l l i n g .

Because s a l t i s impermeable, i t a c t s as a b a r r i e r t o ground water.

The r a t e o f s a l t d i s s o l u t i o n i s dependent on t h e r a t e o f flow, f r a c t i o n a l
s a t u r a t i o n o f t h e water, and s o l u b i l i t y o f t h e s a l t formation.

A water problem can occur when s i n k i n g s h a f t s through very permeable

and s a t u r a t e d s t r a t a o r when l a r g e lenses o f water- bearing sandstones
a r e occasional l y encountered d u r i n g m i n i n g operations i n e i t h e r s a l t
domes o r bedded d e p o s i t s (Aamodt e t a1 1975). . D r i 11holes t h a t p e n e t r a t e
bedded s a l t d e p o s i t s and connect a q u i f e r s above and below can serve as
channels f o r t h e m i g r a t i o n o f water r e s u l t i n g i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f
salt. Because some s a l t domes and some bedded d e p o s i t s a r e surrounded
by s a t u r a t e d s t r a t a , f l o o d i n g o f mines can occur i f t h e impervious w a l l s
o f t h e s a l t a r e penetrated. The p o t e n t i a l a l s o e x i s t s f o r t h e f l o o d i n g
o f mined caverns by s u r f a c e streams, lakes, and impoundments.

A d e t a i l e d e x p l o r a t i o n program and a n a l y s i s o f h y d r o l o g i c c o n d i t i o n s
must be c a r r i e d o u t p r i o r t o and d u r i n g mining. E x c e l l e n t c o n t r o l must
be exercised d u r i n g m i n i n g operations. Leakage around t h e s h a f t p i p e
must be c o n t r o l l e d by sealants (Weinstein e t a1 . 1978).
3.6 SITE OUALIFICATION

The c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e system can be determined t o v a r y i n g

degrees o f d e t a i l by a combination of geophysical methods, e.g., seismic
and g r a v i t y techniques, and by r e f e r e n c e t o d r i l l i n g data. Drilling
d a t a a r e u s u a l l y considered as c o n t r o l p o i n t s f o r t h e seismic data;
however, t h e sources of such l o g s should be c a r e f u l l y reviewed p r i o r t o
weighing them w i t h a h i g h l e v e l of confidence.
S l a n t d r i l l i n g and
more sophi s t i cated (and expensive) geophysical methods can be employed
if r e q u i r e d t o d e f i n e s a l t boundaries (Thorns and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

3.6.1 I n i t i a l Screening

The s i t e - s p e c i f i c u t i 1i z a t i o n h i s t o r y o f p o t e n t i a l a i r s t o r a g e
s t r u c t u r e s should be researched t o ensure t h a t man-made e f f e c t s w i l l n o t
t h r e a t e n t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e c o n t a i n i n g s a l t . A number o f s a l t domes
i n t h e U.S. Gulf Coast have a h i s t o r y of s u l f u r mining, u n c o n t r o l l e d
( " w i l d " ) b r i n e operations, and o t h e r g e n e r a l l y p o o r l y d e f i n e d e a r l y
uses. There must be an absence o f man-made h y d r a u l i c f r a c t u r i n g connec-
t i o n s o r s o l u t i o n channels through t h e s a l t , p o s s i b l y due t o e a r l y b r i n e
production, t h a t c o u l d open under CAES o p e r a t i o n s (Thoms 1978). A good
r e c o r d o f a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n w e l l casings through caprock ( i f any) i n t o
s a l t i s also desirable. Any previous b r i n e and/or s u l f u r o p e r a t i o n s i n
caprock should be checked t o ensure t h a t associated e f f e c t s such as
s u r f a c e subsidence have e s s e n t i a l l y ceased and w i l l n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f f e c t CAES operation. R e s u l t s o f l e v e l r e c o r d i n g surveys may be a v a i l a b l e .
C a r e f u l study o f a l l h i s t o r i c a l records of dome u t i l i z a t i o n and discussions
w i t h l o c a l area r e s i d e n t s should be c a r r i e d o u t t o determine t h e c u r r e n t
s t a t u s o f any p a r t i c u l a r p o t e n t i a l CAES dome (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978a).

I l l u s t r a t i n g t h e importance o f c a r e f u l s i t e screening i s t h e r a p i d
creep t h a t occurred w i t h i n t h e Eminence dome i n M i s s i s s i p p i . The
n a t u r a l gas storage c a v i t i e s underwent a 40% volume r e d u c t i o n w i t h i n
several months a f t e r completion (Dreyer 1974). Roofs and f l o o r s of two
c a v i t i e s were a t approximate depths o f 1737 m and 2042 m, r e s p e c t i v e l y
( A l l e n 1972). Although t h e r o c k s a l t behavior around t h e Eminence
c a v i t i e s may have been anomalous f o r U.S. G u l f Coast domes, i t would
n o t be prudent t o propose p r e l i m i n a r y long- term c a v i t y s t a b i l it y c r i t e r i a
t h a t i g n o r e t h i s f i e l d example o f u n d e s i r a b l e behavior (Thoms 1979).

3.6.2 Geophysical Surveying

Seismic p r o s p e c t i n g using b o t h r e f r a c t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n methods

has been v e r y successful i n l o c a t i n g and d e l i n e a t i n g s a l t domes ( B i l l i n g s
1972). G r a v i t a t i o n a l methods have a1so been appl i e d w i t h success because
s a l t domes a r e u s u a l l y associated w i t h g r a v i t y anomalies due t o t h e low
d e n s i t y o f s a l t r e l a t i v e t o adjacent r o c k formations.
Resistivity
methods depend upon t h e f a c t t h a t s a l t domes appear as r e s i s t i v i t y
highs, probably because o f t h e absence o f ground water. I n some instances,
however, t h e dome may appear as a r e s i s t i v i t y low because s t r a t a o f low
r e s i s t i v i t y o v e r l i e t h e dome.

For three- dimensional mapping o f a s a l t s t r u c t u r e , seismic surveying

i s t h e most valuable geophysical method. The upper surface and surrounding
sedimentary s t r a t a can be mapped by r e f 1e c t i o n , whereas t h e deeper r e l a t i v e l y
steep boundaries o f t h e s t r u c t u r e can be mapped by both r e f r a c t i o n and
r e f l e c t i o n methods. Special techniques may be a p p l i e d t o mapping an
overhanging type dome. Seismic r e f l e c t i o n prospecting i s most a p p l i c a b l e
t o mapping s a l t a n t i c l i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .

3.6.3 Exploratory D r i l l i n g

A d r i l l i n g program i s developed t o reach several o b j e c t i v e s : 1)

v e r i f y t h e s a l t s t r u c t u r e d i v u l g e d by geophysical r e s u l t s ; 2) explore
and sample t h e caprock f o r mineralogy, p o r o s i t y / p e r m e a b i l i t y , adherence
t o t h e s a l t dome, and presence o f c o r r o s i v e geochemical substances ; 3 )
sample t h e s a l t dome f o r mineralogy, c r y s t a l s i z e and boundary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
presence o f l e s s e r q u a l i t y zones o r trends, and c o r e procurement f o r
mechanical p r o p e r t y determination; 4 ) geophysical l o g g i n g ; and 5) i n
s i t u s t r e s s measurement.

S l a n t d r i l l i n g may be r e q u i r e d t o a c c u r a t e l y determine t h e s t e e p l y
d i p p i n g l a t e r a l boundaries. Another p o s s i b l e approach t o l a t e r a l boundary
mapping would use a sonic source w i t h i n a borehole coupled w i t h geophones
( a l s o i n t h e borehole) t o measure t r a v e l times o f seismic waves from t h e
h o l e t o t h e s a l t boundary and back.

3.6.4 Rock C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n

Mined s a l t deposits c o n t a i n v e r y pure sodium c h l o r i d e w i t h minor

amounts of a n h y d r i t e , r e l a t e d s a l t s , and shales. These contaminants
u s u a l l y do n o t exceed 5% of t o t a l composition.
Minor amounts o f i n t e r s t i t i a l
water and gas (comnionly C02 and methane) may a l s o e x i s t . S a l t domes a r e
g e n e r a l l y more pure than bedded s a l t deposits, p o s s i b l y because o f a
n a t u r a l r e f i n i n g of domal s a l t d u r i n g i n t r u s i o n . S i n i i l a r l y , younger
c o a s t a l domes g e n e r a l l y a r e considered t o be more pure than t h e o l d e r
and more shallow i n t e r i o r donies (Aamodt e t a1 1975).

The i n h e r e n t imperviousness o f s a l t , whether bedded o r domal, i s

o f t e n enhanced by associated impermeable rock, e i t h e r as d i s c r e t e i n t e r v a l s
above, below, o r w i t h i n bedded d e p o s i t s w i t h t h e s a l t . Also, sometimes
t h e caprock over a s a l t dome may be impermeable and form an e f f e c t i v e
seal. I n some cases t h e caprock may be very permeable and cavernous and
pose problems f o r cavern borehol e developnient (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

The p u r i t y o f n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g s a l t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s h i g h l y
impermeable nature; thus, i t i s an i m p o r t a n t p r o p e r t y when c o n s i d e r i n g
p l a s t i c deformation, which a c t s t o c l o s e permeabl e openings. I n general ,
m i n e r a l s o t h e r than h a l i t e tend t o reduce t h e s e l f - h e a l i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f
r o c k s a l t (Aamodt e t a1. 1975).

Rock c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n procedures w i l l i n v o l v e o p t i c a l and e l e c t r o n

microscopic a n a l y s i s , x- ray d i f f r a c t i o n , x- ray spectrometry, chemical
a n a l y s i s , and p h y s i c a l and mechanical p r o p e r t y measurements. Accessory
m i n e r a l s and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d . D i f f e r e n t i a l thermal
a n a l y s i s may be u s e f u l t o i d e n t i f y s a l i n e hydrates.

C r y s t a l diameters i n p o l y c r y s t a l l i n e r o c k s a l t a r e r e l a t i v e l y
l a r g e , o f t e n more than 6 mm. Scale e f f e c t s may i n f l u e n c e l a b o r a t o r y
t e s t s u s i n g r e l a t i v e l y small specimens ( S t i c k n e y 1977). Some t e s t data
i m p l y t h a t dependence on diameter o f c y l i n d r i c a l s a l t specimens f a l l s
o f f s h a r p l y f o r c y l i n d e r s 10 cm o r more i n diameter w i t h l e n g t h t o
diameter r a t i o s o f 2 o r s l i g h t l y l a r g e r .

M i c r o f r a c t u r i n g o f r o c k s a l t may a f f e c t t h e degree o f p e n e t r a t i o n
of a i r and water along g r a i n boundaries and i n t e r n a l f r a c t u r e s under
c y c l i c CAES o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The q u a n t i t a t i v e importance o f t h i s
e f f e c t must be determined i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y . The damage zone thickness
due t o t h i s mechanism must be q u a n t i f i e d t o e s t a b l i s h optimal distances
between CAES caverns and between caverns and t h e p e r i p h e r i e s o f s a l t
domes surrounded by porous and s a t u r a t e d a q u i f e r s . Creep deformation o f
r o c k s a l t i n f l u e n c e d by a i r p e n e t r a t i o n under CAES operations must a l s o
be q u a n t i f i e d (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978b). I n s i t u t e s t i n g methods a r e
r e c e i v i n g increased a t t e n t i o n i n geotechnical engineering. For r o c k
s a l t mechanics i n p a r t i c u l a r , where l a r g e c r y s t a l s i z e s a r e encountered,
i n s i t u t e s t i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e as t e s t specimens a r e l i k e l y
t o be damaged by sample c o r i n g methods (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

I n s i t u CAES f i e l d t e s t s i n t h e J e f f e r s o n I s l a n d s a l t mine i n south

Louisiana have i n c l u d e d s t a t i c and c y c l e l o a d i n g (Thorns and Gehle 1981).
Diametral h o l e displacements and a c o u s t i c emissions showed c l o s e c o r r e l a t i o n .
Acoustic emission i s a promising method f o r m o n i t o r i n g o p e r a t i o n a l CAES
reservoirs. The f i e l d experiments showed t h a t s a l t permeabi 1 it y depends
upon l o a d h i s t o r y and c o n f i n i n g pressure.

3.6.5 Hydrologic Characterization

The p r i n c i p a l r e g i o n r e q u i r i n g study l i e s above t h e s a l t dome o r

a n t i c 1i n e . Unconfined o r confined a q u i f e r s o v e r l y i n g t h e dome must be
i s o l a t e d from a l l e x p l o r a t o r y boreholes and l a r g e r diameter p e n e t r a t i o n s .
Other g e o l o g i c s t r u c t u r e s c o n t a i n i n g water may c o n s i s t o f permeable
sedimentary lenses w i t h i n a s a l t formation, a b u t t i n g sedimentary s t r a t a ,
f a u l t zones a d j a c e n t t o o r above a s a l t f o r m a t i o n and a q u i f e r s below a
s a l t formation.

Stagnant water i n c o n t a c t w i t h s a l t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e an important

hazard t o t h e s a l t body's i n t e g r i t y because s a t u r a t e d water cannot d i s s o l v e
sodium c h l o r i d e . E x i s t i n g s t a b l e s a l t formation/ground water r e l a t i o n s h i p s
must n o t be perturbed by i n f u s i o n o f unsaturated ground water.
3.6.6 Huntorf Q u a l i f i c a t i o n
Before t h e s t a r t u p of t h e NWK p r o j e c t , t h e Huntorf s a l t dome was
thoroughly explored by f o u r w e l l s f o r a n a t u r a l gas s t o r a g e p r o j e c t w i t h i n the
same dome ( Q u a s t and Lorenzen 1979). The dome i s l o c a t e d about 20 km
e a s t of Oldenburg i n Lower Saxony. The s a l t dome i s a n e a r l y symmetrical
zone of Zechstein s a l t with an e l l i p t i c a l c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a of 12 km 2
a t 800 m below mean sea l e v e l . The Zechstein s a l t formation i s g e n e r a l l y
very complex and shows ample evidence of complicated geologic and t e c t o n i c
h i s t o r y . I t i s composed o f rock s a l t from t h e S t r a s s f u r t s e r i e s with
i m p u r i t i e s of 5 t o 10% a n h y d r i t e and c l a y and some t h i n l a y e r s of
potash. Potash seams and a n h y d r i t e l a y e r s were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e
f l a n k s o f t h e s a l t dome. In t h e c e n t r a l p a r t of t h e dome, w e l l s d r i l l e d
t o a depth of 950 m i d e n t i f i e d only s a l t l a y e r s of so- called "Zechstein
I I I " , which i s eminently s u i t a b l e f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of c a v i t i e s .
Wells have n o t been d r i l l e d deeper than 950 m t o d a t e . The bottom of
t h e Zechstein mass, however, i s probably approximately 3,000 t o 4,000 m
underground.
Each c a v i t y well was designed f o r a maximum a i r throughput of
210 kg/sec a t minimum f r i c t i o n l o s s e s . The l a s t cemented casing had a
diameter of 62.2 cni t o allow i n s t a l l a t i o n of a 50.8-cm diameter production
tubing. This t u b e can produce the necessary a i r flow r a t e s a t f r i c t i o n
l o s s e s o f l e s s than 300 kPa i n the design p r e s s u r e range. Because of
t h e high c o s t s and geologic risks involved i n large- diameter w e l l s ,
each l o c a t i o n s e l e c t e d was f i r s t probed by an e x p l o r a t o r y we1 1 of a
s m a l l e r diameter. Five e x p l o r a t i o n w e l l s were d r i l l e d between November 1974
and June 1975. Three we1 1 s t r a n s e c t e d rock s a l t l a y e r s a l t e r n a t i n g with
l a y e r s o f a n h y d r i t e and potash s a l t . I t was judged t h a t the compressed-
a i r c a v i t i e s should n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d i n any of t h e s e l o c a t i o n s . The
o t h e r two w e l l s confirmed t h e presence of s u i t a b l e rock s a l t l a y e r s with
p e r m i s s i b l e f r a c t i o n s of i n s o l u b l e components and potash s a l t . The
c a v i t y we1 l s , designated NK1 and NK2, were d r i l l e d by combined r o t a r y / a i r
l i f t d r i l l i n g 20 m from the e x p l o r a t i o n w e l l s during t h e period from
Apri 1 t o November 1975.
 4.0 SOLUTION MINING

The basic technique of cavern development involves drilling a hole

into the s a l t formation, injecting water, allowing time for dissolution
of the s a l t , and displacing the resulting brine from the hole (Fenix and
Scisson 1978). This section describes the basic process and the solution
mining experience a t Huntorf.

4.1 BASIC PROCESS

During i n i t i a l injection, the pressure differential between the
cavern's fluid entry point and i t s fluid e x i t point forces circulation.
As the cavern grows, the density differential between injected raw water
and brine causes gravity convection, which provides the necessary circulation
during the remainder of the leaching process.
A so-called blanket material i s a protective fluid that occupies
the space in the uppermost interval of the cavern. The blanket fluid i s
lighter than water and does not dissolve s a l t . I t s purpose i s to prohibit
leaching of s a l t from around the cemented casing and assure a pressure
tight cavern. The blanket also prohibits development of high spots from
which the stored product could not be removed. In addition, i t protects
the product casing from internal corrosion and can be used to r e s t r i c t
i n i t i a l leaching to the upper limit of the interval selected for the
sump. Typical blanket fluids are natural gas, propane, butane, diesel
o i l , and crude o i l .
Relatively insoluble minerals common in dome s a l t include quartz,
anhydrite, gypsum, and clay minerals. As leaching proceeds, insoluble
minerals accumulate i n the bottom of the cavern. This deposit may cause
plugging of the wash string or r e s t r i c t free circulation. If t h i s
occurs the wash casing must be raised to a new position before leaching
continues. The problem can be solved by either physically removing the
insoluble fraction (normally not economically feasible) or constructing
a collection sump below the cavern interval as shown in Figure 2.
PPER LIMIT
OF SUMP

SUMP CONSTRUCTION

v////A BLANKET MATERIAL

FIGURE 2. Casing Configuration f o r Sump and Cavity C o n s t r u c t i o n

 The direction of circulation, injection point of fresh water, and
the control of contact surface between the blanket and the water are the
principal factors influencing cavern shape. The final shape and s i r e of
a cavern also depend on leaching rate, overall leaching time, percentage of
insolubles in the s a l t stock, and solubility of the s a l t stock.
During solutioning, interface logs are run periodically to determine
the blanket-to-brine interface. These logs are needed particularly when
the blanket and/or wash casing strings are moved to control the cavern
shape. In addition, a sonar log may be run periodically during solutioning
to track the shape of the cavern. The cavern shape may deviate from
that desired due to e r r a t i c distribution of insolubles i n the s a l t dome
(Chang e t a l . 1980). A sonar log i s always run a t the end of solutioning
to determine final cavern shape and volume. The cavern volume i s also
determined during solutioning by measuring the volume of water circulated
and by nioni toring the s a l i n i t y of the returned brine.
The volume determined by sonar niay vary from the calculated volume
because a l l irregularities are not recorded by sonar. For t h i s reason,
the calculated volume i s usually the final accepted figure. Dimensional
1 imi tations may be imposed by proximity of adjacent caverns and distance
to the dome's boundary or property lines, as established by s t a t e rules.

4.2 CIRCULATION METHODS

Water may be introduced into a cavern by either direct or reverse
circulation (Fenix and Scisson 1978). Direct circulation i s more common.
4.2.1 Direct Circulation
W i t h direct circulation, water i s injected through the wash casing
s e t near the bottom of the wellbore and brine i s discharged through the
blanket casing (see Figure 3 ) . Direct circulation i s usually used to
develop the sump in the cavern floor. Leaching continues until the
sump configuration, commonly cyl indrical in shape, i s developed. The
wash casing i s then repositioned for cavern development. The blanket
 LEGEND

0RAW WATER

BRINE

CONDUCTOR
TOP OF
CAP ROCK

TOP OF
SALT

WASH CASING

FIGURE 3. Typical Cavern Construction Using D i r e c t C i r c u l a t i o n ( a f t e r

Fenix and Scisson 1978)
s t r i n g and/or i n t e r f a c e i s s e t a t o r near the l o c a t i o n predetermined f o r
the r o o f o f t h e cavern.

Leaching i s i n i t i a t e d by d i r e c t c i r c u l a t i o n o f the water i n the

confined we1 1bore. Sal i n i t y increases n o t o n l y r a d i a l l y outward from
t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e wash casing b u t v e r t i c a l l y from t h e p o i n t o f
i n j e c t i o n t o the p o i n t o f discharge from the cavern.

This p a t t e r n i n i t i a l l y develops the t y p i c a l "teardrop" cavern shape

(see Figure 3). With continued d i r e c t c i r c u l a t i o n , the heavier b r i n e
s o l u t i o n tends t o c o l l e c t near t h e bottom o f the cavern, f o r c i n g the
i n l e t water t o r i s e r a p i d l y w i t h decreasing exposure t o lower p o r t i o n s
o f the cavern. Continued leaching u s u a l l y develops the intermediate and
upper p o r t i o n s o f t h e cavern and r e s u l t s i n t h e formation o f a more
c y lin d r i c a l cavern.

Further leaching develops t h e upper cavern. As a d d i t i o n a l water i s

i n j e c t e d i t tends t o r i s e r a p i d l y t o t h e p o i n t o f discharge. A rolling
motion i s produced t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s mixing and helps t o d i s t r i b u t e a
nonsaturated s o l u t i o n below t h e blanket i n t e r f a c e .

Upon contact w i t h t h e i n t e r f a c e some o f the nonsaturated s o l u t i o n

i s discharged up the blanket casing; the r e s t i s forced r a d i a l l y outward
and dissolves s a l t exposed t o t h e upper w a l l s o f the cavern. Thus, i t
i s n o t unconlmon f o r t h e b r i n e discharge t o be s l i g h t l y undersaturated
when t h i s method i s used. As t h e cavern enlarges, the s o l u t i o n becomes
more s a l i n e and tends t o s i n k t o the bottom o f the c a v i t y . I n actual
p r a c t i c e , advancing upper cavern development t o t h e c y l i n d r i c a l stage
w i t h d i r e c t c i r c u l a t i o n r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l leaching time and t h e development
o f very l a r g e caverns.

4.2.2 Reverse C i r c u l a t i o n

As i n d i r e c t c i r c u l a t i o n , f l o w p a t t e r n s f o r reverse c i r c u l a t i o n
enable a v a r i e t y o f cavern shapes and sizes t o be constructed. The
p o s i t i o n o f t h e blanket casing i s an important f a c t o r i n determining the
shape o f the caverns.
 The casing configuration for upper cavern injection i s the same as
for direct circulation b u t the flow i s reversed. Because i t i s lighter
than brine, water continuously injected into the cavity rises to or
remains a t the blanket interface. I t i s then displaced radially outward
until i t contacts and begins to dissolve the s a l t . As the solution
increases in s a l i n i t y and becomes heavier, i t sinks to the bottom of
the cavern where the discharge pipe i s s e t . This results in the "morning
glory" shaped cavern illustrated in Figure 4.
Reverse circulation i s also used in cases where the blanket casing
i s positioned a t any point in the cavern interval from the roof to near
the bottom of the wash casing. These positions characteristically result
f i r s t in an enlargement of the wellbore near the point of injection and
l a t e r in a more cylindrical shape in the lower part of the cavern.
A cylindrical cavern can be constructed in several ways. One i s to
alternate the direction of flow with the blanket and wash casing in the
same position. Another i s t o change the depth of the blanket and/or
wash casing a t selected time intervals.

4.3 CAVERN DEVELOPMENT

A procedure used t o construct a typical cavern development well i s
discussed below (Feni x and Sci sson 1978). Figure 5 shows a typical
minimum surface installation for cavern development. Figure 6 i l l u s t r a t e s
the casing confi gura-tion used in a typical cavern development solution
we1 1.
4.3.1 Conductor Casing
A short section of casing called conductor casing i s usually s e t
before mobilizing the rotary drilling rig. This casing may be driven into
place under swampy conditions or may be s e t in a hole dug with an auger
d r i l l . The conductor casing has two purposes. I t prevents the loose
soil and shallow unconsolidated sands and gravels from continually
sloughing into the borehole as i t i s being drilled. Also, while the
 LEGEND

RAW WATER

_CONDUCTOR
CASING
T O P OF
C A P ROCK

TOP OF
. INTERMEDIATE
CASING
SALT

WASH
CASING BLANKET
CASING
BLANKET\
PRODUCT
CASING

BRINE
RETURN
CASING

FIGURE 4. Typical Cavern Construction Using Reverse Circrilation ( a f t e r

Fenix and Sci sson 1978)
 ONDUCTOR

CASl NG

PARTIALLY DEVELOPED
STORAGE CAVERN
WASH CASING

FIGURE 6. T y p i c a l Cavern Development Well C o n f i g u r a t i o n ( a f t e r Fenix and

S c i sson 1978)
h o l e f o r t h e surface casing i s being d r i l l e d by normal r o t a r y d r i l l i n g ,
d r i l l i n g mud i s d i r e c t l y c i r c u l a t e d down the i n s i d e o f the d r i l l p i p e
and back up t h e d r i 11pipe- borehole annulus. As mud c o n t a i n i n g formation
c u t t i n g s r e t u r n t o t h e surface, t h e conductor casing "conducts" i t t o
surface mud p i t s through an o u t l e t connection near the top o f the casing.
A f t e r t h e w e l l i s d r i l l e d , the conductor casing i s u s u a l l y c u t o f f a t
ground 1eve1 .
4.3.2 Surface Casina

A somewhat longer s t r i n g of p i p e c a l l e d surface casing ( n o t shown

i n Figure 6) i s r e q u i r e d a f t e r the hole has been d r i l l e d through t h e
p o t a b l e water zones. This p r o t e c t s t h e water zones from mud contamination
and from f l u i d s o r gases t h a t might be encountered deeper i n t h e hole.
Cement i s placed between t h i s casing and borehole from the bottom t o
surface.

4.3.3 Intermediate Casing

Intermediate casing may be r e q u i r e d t o i s o l a t e very porous l o s s - o f -

c i r c u l a t i o n zones o r i n t e r v a l s where formation caving occurs. These
zones o f t e n a r e found i n o r near t h e eaprock. M i s s i s s i p p i and Louisiana
s t a t e r u l e s r e q u i r e two casing s t r i n g s i n t o the s a l t . One intermediate
s t r i n g i s s e t a f t e r t h e w e l l i s d r i l l e d 15 t o 30 m i n t o the s a l t . The
o t h e r casing s t r i n g extends t o t h e top o f t h e cavern s t r u c t u r e . Cement
i s placed between these casing s t r i n g s and t h e borehole.

4.3.4 Product Casing

Product casing i s t h e l a s t casing t o be cemented i n t h e w e l l and i s

s e t a t t h e depth chosen f o r t h e top o f t h e cavern. Before i t i s i n s t a l l e d
t h e borehole may be d r i l l e d t o t h e planned depth o f t h e bottom o f t h e
sump i f s u i t a b l e geologic c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t . The casing i s cemented a t
l e a s t up i n t o t h e intermediate casing o r t h e surface casing if an
intermediate s t r i n g i s n o t used.
 In the specific case of compressed a i r storage, the a i r i s conducted
t h r o u g h another casing string suspended inside the product casing to
30 m below the bottom of the casing. For final design, consideration will
be given t o placing a packer on the suspended casing a t the base of the
cemented product string. This will also involve a possible expansion
joint in the suspended string t o allow f o r expansion while injecting
heated a i r .

4.4 HUNTORF EXPERIENCE

Solution mining was used to develop two a i r storage caverns a t Huntorf,
Federal Republic of Germany. Logs run in exploration wells were correlated
with the chemical and physical analyses of cores taken from the future
cavern volume (Quast and Lorenzen 1979). A detai 1ed sol ution-mining
concept was prepared f o r each cavity using a three-dimensional numerical
simulation program. This concept was used to achieve the cavern configuration
required by rock mechanics calculations.
After 50,000 m 3 cavity volume had been washed out by direct leaching,
the cavity shape was checked by echo-logging. Subsequently, solution-
mining was continued by indirect 1eaching t o increase brine saturation
and to reduce sol ution-mining time. Indirect 1eaching involves reverse
circulation, i . e . , opposite t o that shown in Figure 2. The injected
fresh water remains j u s t below the blanket, moves radially to the s a l t
boundary, dissolves s a l t , and eventually migrates toward the bottom from
which i t i s pumped through the discharge pipe.
Rock s a l t taken from the NK1 cavity borehole contained substantial
3
impurities, and when the cavity volume exceeded 55,000 m , the potassium
and magnesium fractions increased disproportionately in the brine. From
t h i s , i t was concluded that s a l t layers of higher solubility were being
leached. Interim surveys demonstrated steep layers in the southeast
portion of the cavity, which extend over the total height. These layers
dissolve more rapidly than rock s a l t . Horizontal sections, however, do
n o t show any formation of "finger traps" in s p i t e of very different
s o l u t i o n v e l o c i t i e s ; they show a shape which i s s t i l l acceptable from a
rock mechanics p o i n t o f view. By reducing t h e s o l u t i o n mining r a t e ,
a l t e r i n g the suspended tubing depth, and f r e q u e n t l y checking shape
development, t h e c a v i t y diameter could be c o n t r o l l e d i n such a way t h a t
i t remained w i t h i n t h e r e q u i r e d l i m i t s as shown i n Figure 7.
However,
t h e f i n a l r o o f shape deviated from t h e intended shape due t o the more
complicated and v a r i e d s o l u t i o n behavior i n t h a t area. The t o t a l volume
3
o f the c a v i t y i s about 150,000 m .
The s a l t encountered i n t h e NK2 c a v i t y l o c a t i o n i s more uniform i n
solubility. A c a v i t y was dissolved w i t h t o t a l volume o f 170,000 m3 whose
shape i s s a t i s f a c t o r y from a rock mechanics standpoint. The s o l u t i o n -
mining steps were t h e same f o r both c a v i t i e s . However, the logging and
t u b i n g a l t e r a t i o n work needed was l e s s extensive than f o r the NK1 c a v i t y .
F i g u r e 2 shows the actual c a v i t y shapes (NK1 and NK2); both a r e w i t h i n
design 1i m i t s .

The c a v i t i e s were leached between October 1975 and January 1977.

3 3
The maximum solution- mining r a t e s were 300 m / h r (NK2) and 200 m / h r (NK1).

4.5 BRINE DISPOSAL

I n some areas otherwise q u a l i f i e d f o r s o l u t i o n mining, t h e h i g h

c o s t o f b r i n e disposal may preclude cavern construction. The r a t e s o f
c a v i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n and b r i n e disposal a r e interdependent. The b r i n e must
be disposed o f i n an environmentally acceptable manner.

I n small- scale p r o j e c t s , i t i s sometimes possible t o r e c l a i m and

s e l l t h e dissolved s a l t . However, the c o n s t r u c t i o n r a t e s would then be
.
c o n t r o l l e d by e x t r a c t i o n p l a n t capabi 1it i e s (Corcoran e t a1 1974a). The
most widely used method i s t o i n j e c t the b r i n e i n t o a s a l t w a t e r a q u i f e r
(Medley 1978; General E l e c t r i c 1976; Corcoran e t a1 . 1974a). However,
disposal may be r e s t r i c t e d by governmental r e g u l a t i o n s o r by the plugging
o f t h e a q u i f e r due t o t h e i n j e c t i o n o f b r i n e s (Corcoran e t a l . 1974a).
B r i n e may a l s o be pumped i n t o t h e G u l f o f Mexico o r i n t o another s a l i n e
body i f t h e necessary permits can be acquired. Another method i s t o
 . .. . .. . . . . .. .: .. ..:.-. ..-. -. .. . . . . . ... .. .. . . ..I. . ... .
. . *. . . .
0 . a * ,

.. . . . . . .... . . .
a

. .. .. . . .. . ... .>-..::.
e . . . . . . . . . a .

. .. . . .
. . . . . . . . ,. .. . . .....
s

. . . .. . . . ...
....a:.

- .. . . . .. ." OVERBURDEN.. . . .. -. . . . . . ..,:

* . . . a

* *
I

. . . . .. . . - ... ..... .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ...... ..-.. . .- . . . :.. . ...

500 , .
* . I * -, /
..' 1 ,
f
* I
.
/ - / *'
I .

550 -,
/
\
/. ' / 1

\
\.
0

\ .
.

' ,
\

/
\

'
/

' /
. \ '
.'
'\
-
/

750 - /

FIGURE 7 . NWK Huntorf Cavern Shape Complying w i t h Requirements o f Rock

Mechanics
dispose o f t h e b r i n e i n s u r f a c e - l i n e d p i t s , sumps, o r i n another c a v i t y
s p e c i f i c a l l y constructed f o r t h a t purpose.
These l a t t e r methods would
r e s u l t i n c o s t increases t h a t might cause an otherwise acceptable s i t e
t o become u n a t t r a c t i v e (Weinstein e t a1 . 1978).

4.6 BRINE DISPOSAL WELLS

A t y p i c a l procedure t o develop a b r i n e disposal w e l l i s discussed

below (Fenix and Sci sson 1978). Figure 8 i11u s t r a t e s t h e casing c o n f i g u r a t i o n
used i n a t y p i c a l disposal we1 1.

4.6.1 Conductor Casing

The f i r s t casing t o be i n s t a l l e d a f t e r t h e s i t e has been selected

f o r t h e b r i n e disposal w e l l i s t h e conductor casing. As i n t h e cavern
development we1 1, i t s purpose i s t o keep t h e we1 1bore open through t h e
shallow surface formation and t o conduct d r i l l i n g mud t o t h e mud p i t s
w h i l e t h e hole f o r t h e surface casing i s being d r i l l e d . A f t e r t h e hole
f o r conductor casing i s d r i l l e d and casing i s i n s t a l l e d , the space between
t h e casing and hole i s cemented t o t h e surface.

4.6.2 Surface Casing

The hole f o r surface casing i s d r i l l e d next and casing i s i n s t a l l e d

and cemented from t h e bottom t o t h e surface. This casing i s o l a t e s
a l l freshwater- bearing formations from t h e i n j e c t e d f l u i d s .

4.6.3 Product Casing

A f t e r t h e surface casing i s set, t h e hole f o r product casing i s

d r i l l e d t o t o t a l depth. Casing i s i n s t a l l e d and cemented from t h e bottom
t o a p o i n t w e l l above t h e zone t o be perforated. The purpose o f t h e
casing and t h e cement i s t o prevent m i g r a t i o n o f f l u i d s between t h e
formations penetrated.

Following i n s t a l l a t i o n s o f t h e product casing, a p e r f o r a t i n g

gun i s used t o make p e r f o r a t i o n s through t h e casing w a l l and t h e cement
sheath and i n t o t h e disposal zone. Acid i s then i n j e c t e d i n t o t h e w e l l
 CONDUCTOR CASING

SURFACE CASING

INJECTION CASING

PRODUCT CASING

Dl SPOSA

FIGURE 8. Typical Disposal We1 1 Casing Configuration (Fenix and Scisson

1978)
and forced o u t through t h e perforations. The a c i d increases the s i z e o f
t h e holes made by t h e p e r f o r a t i o n s through the cement and cleans o f f
d r i l l i n g mud l e f t on t h e face o f t h e formation. I n some instances,
h y d r a u l i c f r a c t u r i n g may be necessary t o increase i n j e c t i v i t y .

4.6.4 I n j e c t i o n Tubing

An i n j e c t i o n t u b i n g s t r i n g i s r e q u i r e d as a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n
o f upper formations. A packer i s i n s t a l l e d on t h e lower end o f the
i n j e c t i o n t u b i n g and s e t i n s i d e t h e product casing a t a p o i n t above the
p e r f o r a t i o n s t o form a mechanical seal between the i n j e c t i o n t u b i n g and
product casing. Hydrocarbons o r t r e a t e d f l u i d s may be used i n t h e
i n j e c t i o n tubing- product casing annulus t o p r o t e c t against corrosion.
 5.0 CAVERN STABILITY

The state-of-knowledge about cavern s t a b i l i t y embraces laboratory

results of mechanical testing, numerical model ing, in s i t u field t e s t
data, and full- scale f i e l d results involving s a l t cavities used for both
CAES and other storage technologies. The study of fundamental rock s a l t
mechanics for CAES involves compl icated loading conditions (Thoms 1978).
An integrated mechanical model has so f a r eluded researchers. Nevertheless,
CAES i s operational a t Huntorf where empirical relationships were
used to design the dual s a l t cavities. Numerical models are described
by Cundey and Serata (1978), Serata and Cundey (1979) and Serata and
McNamara (1980).
Go1der Associates (1 979) has sumari zed the possi bl e negative
outcomes associated with cavern instabi 1ity: 1 ) excessive closure
without b r i t t l e failure which renders the cavern inappropriate for
storage; 2) structural instability of the roof, walls, or floor of the
cavern; 3) damage to the access we1 1 and associated equipment; 4 )
surface subsidence including major structural f a i l u r e of the roof; and
5) loss of stored fluid.
This section presents the results of mechanical testing and numerical
modeling. The combined data are used to develop design c r i t e r i a and
general concl usi ons.
5.1 MECHANICAL BEHAV IOR
Rock s a l t behavior may be typified using time as a general reference
parameter. For a s t a t i c creep t e s t , a constant s t a t e of stress (load)
i s applied and maintained constant for the duration of the t e s t . Strain
i s monitored and plotted as a function of time. A family of curves can
be obtained f o r a s e t of loadings selected so as to span the stress
s t a t e anticipated around a cavern.
With reference t o Figure 9, application of an "instantaneous" load
t o a s a l t specimen a t time to results in 1 ) an 'immediate" nonlinear
displacement (or s t r a i n ) response c o y 2 ) a time-dependent creep response
 / ,I,
r 7 -I/
7 7 h
TRANSIENT STEADY S T A T E TERTIARY
PHASE PHASE PHASE

INITIAL
STRA 1N
Y
TIME

FIGURE 9.. General Response of Rock Salt to Load Applied a t to ( a f t e r

Thoms 1978)

r
c ' which accumulates with time t , and 3 ) a possible rupture a t time t f ,
provided the s a l t i s in a loading mode permitting rupture. The time
interval of the t e s t , t&t5tf, i s traditionally divided into three
idealized subintervals or phases of material creep response, i . e . ,
transient, steady-state, and t e r t i a r y . Rock s a l t typically exhibits a
prolonged steady-state creep phase, provided the applied loading s t a t e
i s not so severe as t o cause transient and t e r t i a r y phases to completely
dominate specimen behavior. The steady-state phase of rock s a l t response
i s of particular interest t o long-term s t a b i l i t y concerns of storage
caverns, provided of course, an acceptable phase of transient response
can be accommodated (Thorns and Martinez 1978b).
Thorns (1980) has reported results of laboratory and in s i t u t e s t s .
F i r s t , rock s a l t apparently has good endurance to cyclic load effects
within the modest ranges used to date. Second, under cyclic loads, rock
s a l t exhibits short-term response (displacement) that i s approximately
linear with varying loads. However, the accumulated short term responses
generate an envelope that trends along typical time-dependent s a l t
displacement behavior, i . e . , rapid movement following i n i t i a l load
appl ication and then decreasing ( r a t e ) w i t h time. Third, monitoring
acoustic emissi,ons i s the only current practical means of continuously
tracking behavior of s a l t caverns subjected t o cyclic loadings. (This
of course presumes no practical s t r a i n measurement i s possible. ) Final l y ,
r e s u l t s from Brazilian t e s t s a r e r e l a t i v e l y closely grouped from 6
sources including 4 U.S. domes, an Arizona deposit, and the Huntorf
dome of West Germany. These r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Figure 10.
From i n s i t u mine t e s t s , Thoms (1980) reports t h a t permeabi 1i t y i s
"induced" in r e l a t i v e l y unconfined s a l t around openings mined in s a l t .
However, i f s a l t i s continuously confined and r e l a t i v e l y undisturbed,
i t s permeability apparently remains small. In addition, behavior of
s a l t around c y c l i c a l l y pressurized t e s t holes indicates close correlation
between acoustic emissions and appl ied loads.

STANDARD DEVIATION =
5 35.6 psi (0.25 mPa)

MEAN = 218.2 psi ( 1 . 5 mPa)

JEFFERSON BRYAN'S CHOCTAW WEST RED HUNTORF

ISLAND MOUND HACKBERRY LAKE

FIGURE 10. Brazilian Test Results f o r S a l t from Different Sources

 Currently, there i s no general agreement among researchers as t o
t h e best method of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g long- term behavior o f rock s a l t (Baar
1977; Thoms and Martinez 1978b). I n considering l a b o r a t o r y versus i n
s i t u t e s t s , t h e funda.menta1 t r a d e - o f f occurs between degree o f specimen
disturbance and e x t e n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n on boundary conditions, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Both types o f t e s t appear appropriate t o rock s a l t mechanics, b u t w i t h
c o r r e l a t i o n of data u l t i m a t e l y r e q u i r e d (Thoms and Martinez 1978b).

Laboratory t e s t i n g programs have been conducted mainly w i t h compression

t r i a x i a l and u n i a x i a l t e s t s (Thoms 1978). T r i a x i a l extension t e s t s , which
a r e more d i f f i c u l t t o perform, permit a more comprehensive evaluation o f
creep- rupture, which i s a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n long- term behavior o f
openings i n rock s a l t .

5.1.1 T r i a x i a l Compression Testing

Test data t o i n d i c a t e time-independent behavior o f rock s a l t i s

u s u a l l y obtained by " quick" t r i a x i a l t e s t s (e.g., s t r e s s r a t e s on t h e
order of 137.90 kPa per second r e s u l t i n g i n p l o t s o f some s t r e s s measure
versus a corresponding s t r a i n measure (Thoms 1978) ) . The measures
p l o t t e d a r e u s u a l l y preselected t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the adoption o f
some m a t e r i a l model. The behavior o f t h e s a l t i s influenced by t h e
l o a d i n g h i s t o r y and environment, i n c l u d i n g s t r e s s s t a t e , c r y s t a l g r a i n
boundary s t a t e (e.g., wetness), temperature, and loading r a t e . Figure
11 d e p i c t s t y p i c a l s t r e s s - s t r a i n curves from t r i a x i a l t e s t s on Tatum
dome s a l t (Boresi and Deere 1963). The o r d i n a t e o f these curves i s the
difference i n t h e p r i n c i p a l a x i a l l y and l a t e r a l l y a p p l i e d stresses (ol -
(also c a l l e d e f f e c t i v e stress). This s t r e s s measure i s conventional i n
geotechnical engineering. Both temperature and loading r a t e s should be
included i n data from rock s a l t t e s t i n g .
. I f rock s a l t i s unloaded and reloaded i n a " quick" t e s t , i t e x h i b i t s
strain- hardening c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . That i s , i t w i l l unload along an
approximately s t r a i g h t 1i n e and then r e l o a d along e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same
s t r a i g h t l i n e u n t i l t h e nonlinear o r i g i n a l load-displacement curve,
 5000

CONFINING PRESSURE I N psi

SHOWN A T EACH CURVE

I I I I
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0,16 0.20

A X I A L STRAIN, i n / i n

FIGURE 11. Typical Stress Strain Curves for Rock Salt (after Boresi and
Deere 1963)
s i m i l a r t o those d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 11, i s i n t e r s e c t e d . Thereafter, the
nonl i n e a r load- displacement curve i s followed unless unloading a g a i n
occurs. T h i s m a t e r i a l behavior i m p l i e s t h a t short- term c y c l i c pressure
l o a d i n g e f f e c t s i n r o c k s a l t associated w i t h CAES cavern o p e r a t i o n s may
be analyzed i n p a r t w i t h e f f e c t i v e l i n e a r r e a c t i o n moduli.

Other d a t a t h a t can be obtained from " quick" t r i a x i a l t e s t s i n c l u d e

Mohr-Coulomb envelopes (Thoms 1978). The Mohr-Coulomb f a i l u r e c r i t e r i o n
i s w i d e l y used i n geotechnical engineering. As d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e s 12
through 14, t h e format used f o r p l o t t i n g t e s t data f r e q u e n t l y i m p l i e s t h e
a d o p t i o n o f c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l models t o d e s c r i b e y i e l d o r s t r e n g t h
behavior o f s a l t .

The conventional geotechnical concept of time- independent s t r e n g t h

i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e f o r r o c k s a l t unless t h e l o a d i n g r a t e i s r e l a t i v e l y
high. Short - term s t r e n g t h w i l l n o t be a p r i n c i p a l c r i t e r i o n f o r long-
term s t a b i l i t y of s t o r a g e caverns w i t h i n s a l t stock. For example, i n
F i g u r e s 12 through 14, " s t r e n g t h " had t o be d e f i n e d i n terms o f percentage
deformation ( s t r a i n ) . The r o c k s a l t r e p o r t e d l y would n o t e x h i b i t f r a c t u r e
o r a r a p i d l o s s o f l o a d - c a r r y i n g a b i l i t y under compressive t r i a x i a l
l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s i f t h e c o n f i n i n g s t r e s s exceeded 341 kPa. By c o n t r a s t ,
long- term f a i l u r e o f r o c k s a l t , i n a p r o g r e s s i v e s p a l l i n g mode, can be
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h time-dependent extensional creep and r e l a t e d creep
rupture.

5.1.2 Creep Behavior

The d e t e r m i n a t i o n and/or d e s c r i p t i o n o f time-dependent creep o f

r o c k s a l t has been t r e a t e d f a i r l y e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e o r y (Cruden 1971;
Le Compte 1965). Various forms o f creep "laws" have been proposed and
used i n numerical modeling (Morgan e t a l . 1981). Heard (1972) employs
an exponential form o f creep law dependent upon a b s o l u t e temperature and
d i f f e r e n t i a l s t r e s s along w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l parameters and t h e
u n i v e r s a l gas constant.
 X- NORMAL STRESS, 1000 psi

FIGURE 12. Strength o f Rock S a l t a t 2% Deformation ( a f t e r U.S. Department

o f I n t e r i o r 1962)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

X- NORMAL STRESS, 1000 psi

FIGURE 13. S t r e n g t h o f Rock S a l t a t 10% Deformation ( a f t e r U.S. Department

o f I n t e r i o r 1962)
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

X-NORMAL STRESS, 1000 psi

FIGURE 14. Strength of Rock Salt a t 20% Deformation ( a f t e r U.S. Department

of Interior 1962)

Power law formulations have been used perhaps most frequently to

represent time-dependent rock s a l t behavior (Cruden 1971 ) . Russel 1 (1 978)
has noted that a power law formulation w i t h a constant non-zero exponent
for time cannot accommodate a steady-state creep phase. However, Dwyer
and Thorns (1974) have suggested t h a t creep can be handled by a combination
of traditional power law, i n the transient phase, followed by a degenerate
form wherein the time exponent i s s e t to zero, in the steady-state
phase. This l a t t e r approach corresponds essentially to employing a
spline f i t in time f o r the material response of rock s a l t (Desai 1971 ).
Additional study i s required, particularly with verification by in s i t u
t e s t s , before a "best" creep model formulation i s universally accepted.
The analytical description of in s i t u polycrystall ine rock s a l t behavior,
including creep rupture, currently requires considerable additional
research.
 There are l i t t l e long-term creep data for thousands of hours
available from laboratory experiments on domal s a l t because such t e s t s
obviously require considerable time, i . e . , months. Most existing laboratory
t e s t data in geotechnical engineering are based on axial compression
t e s t s (either uniaxial or t r i a x i a l ) . This i s appropriate because such
t e s t s "track" the loading environments of prime interest in the majority
of geotechnical engineering appl ications. However, the principal phenomenon
involved in time-dependent cavern closure is best simulated w i t h triaxial
extension creep t e s t s (Nair and Deere 1970). W i t h reference to Figure
15, the loading environment associated with creep closure of a storage
cavern would be most nearly attained in the laboratory by t e s t s on
cyl indrical specimens with axes normal to the cavern surface and 1 o3 1 > 1 o1 1 ,
where o3 and a, represent geostatic stress and cavern pressure, respectively.
Because t e s t cylinders of s a l t are obtained from vertical holes i t
i s necessary t o assume material isotropy for data interpretation from
triaxial extension t e s t s relative to cavern creep closure in the horizontal

FIGURE 15. In Situ Representation by Triaxial Extension Test

direction. If sufficiently large cylinders can be obtained to machine
horizontally oriented specimens without inducing scale effects, then t h i s
assumption i s not necessary.
After a certain amount of strain has occurred i n an extensional mode,
the rock s a l t will "creep rupture". This phenomenon can be observed in
south Louisiana s a l t mines where spalling of the walls occurs w i t h the
passage of time (Thoms 1978). As preventive maintenance measures, the
mines are periodically "scaled" using a large machine w i t h a metal pick
that breaks off potential rock-fall material. In older and more shallow
inactive mining 1 eve1s , the spa11ing (creep rupture) phenomenon i s
particularly evident.
In laboratory testing of rock, clearly visible failure due to creep
rupture can be observed i n triaxial extension creep t e s t s (Figure 1 6 ) ,
b u t not i n conventional uniaxial compression creep t e s t s w i t h moderate
loads (Figure 17). This again points up the more appropriate loading
environment of triaxial extension t e s t s over compression t e s t s for
cavern closure studies.
5.1.3 Compressed Air Energy Storaqe Environment
Caverns used for CAES will be subjected to typical daily and weekly
cycles of pressure and temperature variation. Thus, the "fatigue limit"
of the rock s a l t i n the cavern walls will be of primary concern. The
Huntorf CAES cycle includes cavern pressurization over eight hours to
70 atm followed by unloading over two hours t o 50 atm. Other operating
cycles obviously can be suggested. An upper limit has been placed on
operating pressure within hydrocarbon storage caverns in Louisiana;
"The maximum operating pressure (gauge) a t the casing seat or chamber
ceiling, whichever i s the shallowest, shall not exceed 0.9 psi per foot
of overburden" (State of Louisiana 1977). This 1imi ting pressure value
was established mainly on the basis of extensive experience of storage
cavern operators in Gulf Coast s a l t domes. Typical daily and weekly
cycles therefore probably will be bounded approximately by t h i s value.
L i m i t i n g pressure values must be kept i n mind in setting up a cyclic
effects (fatigue) testing program.
 II FAILURE I

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

T I M E , HOURS

FIGURE 16. Triaxial Extension Creep Tests ( a f t e r Boresi and Deere 1963

525 psi
0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

T I M E , hours

FIGURE 17. Uniaxial Compression Creep Tests ( a f t e r Boresi and Deere 1963)
 Following the concepts developed f o r metals, a s i t e - s p e c i f i c rock
s a l t can be t y p i f i e d as possessing the a b i l i t y t o withstand a c e r t a i n
number o f l o a d cycles, under specified loading conditions, based on
l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s (Thoms 1978). These t e s t data can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n
terms o f years o f s e r v i c e o r engineering l i f e o f the cavern under operating
c y c l i c loading conditions. I f t h e 1i f e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r the planned
f a c i l i t y , then a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f loading conditions o r a s i t e w i t h
" b e t t e r " s a l t must be selected (Thoms 1978).

I t i s we1 1 known t h a t rock s a l t behavior i s s t r o n g l y temperature-

dependent. Thus a l l m a t e r i a l s t r e n g t h p r o p e r t i e s determined i n the
l a b o r a t o r y should be q u a l i f i e d as t y p i c a l f o r c e r t a i n temperatures. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e c y c l i c thermal stresses associated w i t h t h e time- varying
temperature gradients i n the cavern w a l l s must be taken i n t o account
(Howel 1s 1977).

I n t e s t i n g f o r cycles o r low frequency f a t i g u e e f f e c t s associated

w i t h CAES, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the i n f l u e n c e o f temperature and stresses
w i l l be s t r o n g l y coupled (Wawersi k 1978). Thus, t e s t i n g f o r e x p l i c i t
e f f e c t s on rock s a l t due t o pressure and/or temperature c y c l i n g alone
may n o t be adequate f o r CAES studies. Therefore, simul taneous pressure
and temperature cycles should be simulated i n a t l e a s t one phase o f a
l a b o r a t o r y o r bench-scale t e s t i n g program t o assess p o s s i b l e coupled
fatigue effects. Furthermore, the surface o f the s a l t specimens should
be exposed t o a i r w i t h various degrees o f water content t o e s t a b l i s h
l e v e l s o f p o s s i b l e d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n t h e exposed c r y s t a l f a b r i c .

Other m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s a f f e c t i n g cavern s t a b i l i t y considerations

i n c l u d e u n i t weight, permeability, heat capacity, c o n d u c t i v i t y and
thermal d i f f u s i v i ty, moisture content, and c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y (bul k modulus)
o f t h e s a l t and o t h e r geologic m a t e r i a l s . The u n i t weight o f s a l t
obviously i n f l u e n c e s t h e s t r e s s s t a t e i n t h e cavern w a l l s . Further,
u n i t weight o f s a l t p o s s i b l y may be useful as an index number t o c h a r a c t e r i z e
s a l t v a r i a b i l i t y , i n c l u d i n g a n h y d r i t e content, w i t h i n a dome o r domes.
Heat t r a n s f e r parameters obviously w i l l enter i n t o the analysis o f the
time dependent temperature f i e l d surrounding a storage cavern.

5.1.4 Loading Parameters

Loading parameters a f f e c t i n g cavern s t a b i l i t y i n s a l t domes a r e

discussed i n d i v i d u a l l y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. Loading parameters
i n v o l v e pressure, temperature and time.

Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t long-term loading parameter i s the

pressure difference, pd; i.e., pd = g - p, where g corresponds t o the
magnitude o f g e o s t a t i c s t r e s s i n surrounding s a l t due t o overburden, and
p corresponds t o the magnitude o f cavern pressure (Rohr 1974). The
parameter, g, i s a f u n c t i o n o f depth and u n i t weight o f overburden m a t e r i a l
Obert (1962) determined t h e geostatic s t r e s s s t a t e i n G u l f Coast domal
s a l t , a t some distance from a mined opening, t o be h y d r o s t a t i c i n character
and equal i n magnitude t o overburden (1i t h o s t a t i c ) pressure. This
determination was made using the overcoring method, which requires
assumptions about m a t e r i a l behavior. The m a t e r i a l behavior o f rock s a l t
i s complicated; thus, o t h e r methods (e.g., f l a t jacks) also should be
employed f o r s t r e s s determination i n domes. The magnitude of cavern
pressure i s specified, f o r a noncompensated cavern simply by gauge
pressure a t the wellhead o f t h e surface f a c i l i t y . The pressure along
w i t h t h e geometric c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f a cavern and m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s o f
s a l t a r e primary i n p u t data f o r analyzing t h e associated s t r e s s and
displacement f i e l d s and subsequently t h e s t a b i 1it y o f storage caverns i n
s a l t domes. A f i r s t - c u t analysis o f s t r e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n around CAES
caverns can be obtained w i t h widely a v a i l a b l e axisymmetric f i n i t e element
programs and assumed l i n e a r " e f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n " moduli f o r m a t e r i a l
response. This a n a l y s i s then can be used as a basis f o r s e l e c t i n g
loadings f o r a l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g program on rock s a l t response under
simulated CAES conditions. E f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n modul i can be estimated,
f o r example, from Figure 11, and a n t i c i p a t e d loading h i s t o r i e s and
environments .
 I t i s r e l a t i v e l y well known t h a t s a l t behaves as an e l a s t i c b r i t t l e -
l i k e material i f loaded ( o r unloaded) a t a rapid r a t e . In storage
caverns the pressure unloading r a t e must be limited as roof f a l l s apparently
have been caused by rapid pressure drops. The transition loading (unloading)
r a t e , above which rock s a l t behaves a s a b r i t t l e material, has not been
studied carefully. The transition r a t e should be established as part of
a more complete investigation of long-term CAES cavern s t a b i l i t y .
The temperature and r a t e s of temperature change w i t h time of the
f l u i d ( a i r and possibly brine) used a s the pumping medium f o r CAES
caverns in s a l t domes a r e significant loading parameters because rock
s a l t becomes more p l a s t i c with higher temperatures. In addition, time-
dependent thermal s t r e s s e s will be incurred in the cavern walls because
of varying temperatures (Howel 1s 1977).
Lomenick (1968) performed a s e r i e s of laboratory experiments in which
he studied e f f e c t s of elevated temperatures and d i f f e r e n t loads on the
creep behavior of rock s a l t model mine p i l l a r s . Based on his model
studies, he reported "...temperature i s the single most important parameter
t h a t a f f e c t s cavity closure i n s a l t mines". His empirical relation
f o r vertical creep r a t e of p i l l a r models u t i l i z e s temperature ( O K )
with an exponent of 9.5. He further concludes " . . . a t 200°C severe structural
s t a b i l i t y problems will occur in subsurface s a l t excavations, even a t
superincumbent loads a s low as 2000 psi".
For Lomenick's r e s u l t s , an upper bound on s a l t temperature around
storage c a v i t i e s should be l e s s than 200°C. However, an even lower upper
l i m i t f o r temperature i s desirable f o r CAES reservoirs where r e l a t i v e l y
s t a b l e storage volumes a r e required f o r approximately 35 years (Thoms 1978).
Thus, a maximum s a l t temperature of 80°C in the reservoir wall i s postulated
as an upper bound f o r CAES. I t should be noted t h a t maximum a i r temperatures
could be higher during injection periods. Rock s a l t , a s a geologic material,
has r e l a t i v e l y 1arge val ues of heat capacity and thermal conductivity
(Clark 1966). Furthermore, a i r , with r e l a t i v e l y low heat capacity, will
be injected and withdrawn into a large CAES reservoir away from the
immediately surrounding rock s a l t "walls". Heat from the a i r will be
transferred into the s a l t by convection. Temperature r i s e can be analyzed
w i t h an appropriate film coefficient t h a t should incorporate e f f e c t s of
seasonal variations i n temperature. Thermal e f f e c t s probably will not
be manifested by the s a l t (Thoms and Martinez 1978a). Instead, s a l t
temperatures probably will be close t o mean values of operating CAES
cycles even r e l a t i v e l y close t o the cavern wall surfaces, and will decay
rapidly t o ambient temperatures i n the s a l t stock away from the caverns.
I t i s probable t h a t cyclic temperature and pressure loadings may couple
t o accelerate deleterious e f f e c t s w i t h i n the s a l t around CAES caverns.

5.2 CYCLIC LOADING TESTS

Cyclic loading t e s t r e s u l t s reported by Serata and McNaniara (1980)
i ncl ude:
Under a confining s t r e s s of 17.25 MPa, large s t r a i n s occur without
e i t h e r material property or granular deterioration. Even a t an
octahedral shear s t r a i n above 25%, the shear modulus remains constant.
This indicates d u c t i l e behavior under cyclic loading.
. Cyclic loading may cause strain-hardening, which would reduce viscoelastic
deformation. This would assure general CAES cavern s t a b i l i t y except
near the immediate air- rock interface.
. The condition of s a l t close t o the cavern boundary i s not revealed by
cycl i c 1oadi ng t e s t s because confinement was not accurately simulated.
Direct exposure t o compressed a i r may also a f f e c t t h i s region
(Serata and Cundey 1979).

5.3 NUMERICAL MODELING OF MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR

Serata and McNamara (1 980) have stated t h a t rock s a l t exhibits generally
consistent behavior under particular geomechanical conditions, and
therefore the behavior can be mathematical ly modeled. However, the
behavior i s complex and no standard method has been accepted by the
research community. Serata Geomechanics adopted the REM f i n i t e element
computer s i m u l a t i o n method, which i d e n t i f i e s b r i t t l e f r a c t u r e and d u c t i l e
y i e l d as simultaneous and d i s t i n c t deformation modes t h a t operate upon
s a l t c a v i t y walls. The REM method a l s o includes basic behavioral components
o f rock s a l t . These i n c l u d e e l a s t i c i t y , v i s c o e l a s t i c i t y , v i s c o p l a s t i c i t y ,
c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y , and property d e t e r i o r a t i o n . The HEAT f i n i t e element heat
t r a n s f e r code was a l s o used t o model long- term behavior o f CAES s a l t
caverns (McNamara e t a1 1981 ) . . The m a t e r i a l presented herein and through
Section 5.8 i s based on work performed by Serata Geomechanics, Inc. It
should be noted t h a t t h e r e a r e a wide v a r i e t y o f methodologies f o r modeling
rock s a l t and, as w i t h many areas o f developing research, t h e r e i s much
contention among researchers i n t h e f i e l d on the correctness o f various
methods and even on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l basis f o r the models. The method used
here was one o f t h e methods used t o confirm t h e Huntorf rock mechanics design.

Rock s a l t i s subject t o changes i n s t r e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n due t o

cavern excavation. The s t r e s s - s t r a i n re1a t i o n s h i p can be expressed i n
terms o f f o u r q u a n t i t i e s : octahedral s t r e s s and s t r a i n and mean s t r e s s
and s t r a i n . M a t e r i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been defined as f o l l o w s
(Serata and Cundey 1979; Serata and McNamara 1980):

. Rock s a l t e x h i b i t s a strong strain- hardening e f f e c t . (a

. C o m p r e s s i b i l i t y i s a f f e c t e d by both v i s c o e l a s t i c and v i s c o p l a s t i c
mechanisms.

U l t i m a t e octahedral shear s t r e n g t h i s between 3.45 and 5.18 MPa.

. B r i t t l e f a i l u r e takes place along grai'n boundaries.

0 D u c t i l e y i e l d ( v i s c o p l a s t i c creep) occurs along c r y s t a l g l i d e

planes.

. Predominantly b r i t t l e f r a c t u r e occurs a t mean stresses below 6.9 MPa.

. D u c t i l e y i e l d i s dominant above 6.9 MPa and e x c l u s i v e above 13.8 MPa.

( a ) Not accepted by a l l i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f rock s a l t behavior.

5.4 VARIABLES OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Variables affecting the f e a s i b i l i t y of compressed a i r energy storage
in s a l t caverns may be grouped under three headings: operational,
geological , and geometrical (Serata and McNamara 1980). These are
summarized i n Table 2. Among them are seven parameters representing
the c r i t i c a l variables f o r the numerical analysis. The base values and
ranges of these parameters are summarized i n Table 3.
Two important parameters, cavern a i r temperature and s a l t property
deterioration, are not included i n t h i s analysis because of absence of
detai 1ed information. Cundey and Serata (1978) has found that temperatures
up to 150°C have l i t t l e effect on the e l a s t i c and viscoelastic behavior of
s a l t , b u t viscoplastic properties such as octahedral shear strength, are
strongly affected. Shear strength i s decreased and ductility i s increased.
I t i s unlikely that detailed slabbing and cracking a t a cavern
boundary can be predicted by model ing (Golder Associates 1979).
5.4.1 Cavern Depth ( Y )
Cavern depth i s important because i t affects in situ stress conditions.
A deeper cavern will experience greater closure than a shallow one w i t h
the same cavern a i r pressure. Here Y stands for cavern ceiling depth
measured from the earth's surface to the top of the cavern.
5.4.2 Cavern Air Pressure ( P i -
)
Reduction of cavern a i r pressure could produce significant damage
to the cavern wall i f the reduction i s large and prolonged, because
deformation i s proportional to the difference between earth lateral
s t r e s s , PL, and the cavern a i r pressure, P i . The minimum acceptable Pi
value for a CAES cavern operation should be determined for given geo-
mechanical conditions of the cavern.
 I 7
aJ m
=I- E W U
0 n- L C.r
et- .f- V) a J m o
C,QY V)> L
a 7 L V) m L aJ
L X O a J U O >
s
g z3
aJ aJ
Y
U
0
m-
s't
L
aJ
V)als r r 1, 1,
sC, L m L
o m O F m
L u
C, (FI't4-'s
7 P O ? 3
maJo(FI0
v, V) L m a
aJ s
L= V) -r
L L L s I V)
O O a J 0 ul W V)
't .r .r > a aJ 't S aJ aJ
0 > > a V) 'r 0 3 L L
m l a u s
-
aJ C, 0 C,
s s L L -r V) L V) V)
aJ aJ 0 0 L a J L S V)
a m + -r m 3 .r 3 0 aJ
> s n w m . 7 V) L m
.t- E L U a J P L
-
.r .r C, aJSm V) aJ
C,
m V )
C, .r
-
aJ
0
crJ
% %.ZE V
aJ
) E
aJ
C
a
,
a
C

a
,

5
Q )

v-
P
-
~

0 L C , O
n m ' t
E
C,
L
m
-a
L
3
7
~ )
- 7 0 0 aJ F LC, n V)
L V ) ' r > X
m o w
a o s s
* m a EL-r u 7 N
m 0
aJ
7
aJ s U
0
U
-7 .r

C,
L
.f-
o
3
 TABLE 3. Values and Ranges of CAES Cavern Parameters
(Serata and McNamara 1980)

Parameter Typical Value Range

Cavern depth ( Y ) 610 m 305 t o 1524 m
Cavern a i r pressure (Pi ) 5.07 MPa 0 t o 10.14 MPa
Excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s ( b P L ) 50% max -50% t o 100% max
Octahedral shear strength ( K O ) 4.14 MPa 3.8 t o 5.18 MPa
Other s a l t properties ( K i ) Weak Weak t o strong
Height/Diameter Ratio ( H / D ) 5 5 t o 20
Separation/Diameter Ratio (S/D) 2 t o 10

5.4.3 Excess Lateral S t r e s s ( A P ~)

The excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s i n any s a l t formation i s usually unknown.
The l a t e r a l s t r e s s can be greater than, equal t o , o r smaller than the
overburden pressure. The maximum theoretical deviation of the l a t e r a l
s t r e s s from the v e r t i c a l s t r e s s , AP, max, depends on the octahedral shear
L

strength of rock s a l t , KO, and i s given by 3 ~ , / nf o r v i s c o e l a s t i c

conditions. A large excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s could induce cavern closure.
The e f f e c t of excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s increases with depth.
5.4.4 Octahedral Shear Strength ( K O )
Other f a c t o r s being equal, a s a l t cavern w i t h low octahedral shear
strength will experience g r e a t e r closure and boundary s t r a i n than one in
stronger s a l t . T h i s e f f e c t increases exponentially w i t h depth.
5.4.5 Other Properties of S a l t (Ki)
Other e l a s t i c , v i s c o e l a s t i c , and viscoplastic properties of s a l t
may a f f e c t cavern behavior s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Viscoplastic properties i n
p a r t i c u l a r may have the most important e f f e c t on long-term stabi 1 i ty.
For purposes of parametric analyses of s a l t cavern response t o CAES
conditions, the three strength categories of s a l t a r e compared w i t h the
numerical values of various material property c o e f f i c i e n t s in Table 4.
 TABLE 4. M a t e r i a l P r o p e r t i e s o f Rock S a l t a t Room Temperature
( a f t e r Serata and McNamara 1980)

Property Unit Weak Medi um Strong

GI : Shear modulus 6.9 x lo2 MPa 1.00 1.50 2.30

G2: Retarded VE shear 6.9 x lo2 MPa 0.30 0.50 0.75

modulus

G3: Retarded V P shear 6.9 x lo2 MPa

modul us

V2: VE V i s c o e l a s t i c
viscosity

V3: VP V i s c o p l a s t i c
viscosity

V4: Viscoplastic 6.9 x 10' MPa/

viscosity day
K1: B u l k modulus 6.9 x lo2 MPa

K2: Retarded b u l k 6.9 x lo2 MPa

modulus

D2: Bulk v i s c o s i t y

KB: U l t i m a t e octahedral MPa

shear s t r e n g t h

p: Specific gravity
5.4.6 Cavern HeightIDiameter Ratio (HID)
A vertical cylindrical cavern shape was assumed in t h i s study
because that shape i s used for most s a l t cavern designs. The cylindrical
shape enables most effective use of the s a l t dome volume in multiple
cavern arrays. Further, t h i s shape i s readily approached by solution
mining.
5.4.7 Cavern Separation Distance (SID)
The distance between caverns in a multiple-cavern system i s important
because the stress fields around the neighboring caverns might interfere
destructively i f the caverns are spaced too closely. On the other hand,
unnecessarily large separation distances do not make maximum use of the
available s a l t volume. The ratio of cavern center-to-center separation
distance, S , to cavern diameter, D , i s used.

5.5 PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF SINGLE CAVERNS

The f i n i t e element network of an axisymmetric cylindrical cavern
was used for the parametric analysis of a CAES single cavern (Serata and
McNamara 1980). The cavern modeled was assumed t o have been created
instantaneously. This cavern model experiences much greater closure
than a similar cavern experiencing sequential excavation. The l a t t e r
more closely resembles actual cavern excavation, which usually takes 1 to
2 years of solutioning. The instantaneous model was used because of a
substantial saving in computation costs and because i t represents a
conservative approach to defining cavern s t a b i l i t y . The sequential
model exhibits radial closure less than half that of the instantaneous
model. In both models, however, the stress conditions around the cavern
104 days a f t e r completion of the f u l l excavation are found to be so
similar that they a r e virtually indistinguishable.
Single cavern analyses focused on six c r i t i c a l parameters: cavern
depth ( Y ) ; cavern a i r pressure ( P i ) ; excess lateral stress ( n P L ) ; octahedral
shear strength of s a l t ( K O ) ; other s a l t properties (Ki); and ratio of
cavern h e i g h t t o diameter (H/D). I n e v a l u a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l parameters,
o n l y a s i n g l e parameter was varied, w h i l e t h e r e s t were maintained c o n s t a n t
a t base values chosen t o r e f l e c t moderate CAES o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

The niaximum c l o s u r e of about 9% occurred a t about 61 m above t h e

bottom o f t h e cavern f o r Y = 1372 m. The v i s c o p l a s t i c r a d i u s does n o t
reach 15 m above t h e r o o f b u t reaches more than 30 m below t h e f l o o r .
Both v i s c o p l a s t i c r a d i u s and s t r a i n i n t h e w a l l increase w i t h depth.
E f f e c t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l parameters were analyzed and a r e summarized
below.

5.5.1 Cavern Depth (Y)

Varying t h e depth t o t h e t o p o f t h e c y l i n d r i c a l p a r t o f t h e cavern

(Y) from 30 t o 1372 m showed t h a t r a d i a l boundary s t r a i n and r a d i a l
c l o s u r e increase s h a r p l y when Y exceeds 762 m. The stresses and s t r a i n s
i n t h e r o o f , f l o o r , and cavern w a l l s prove t h a t t h e v i s c o p l a s t i c zones
a r e expanding and boundary s t r a i n s a r e i n c r e a s i n g as Y increases.
Cavern depths o f 1220 m a r e considered safe under moderate o p e r a t i n g
c o n d i t i o n s (McNamara e t a1 . 1981 ) .
Cavern A i r Pressure ( P i )

The r e s u l t s o f f i v e analyses i n which cavern a i r pressure was

v a r i e d from 0 t o 10.14 MPa i n d i c a t e t h a t a i r pressure i s n o t a c r i t i c a l
parameter f o r t h e base c o n d i t i o n s considered.

5.5.3

Varying t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s from -50% t o +100% o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

maximum value, 3K0/*I, demonstrated t h a t r a d i a l c l o s u r e and r a d i a l boundary
s t r a i n s increase s h a r p l y when t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s exceeds 90%
o f t h e maximum. A s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f s t r a i n i s produced i n t h e s a l t
f a r beyond t h e cavern boundary.

5.5.4 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h o f S a l t (K,)

Varying t h e octahedral shear s t r e n g t h o f s a l t from 3.795 t o 5.175 MPa

d i d n o t produce s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e cavern behaviors. A i r
penetration resulting in deteriorating s a l t octahedral shear strength i s
expected t o primarily a f f e c t local s t a b i l i t y of CAES caverns and not
significantly a1 t e r global stabi 1i t y (Serata and McNamara 1980).
5.5.5 Other Properties of S a l t ( K i )
Results of varying other s a l t properties from weak t o strong show
t h a t strong s a l t reduces the s t r a i n s a l l around the cavern. Even w i t h
the weak s a l t , the maximum s t r a i n on the cavern boundary i s found t o be
only about I % , indicating a cavern in the weak s a l t should s t i l l be
adequately f r e e from boundary damage under the base conditions. The
s a l t properties appear t o have very l i t t l e e f f e c t on the long-term
behavior of the cavern, provided that no property deterioration of the
s a l t by a i r penetration has taken place.
5.5.6 Cavern Height/Diameter Ratio (H/D)
Varying the H/D r a t i o from 5 t o 20 produced negative results. Both
s t r a i n and radial closure increase sharply a t about 1220 m regardless of
the H/D r a t i o .

5.6 TWO-CAVERN INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS

The two-cavern system was analyzed t o determine cavern interference
f o r various cavern separation distances assuming effects of the various
parameters. For t h i s study, both caverns were assumed to have the same
a i r pressure, P i .
As i n the single cavern analysis, a base condition was established
f o r each parameter, and then each parameter was varied independently
w i t h the others held a t the base condition. The base values and ranges
f o r each parameter a r e l i s t e d i n Table 5.
Effects of the s i x variable parameters were analyzed i n relation t o
radial boundary s t r a i n versus cavern age in logarithmic'time. Similarly,
effects of the s i x variable parameters on radial boundary s t r a i n were
2 4
analyzed a t the two different ages, t = 10 and t = 10 days.
 TABLE 5. Base Values and Ranges of P r i n c i p a l Parameters Used i n
Two-Cavern Analysis ( S e r a t a and McNamara 1980)

Parameter Base Value Range

Horizontal s e c t i o n depth ( Y ) 610 rn 152 - 1524 m
Cavern a i r p r e s s u r e ( P i ) 5.07 MPa 101.4 MPa
Excess i n s i t u l a t e r a l s t r e s s 50% of max nPL 0-1 00% of max nPL
(nPL)
Octahedral s h e a r s t r e n g t h (KO) 4.14 MPa 4.14 - 5.175 MPa
Other s a l t p r o p e r t i e s (Ki) Weak Weak - Strong
Separationldiameter r a t i o (S/D) 4.0 2-10

5.6.1 Cavern Depth ( Y )

Radial boundary s t r a i n i n c r e a s e s s h a r p l y a s depth i n c r e a s e s below
915 m. Radial boundary s t r a i n exceeds 5% a t t h e 1220-m depth. In the
ground between the two caverns, no v i s c o p l a s t i c zone appears a t depths
l e s s than 305 m. A t 610 m a v i s c o p l a s t i c zone has developed t o about
1 . 5 cavern r a d i i . A t depths of 915 m and more, the ground becomes
t o t a l l y v i s c o p l a s t i c . Away from t h e caverns, the v i s c o p l a s t i c zone
expands from l e s s than two cavern r a d i i a t a depth of 610 m t o more than
8 cavern r a d i i a t Y = 1524 m. S i g n i f i c a n t s t r a i n occurs midway between
t h e caverns a t depths of 915 m and g r e a t e r .
5.6.2 Cavern Air P r e s s u r e ( P i )
The r a d i a l boundary s t r a i n i n c r e a s e s r a t h e r s h a r p l y with reduction
of the a i r pressure. However, even with t o t a l d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n , t h e
4
maximum boundary s t r a i n i s s t i l l less than 2% even a f t e r 1 0 days of
d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n . This means t h a t cavern a i r p r e s s u r e i s n o t a c r i t i c a l
parameter by i t s e l f under t h e base c o n d i t i o n s .
5.6.3 Excess L a t e r a l Stress ( A P ~)

The excess i n s i t u l a t e r a l s t r e s s was v a r i e d from 0 kPa, which

corresponds t o an h y d r o s t a t i c i n i t i a l s t r e s s s t a t e , t o i t s maximum
t h e o r e t i c a l value o f 3Ko/fl. As i n previous analyses, t h e r a d i a l boundary
s t r a i n increases s h a r p l y when t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s exceeds 90% o f
i t s t h e o r e t i c a l maximum, b u t f o r t h e base c o n d i t i o n , t h e maximum r a d i a l
boundary s t r a i n i s l e s s than 4% even when t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s i s
maximum. A small v i s c o p l a s t i c r e g i o n surrounds each cavern when t h e
excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s i s 0% t o 50% o f maximum. T h i s zone expands t o
i n c l u d e a l l s a l t between t h e two caverns when t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s
reaches 90% o f maximum.

5.6.4 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h (KO)

With v a r i a t i o n o f t h e KO value, very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i s observed

i n t h e s t r a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n around t h e cavern. S l i g h t l y more n o t i c e a b l e
d i f f e r e n c e s occur i n t h e s t r e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n s , which show t h e expansion
o f t h e v i s c o p l a s t i c r a d i u s from about one cavern r a d i u s when KO = 5.18 MPa
t o 1.5 cavern r a d i i when KO = 4.14 MPa. The maximum boundary s t r a i n s
a r e very small ( l e s s than 1%) i n e i t h e r case f o r t h e base c o n d i t i o n s .

5.6.5 Other P r o p e r t i e s o f S a l t ( K j )

The r a d i a l boundary s t r a i n f o r weak s a l t i s more than t w i c e t h a t

f o r strong s a l t . A t any r a t e , a l l s t r a i n s a r e l e s s than 1% f o r t h e base
c o n d i t i o n s , regardless o f t h e s a l t p r o p e r t i e s .

5.6.6 Cavern Separation Distance (S/D)

A sharp increase i n r a d i a l boundary s t r a i n appears when t h e S/D

r a t i o drops below 3. The ground becomes e n t i r e l y v i s c o p l a s t i c when S/D
equals 3 o r l e s s . Both stresses and s t r a i n s between t h e caverns become
n o t i c e a b l y l a r g e r when S/D = 2, b u t they a r e n o t very much a f f e c t e d by
t h e S/D r a t i o when i t s value i s g r e a t e r than 3. A minimum cavern separation
d i s t a n c e o f 4.0 i s recommended.
5.7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA
5.7.1 Basis of Criteria
Long-term boundary creep strain was used as the basic reference for
evaluation of cavern s t a b i l i t y (Serata and McNamara 1980). Then, based
on f i e l d experience, a cavern boundary creep strain of 10% was considered
as the acceptable limit of safety for CAES caverns. This value i s
considered to assure a very highly stable s t a t e of the caverns. In
assessing the effects of the individual parameters, a "sensitivity
factor" for the creep strain was utilized. I t i s defined as the r a t i o
of the cavern boundary creep strain for the specified parameter value to
the cavern boundary creep strain attained for the base condition value.
5.7.2 Cavern Depth
Cavern depth of approximately 1220 m i s considered safe under most
normal circumstances. I n no case should cavern depth be extended below
1220 m unless the in s i t u stress s t a t e can be verified as nearly hydrostatic
or less. A cavern depth of 915 m i s more conservative and allows containment
of a i r a t 9.69 MPa for nonhomogeneous s a l t and 15.0 MPa for homogeneous
s a l t . Caverns should not be placed deeper than 762 m when three c r i t i c a l
parameters approach the following extremely unfavorable values:
cavern a i r pressure, Pi = 0 (depressurization)
excess lateral s t r e s s , APL = 100%of maximum value
cavern separation distance, S/D < 4.
5.7.3 Cavern Depressurization
Under normal conditions, even complete cavern depressurization will not
push the boundary creep strain beyond the acceptable limit of 10%. The
sensitivity factor for depressurization i s about 2.5. The normal value for
long-term radial closure i s approximately 2%. Therefore, prolonged
depressurization will produce creep closure only up to 5%. A t 1220 m,
however, the expected radial closure under the base condition i s 5%. There-
fore, depressurization a t 1220 m i s not acceptable because the boundary
creep strain will exceed 12%. Caverns should be no deeper than 762 m i f
depressurization i s 1 i kely t o occur frequently (McNamara e t a1 . 1981 ) .
5.7.4 Excess Lateral Stress
In s i t u l a t e r a l s t r e s s , nPL, should be determined prior t o design
of any CAES cavern, because excess i n t h i s parameter value has the most
significant e f f e c t of any of those investigated. All analyses show very
rapid increase in boundary s t r a i n when the excess s t r e s s , nPL, exceeds
90% of i t s maximum calculated value. The s e n s i t i v i t y factor, aPL, i s
about 2.5 a t 90% and about 3.8 a t 100%.
Cavern s t r a i n i s t o be limited t o 10% over a period of 10,000 days
(Serata and McNamara 1980).
5.7.5 Octahedral Shear Strength
The octahedral shear strength of s a l t has variable e f f e c t s on
cavern behavior in the range of the analyzed values of 3.795 t o 5.175 MPa
The s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r can be considered t o be 1 a t depths l e s s than
610 m. A t greater depths, the factor will increase.
5.7.6 Other Properties of S a l t
S a l t properties other than octahedral shear strength have only a
small e f f e c t on cavern stabi 1i ty. However, the difference between weak,
medium, and strong s a l t has a greater e f f e c t under extreme conditions.
The s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r i s assumed t o be 1 a t the shallower depths of
l e s s than 610 m , by taking weak s a l t a s the base condition. The value
becomes larger a t greater depths.
Increased cavern pressure i s expected t o increase long-term cavern
stabi 1i t y unless i t simultaneous7y causes increased a i r penetration along
crystal boundaries, f r a c t u r e surfaces, o r discontinuties.
5.7.7 Cavern Height/Diameter Ratio
An increase i n cavern height beyond H = 5D was found t o have l i t t l e
e f f e c t on cavern s t a b i l i t y . The s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r f o r increase i n
1ength beyond H = 5D i s about 1. Serata and McNamara (1980) s t a t e t h a t
spherical shape minimizes s t r a i n .
5.7.8 Cavern Separation/Distance R a t i o

A minimum S/D r a t i o of 4 i s recommended f o r a two-cavern system,

assuming t h a t those caverns a r e operated a t the same a i r pressure.
Smaller S/D values would be acceptable o n l y under conditions more favorable
than the base conditions.

5.8 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

5.8.1 Long-Term S t a b i l i t y

Design and operational requirements o f CAES caverns were found t o

be fundamentally compatible w i t h t h e i r long- term s t r u c t u r a l behavior
(Serata and McNamara 1980). Within t h e scope o f t h i s study, such caverns
were found t o be s t r u c t u r a l l y s t a b l e f o r any forseeable period. No
r e s t r i c t i o n s on design o r operation were found t o e x i s t f o r t h e design
parameters analyzed, which r e f l e c t e d t h e e l a s t i c , v i s c o e l a s t i c and
v i s c o p l a s t i c behavior o f s a l t caverns a t room temperature.

5.8.2 Design C r i t e r i a

Design c r i t e r i a f o r long-term s t a b i 1it y o f CAES caverns were developed

according t o t h e normally expected stresses, s t r a i n s , and displacements
i n t h e cavern f o r 30 years o f operation. A " s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r " was
defined t o i d e n t i f y t h e e f f e c t s o f extreme cavern conditions, so t h a t i t
n o t o n l y indexed t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f i n d i v i d u a l parameters, b u t
a l s o served t o estimate t h e coupled e f f e c t s o f two o r more extreme
parameters a c t i n g simultaneously .
5.8.3 Measure o f Cavern S t a b i l i t y

T o t a l cumulative creep s t r a i n was i d e n t i f i e d as t h e key i n d i c a t o r

o f cavern s t a b i l i t y . Based on f i e l d experience, a t o t a l boundary creep
s t r a i n o f 10% i n 30 years o f continuous operation was s e t as a maximum
l i m i t , p r o v i d i n g a s u f f i c i e n t s a f e t y margin against the u n c e r t a i n t i e s of
cavern behavior n o t analyzed i n t h i s study.
5.8.4 Constitutive Equations
The constitutive equations of rock s a l t were updated by reviewing
the l a t e s t laboratory and f i e l d data. Theoretical bases of the equations
were shown to be capable of analyzing the complex effects of elevated
temperature and b r i t t l e deterioration upon CAES caverns.
5.8.5 Cyclic Loading Tests
Laboratory t e s t s indicated that cyclic loading of CAES caverns will
increase, rather than decrease, the strength of rock s a l t , when s a l t i s
i n the viscoplastic state. The t e s t s simulated 45 years of continuous
weekly cycles. No testing was conducted for b r i t t l e fracture of rock
s a l t under cyclic loading.
5.8.6 Temperature Effects
Evaluation of laboratory t e s t data showed that rock s a l t a t high
temperatures maintains a definite octahedral shear strength upon which
CAES caverns can be stabilized. In the modeling discussed here, the
viscoplastic viscosity coefficient decreases as temperature increases,
causing the ul timate plasticity extension to be reached more quickly.
A1 though computer simulations of temperature were 1imi ted i n scope,
i t was apparent that high temperatures will increase boundary strain.
No other destructive effects of high temperatures were found. Further,
because the h i g h temperature also increases the ductility of s a l t a t the
cavern boundary, resulting in a reduction of b r i t t l e fracturing, the net
result of operating a t high temperatures should not necessarily be
considered destructive.
For temperatures to 93OC, CAES caverns are expected to be highly
stable, given that other c r i t i c a l parameters are maintained a t moderate
levels. Possibly temperatures to about 150°C could be withstood i f the
other c r i t i c a l parameters are favorable (Serata and McNamara 1980;
McNamara e t a1. 1981 ) .
 Thoms (1978) points out that temperature and stress may be strongly
coupled w i t h respect to fatigue effects caused by CAES cycling. Thus,
testing f o r explicit effects on rock s a l t due to pressure or temperature
cycling alone may not be sufficient. S i t e specific studies for a particular
situation are therefore strongly recommended.
 6.0 CAVERN DESIGN AND OPERATION

E v a l u a t i o n of s t r e n g t h of r o c k s a l t and s i t e - s p e c i f i c g e o l o g i c a l
inhomogenei t i es may heavi l y in f 1uence engineering design concerning
s a l t thickness above c a v i t i e s necessary t o c o n t a i n p r e s s u r i z e d a i r .Rock
mechanics o f t h e H u n t o r f CAES f a c i l i t y i n d i c a t e d 100 m o f s a l t thickness
would ensure a maximum c a v i t y i n t e g r i t y t o 10 MPa and an upper- level
o p e r a t i n g pressure o f 7 MPa (Quast and Lorenzen 1979).

F e a s i b l e depths f o r CAES caverns i n s a l t domes w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d

by s i t e - s p e c i f i c m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s a l t and a l s o by t h e o p e r a t i n g
c y c l e o f t h e surface p l a n t .
However, a general range o f f e a s i b l e depths
can be estimated, w i t h more confidence i n l i m i t s on minimum depth than
on maximum depth (Thoms and M a r t i n e z 1978b).

6.1 DESIGN GUIDELINES

Most design features a r e s u b j e c t t o q u a n t i t a t i v e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

w i t h i n f a i r l y narrow l i m i t s . These i n c l u d e p h y s i c a l a i r storage c o n d i t i o n s ,
mechanical behavior o f t h e s a l t , and dimensional f a c t o r s .

A minimum depth t o cavern r o o f (and w e l l casing " seat" i n t o t h e

s a l t ) of 610 m would be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an a l l o w a b l e maximum o p e r a t i n g
pressure of approximately 12.4 MPa f o r s t a t i c storage o f hydrocarbons
i n Louisiana s a l t dome caverns ( S t a t e o f Louisiana 1977). Thus, a maxinium
o p e r a t i n g peak pressure of approximately 10 MPa appears reasonable f o r a
CAES cavern w i t h roof and w e l l casing s e a t a t 610 m depth. A l t e r n a t e l y ,
f o r CAES pressure c y c l e s w i t h maximum pressure o f 10 MPa, cavern r o o f
depth should n o t be l e s s than approximately 610 m (Thoms and Martinez
1979). I n o t h e r words 1 MPa i s a l l o w a b l e p e r 61 m o f depth.
Golder Associates (1979) s t a t e s t h a t t h e most c r i t i c a l dimensions
a r e 1 ) d i s t a n c e from t o p o f s a l t t o top o f cavern ( d ) , 2 ) maximum cavern
span ( s ) , and 3) t h i c k n e s s o f t h e w a l l shared w i t h an adjacent cavern.
The d/s r a t i o should n o t be l e s s than 2.2 and the w a l l between caverns
should be 76 t o 92 m t h i c k , according t o German guidelines.

6.2 GEOLOGIC FACTORS

Rock strength, f a u l t i n g , anomalous zones ( i n s a l t domes), presence

o f gas, r a t e o f d i s s o l u t i o n by ground water, and seismic suscepti b i 1it y
(Aamodt e t a l . 1975) a r e a few o f the factors t h a t have a bearing on the
p r e d i c t e d s t a b i l i t y of a s a l t deposit.

The i n s i t u s t r e n g t h o f s a l t i s g e n e r a l l y more uniform and c o n s i s t e n t

than t h a t o f most o t h e r rock types. Under load, r e d i s t r i b u t i o n and
d i s p e r s a l o f s t r a i n occur because o f t h e time-dependent behavior o f s a l t .
This s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s important f o r maintenance o f excavation
.
s t a b i l i t y (Aamodt e t a1 1975).

C o n t r o l l e d s o l u t i o n mining, guided by a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the

s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of t h e s a l t , can g e n e r a l l y ensure an adequate cavern
l i f e t i m e (Weinstein e t a l . 1978).

6.2.1 E f f e c t o f I m p u r i t i e s on Mining

Large amounts o f potash and o t h e r i m p u r i t i e s i n rock s a l t may

l i m i t use o f some s a l t domes as cavern s i t e s f o r CAES operations.
I n s o l u b l e s t r i n g e r s o f anhydrite as w e l l as potash may c o n t r i b u t e t o
marked a n i s o t r o p i c e f f e c t s upon s o l u t i o n cavern development. Engineering
design must take i n t o consideration t h e formation o f shelves and ledges
o f i n s o l u b l e m a t e r i a l . during s o l u t i o n mining, which Kay break down and
endanger cavern development and production t u b i n g ( A s i a l a 1974).

C u r r e n t l y an a n a l y t i c a l modeling technique does e x i s t f o r p r e d i c t i n g

t h e megascopic response o f rock s a l t t o the e f f e c t s o f s o l u t i o n mining.
This a n a l y t i c a l program, developed f o r KBB GmbH, u t i l i z e s core t e s t i n g
techniques, and can model s o l u t i o n mining i n nonhomogeneous s a l t .
Rock mechanics a n a l y s i s f o r Huntorf was conducted by Professor W. Dryer
o f t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r Petromechanics and Rock Physics o f the Clausthal
Technical U n i v e r s i t y (Quast and Lorenzen 1979).
6.2.2 Caprock I n s t a b i l i t y

C e r t a i n domes a r e a c t i v e " s o l u t i o n " domes, t h a t i s ; a h i g h l y

permeable zone e x i s t s between t h e s a l t s u r f a c e and caprock. Such zones
a r e so extensive as t o accommodate l a r g e amounts o f d r i l l i n g mud by
d i r e c t l o s s d u r i n g d r i l l i n g operations.
The W i n n f i e l d Dome, f o r example,
has a l a y e r o r seam of h i g h l y permeable a n h y d r i t e sand v a r y i n g from
15 cm t o more than 1 meter t h i c k between t h e s a l t and caprock. If a
h i g h r a t e o f c i r c u l a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h i s sand, i t w i l l tend t o corrode
any unprotected w e l l casings and o t h e r p i p e connecting t h e CAES caverns
t o s u r f a c e f a c i li t i e s . C o n s t r u c t i o n problems a l s o c o u l d be i n c u r r e d
because o f t h i s porous zone.

The caprock a l s o can be cavernous and vuggy. If lost circulation

occurs d u r i n g d r i l l i n g t h e h o l e can collapse; but, s p e c i f i c a l l y from
t h e long- term s t a b i l i t y viewpoint, a cavernous caprock w i l l tend t o
increase w e l l casing c o r r o s i o n problems. Unprotected w e l l casings can
corrode and l e a k w i t h i n a decade under such c o n d i t i o n s . A leak i n the
casing can d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s t a b i l i t y by p e r m i t t i n g a r a p i d pressure drop
w i t h i n a cavern (Thorns 1978). Rapid pressure drops i n r o c k s a l t storage
caverns have a p p a r e n t l y p r e c i p i t a t e d r o o f f a l l s , and thus a r e h i g h l y
undesirable.

6.2.3 Creep Deformation

The volume, i n t e r n a l pressure, and temperature requirements o f CAES

c a v i t i e s represent a departure from hydrocarbon storage a p p l i c a t i o n s o f
proven s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i 1 ity.

Although c a v i t i e s seldom c o l l a p s e under d i r e c t e a r t h pressure, they

w i l l experience a r e d u c t i o n i n volume under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s o f l o a d i n g
and temperature because of t h e time-dependent n a t u r e of s a l t deformation
.
(Corcoran e t a1 1970 and 1974b). As soon as t h e s a l t c a v i t y i s dissolved,
s a l t creep may t a k e place, depending on t h e i n i t i a l unbalanced w a l l stresses
and back pressure w i t h i n t h e chamber. Compressed a i r s t o r e d w i t h i n t h e
cavern w i l l tend t o o f f s e t overburden and l a t e r a l stresses. Depressurization
w i l l tend t o a c c e l e r a t e creep.
The r a t e o f d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n i s a r b i t r a r i l y
l i m i t e d t o 1 MPa p e r hour t o prevent dynamic i n s t a b i l i t y .

A p o s s i b l e consequence of creep deformation i n s a l t t h a t i s subjected

t o stresses, s t r a i n s , o r temperature i s s t r u c t u r a l f a i l u r e , which can
r e s u l t i n caving and r u p t u r e (Katz and Lady 1976; Lewis 1970; Lewis
1974). O f g r e a t importance i n t h e p r a c t i c a l design of storage c a v i t i e s
i s an e s t i m a t e of t h e t i m e t o creep r u p t u r e under s t r e s s . O f course,
any c l o s u r e o f t h e storage c a v i t y t h a t occurs reduces t h e usable volume.

P r i o r t o c a v i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e p r o s p e c t i v e s i t e should undergo a
complete g e o l o g i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , which i n c l u d e s d r i l l h o l e s , logs, and
cores, t o e s t i m a t e creep and o t h e r s a l t p r o p e r t i e s , as w e l l as t h e s i z e
and o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e deposit. I n s i t u s t r e s s measurements a r e
r e q u i r e d f o r a f u l l a n a l y s i s o f c a v i t y behavior. Some measure o f i n
s i t u s t r e s s can be obtained from s t r e s s meters and deformation gauges
(Katz and Lady 1976; Serata 1970). Hydraul i c f r a c t u r e propagation a1 so
o f f e r s a p o s s i b l e method f o r determining s t a t e s o f s t r e s s i n s a l t .

6.2.4 Surface Subsidence

The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an underground chamber causes movements and

induces s t r e s s changes i n t h e surrounding r o c k mass. These s t r e s s
changes may cause subsidence o f ground s u r f a c e above t h e opening (Chang
and N a i r 1974; Panek 1970).

F a i l u r e may occur i n compression o r tension. Rock f a i l u r e s i n

t h e v i c i n i t y of an opening do n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on s u r f a c e
subsidence unless they propagate t o t h e surface. Then t h e massive
subsidence associated w i t h sinkholes and ground breakage can occur
(Lewis 1974; Chang and N a i r 1974). Generally, f a i l u r e does n o t propagate
t o t h e s u r f a c e unless t h e s a l t over a cavern has been breached by d i s s o l u t i o n ;
o t h e r w i s e i t i s o n l y necessary t o p r e d i c t t h e subsidence t h a t can occur
from t h e c r e a t i o n o f s o l u t i o n c a v i t i e s .

Information must be acquired on t h e amount o f volume r e d u c t i o n and

t h e e x t e n t o f t h e subsidence r a t e t o be expected. The complexity o f t h e
caprock s t r u c t u r e , t h e l a c k o f accuracy o f information obtained on t h e
s a l t d e p o s i t from a l i m i t e d number of d r i l l h o l e s , and t h e unknown mechanical
p r o p e r t i e s of d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s can make i t d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t t h e
subsidence r a t e (Weinstein e t a1. 1978). Computational techniques have
been developed t o p r e d i c t f r a c t u r e propagation around s o l u t i o n
caverns. S i m i l a r analyses can a l s o be made f o r s l i p p a g e along bedding
planes and o t h e r geologic d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s (Corcoran e t a1 . 1974b; Panek
1970).

6.3 CAVERN CHARACTERISTICS

Cavern parameters i n c l u d e octahedral shear strength, excess l a t e r a l

s t r e s s , depth t o cavern top, l a t e r a l s a l t thickness, v e r t i c a l s a l t
thickness and span, and h e i g h t t o diameter r a t i o .

6.3.1 Octahedral Shear S t r e n g t h

Various octahedral shear s t r e n g t h s have been reported. These

values include: 3.8 t o 5.2 MPa (Serata and Cundey 1979); ca. 3.45 MPa (King
1971 ) ; and 1.04 MPa (Baar 1970, 1971 ) . According t o Baar (1977), v a l ues
o f octahedral shear s t r e n g t h measured i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y may n o t apply
under f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s . A t t h i s w r i t i n g a t e s t e d octahedral shear
s t r e n g t h o f between 3.8 and 5.2 MPa i s a recormended value.

Recommended s p e c i f i c a t i o n : Minimum octahedral shear s t r e n g t h i s t o

be 3.8 MPa.

6.3.2 Excess L a t e r a l S t r e s s

Serata and McNamara (1980) d e f i n e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s i n terms o f

a maximum t h e o r e t i c a l value, 3~,/fi, where KO denotes t h e octahedral
shear s t r e n g t h . F o r an assumed value o f KO = 4.5 MPa t h e maximum excess
l a t e r a l s t r e s s would be 9.55 MPa. The authors s t a t e t h a t t h e r a d i a l
boundary s t r a i n increases s h a r p l y when t h e excess l a t e r a l s t r e s s exceeds
90% o f i t s t h e o r e t i c a l maximum. T h i s 90% value would be 8.6 MPa g r e a t e r
than t h e v e r t i c a l overburden pressure.
 Within the depth range of interest a more conservative specification
would r e s t r i c t the horizontal s t r e s s to 120% of the overburden pressure.
For example, a t a depth of 800 m the overburden pressure would be
16.96 MPa (assuming 100% dense rock s a l t overburden) and the a1 lowable
horizontal s t r e s s would be 20.35 MPa. The differential stress would be
3.39 MPa, which i s only 36% of the calculated maximum. A t 1600 m, however,
the differential stress would r i s e to 6.78 MPa, b u t t h i s i s only 71% of
the theoretical maximum. However, i f viscoplastic behavior dominates a t
800 m and below, i t i s 1ikely that vertical and horizontal stresses will
be approximately equal because the rock s a l t will lack sufficient rigidity
t o maintain an anisotropic stress f i e l d .
Recommended specification: Horizontal stress i s not to exceed 120%
of overburden pressure.
6.3.3 Depth to Cavern Top
Serata and McNamara (1980) consider a depth of 1220 m safe under
"most normal circumstances". They s t a t e that the cavern depth should
not be greater unless the in s i t u s t r e s s behavior i s hydrostatic. These
authors would limit cavern depth to 760 m when three c r i t i c a l parameters
occur:

.. complete depressurization of cavern

excess lateral s t r e s s = 100% of theoretical value.
cavern separation distance i s less than 4 diameters.
Thoms and Martinez (1978a) proposed a maximum depth to the cavern floor
of 1524 m unless new research proves f e a s i b i l i t y of greater depths. They
recommend a minimum depth to cavern roof of 610 m.
Recommended specification: Maximum depth to cavern top i s to be
1220 m. This will allow storage of a i r a t 12.93 MPa in nonhomogeneous
s a l t and a t 20 MPa in homogeneous s a l t .
6.3.4 Lateral S a l t Thickness
For mu1 tip1 e caverns Serata and McNamara (1980) recommended a
minimum separationldiameter (S/D) r a t i o of 4, provided that the caverns
a r e operated a t the same a i r pressure. "S" i s the center- to- center
separation distance. I f the caverns have equal r a d i i the s a l t wall
thickness i s (S-2R), which i s equal t o three cavern diameters. The S/D
r a t i o a t Huntorf i s 3.67 (Quast and Lorenzen 1979). The s a l t wall
thickness between the two caverns i s 160 m , which i s equal t o 2.67 cavern
diameters because maximum cavern diameter i s 60 m.
Wall thicknesses as low a s 30.5 n? separate hydrocarbon storage
caverns within Louisiana s a l t domes (Thoms and Martinez 1978a). However,
t h i s specification may not be adequate t o accommodate the pressure and
thermal cycling of CAES.
Recommended specifications: The cavern wall thickness between two
CAES caverns i s t o be a t l e a s t three times the sum of the adjacent
cavern maximum r a d i i . The l a t e r a l s a l t thickness between an "outside"
cavern and the l a t e r a l boundary of the s a l t dome or a n t i c l i n e should be
100 t o 150 m o r a t l e a s t three times the cavern diameter, whichever i s
l a r g e r , because the geologic conditions of s t r e s s unbalance beyond the
dome might be comparable t o those within an adjacent cavern.
6.3.5 Vertical S a l t Thickness and Span
A t Huntorf the s a l t thickness above the c a v i t i e s i s approximately
150 m (Quast and Lorenzen 1979). Golder Associates (1979) s t a t e s t h a t
the r a t i o of v e r t i c a l s a l t thickness t o maximum cavern span should not
be l e s s than 2.2. For Huntorf, with maximum cavity diameter of 60 m,
t h i s r a t i o i s t h u s 2.5.
Recommended specifications: The v e r t i c a l s a l t thickness should b e
a t l e a s t 150 m. The cavern span should not exceed more than 60 m. The
r a t i o of v e r t i c a l s a l t thickness t o maximum cavern span should be a t
l e a s t 2.5.
6.3.6 Height-to-Diameter Ratio
A v e r t i c a l cylindrical cavern shape was assumed by Serata and
McNamara (1 980). T h i s shape i s considered as a model f o r most dissolution
s a l t cavern designs. The c y l i n d r i c a l shape a1so enables most e f f e c t i v e
use o f t h e s a l t dome volume i n m u l t i p l e cavern arrays. The height- to-
diameter r a t i o was v a r i e d from 5 t o 20 i n modeling studies. Regardless
o f t h e r a t i o , t h e s t r a i n and r a d i a l c l o s u r e increased sharply a t about
1220 m. P o s s i b l y t h e biggest drawback o f caverns w i t h a l a r g e r a t i o i s
t h a t t h e i r deep lower p o r t i o n s may be subject t o v i s c o p l a s t i c creep.

The r a t i o adopted i n t h e Huntorf design i s 3.0 ( h e i g h t 180 m,

maximum diameter 60 m).

Recommended s p e c i f i c a t i o n : Hei ght- to- diameter r a t i o i s n o t t o exceed

5.0.

6.4 INJECTION AND DECOMPRESSION PARAMETERS

I n CAES s a l t c a v i t i e s , d a i l y c y c l i n g o f temperature and pressure can

a f f e c t t h e c a v i t y walls. A i r i s i n j e c t e d a t as high a temperature as
p o s s i b l e i n t o t h e storage chamber, and t h e s i n g l e air- phase compression
o f a i r w i l l e l e v a t e t h e temperature of a i r already present (Katz and
Lady 1976).

I n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d o u t f o r t h e Huntorf f a c i l i t y showed t h a t a
maximum r a t e o f depressurization o f 1.014 MPa/hour and c y c l i n g between
20" and 50°C was w i t h i n safe 1i m i t s (General E l e c t r i c Co. 1976).

I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e e f f e c t s o f temperature and pressure c y c l i n g on

c a v i t i e s i n s a l t deposits is from experiments concerned w i t h hydrocarbon
storage. Storage periods f o r t h i s purpose are seasonal r a t h e r than
daily. Also, excessive i n t e r n a l c a v i t y pressure can induce t e n s i l e
stresses t h a t r e i n f o r c e those produced by t h e s t r u c t u r a l features created
d u r i n g mining. Penetration o f t h e a i r i n t o the s a l t may a f f e c t t h e
m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s a l t , as w e l l as t h e s t a t e o f s t r e s s o f t h e
s a l t c a v i t y walls.

F u r t h e r s t u d i e s a r e needed on t h e e f f e c t s o f temperature and pressure

c y c l i n g i n CAES s a l t c a v i t i e s . Before any c y c l i n g over wide temperature
and pressure changes takes place, t h e rock mechanics o f t h e selected
s a l t d e p o s i t should be thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d (Weinstein e t a1 . 1978).
 Recommended specifications: Temperature cycling i s t o be bounded
between cavern ambient temperature and 80°C. Maximum r a t e of depressurization
i s to be 1 MPa/hour.
6.4.1 Cavern Tem~erature
The response of rock s a l t t o s t r e s s i s strongly temperature dependent.
Lomenick (1968) studied the creep behavior of rock s a l t model mine
p i l l a r s as a function of temperature and load. He concluded that elevated
temperature i s the most important cause of cavity closure in s a l t mines.
Lomenick developed an empirical relationship in which creep r a t e of
p i l l a r models i s proportional t o absolute temperature raised to the
9.5 power. He stated that a t 200°C severe structural s t a b i l i t y problems
will occur. Deformation a t 100°C i s significantly higher than i t i s a t
60°C. However, naturally occurring temperatures range around 80°C in
some Gulf Coast s a l t domes a t depths of 1524 m (Thoms 1979). For CAES
reservoir walls an upper temperature limit of 80°C i s recommended by
Thoms and Martinez (1978a) and Serata and Cundey (1979). This temperature
takes into account the design l i f e requirement of 35 years.
Thoms and Martinez (1978a) also note that maximum a i r temperatures
could be higher during injection periods. Rock s a l t has relatively high
values of heat capacity and thermal conductivity (Clark 1966) which
would tend t o r e s t r i c t temperature r i s e within the s a l t cavern wall.
Also, a i r has a relatively low heat capacity and i t will be injected
into the cavern away from the walls. S a l t temperatures will probably be
close to mean values of operating CAES cycles, even relatively close to
the cavern wall surfaces; temperature will decline rapidly away from
the cavern wall, probably approaching ambient within several meters.
Recommended specification: Cavern temperature i s not to exceed
80°C.
6.2 Cavern Air Pressure

b
Cavern a i r pressure will be limited by depth below ground surface.
Maximum pressure i s t o be 16.39 kPa per meter of depth (1 .639 MPa per
100 meters). T h i s q u a n t i t y i s based upon a r e l a t i o n s h i p d e f i n e d by
Thorns and M a r t i n e z (1978b). T h i s pressure i s 77% o f t h e overburden
pressure computed f o r 100% dense h a l i t e . The 23% s a f e t y f a c t o r w i l l
be enhanced t o t h e degree t h a t n o n - h a l i t e m i n e r a l s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d
w i t h i n t h e overburden. However, p o r o s i t y would tend t o o f f s e t t h e e x t r a
weight p e r u n i t depth due t o these more dense minerals. (Rock- forming
m i n e r a l s w i t h h i g h e r s p e c i f i c g r a v i t i e s than h a l i t e i n c l u d e quartz,
feldspars, carbonates, ferro- magnesian m i n e r a l s , and c l a y m i n e r a l s. )

F o r nonhomogeneous s a l t stocks, such as t h e s a l t a n t i c l i n e s o f t h e

Paradox Basin, i t may be d e s i r a b l e t o reduce cavern a i r pressure t o
10.6 kPa p e r meter o f depth. T h i s i s 50% o f t h e overburden pressure f o r
100% dense ha1 it e .

Recommended s p e c i f i c a t i o n s : For homogeneous s a l t maximum pressure

i s t o be 16.39 kPa p e r meter o f depth. For nonhomogeneous s a l t maximum
pressure i s t o be 10.6 kPa p e r meter o f depth.

6.4.3 D e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n Rate

The most extreme cavern a i r pressure c o n d i t i o n i s complete d e p r e s s u r i -

zation. T h i s c o n d i t i o n may r e s u l t i n l a r g e c l o s u r e and boundary s t r a i n
(Serata and Cundey 1979). Because t h e r e i s always a p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o s s o f
cavern pressure by a c c i d e n t o r o t h e r unforeseen causes, cavern d e p r e s s u r i -
z a t i o n should be considered a r e a l i t y . A cavern a t a 1220-m depth should
n o t have a prolonged depressurization, because t h e expected 5% r a d i a l
c l o s u r e under t h e normal c o n d i t i o n would become more than 12% under a
prolonged d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n . A t t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l o f understanding o f cavern
s t a b i l i t y , d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n should n o t be allowed o t h e r than i n a p e r i o d
o f emergency (Serata and Cundey 1979).

Recommended s p e c i f i c a t i o n : When d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n i s necessary i t

should be l i m i t e d t o one MPa p e r hour. This i s s l i g h t l y less than
10 atmlhour, t h e maximum d e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n r a t e s p e c i f i e d a t H u n t o r f
(General E l e c t r i c Co. 1976).
6.4.4 Injection Parameters a t Huntorf
Compressed a i r injection a t Huntorf was described by Herbst e t a l .
(1979) and by Quast and Lorenzen (1979). The design conditions f o r
operation include pressure of 8 MPa, and temperature of 80°C. In actual
operation the upper storage pressure i s 7 MPa and the lower storage
pressure i s 5 MPa. This pressure drop of 2 MPa would be permissible in
a minimum period of 2 hours. The exhaust temperature from the high
pressure compressor i s 50°C. The mass flow r a t e i s 108 kg/sec. The
compressed a i r in the cavities i s saturated with water vapor. The
amount of water that precipitates can total several thousand kilograms
per cycle.

6.5 COMPARISON OF NONCOMPENSATED AND COMPENSATED CAVERNS

6.5.1 General
Two types of cavern appear feasible for CAES a i r reservoirs in
s a l t domes: 1 ) the noncompensated, or constant volume cavern, and
2 ) the compensated, or constant pressure cavern (Thoms and Martinez
1978a).
Noncompensated caverns consist of dry cavities in s a l t . A sufficient
volume of compressed a i r must be maintained to furnish an adequate flow
within required limits of pressure over the time interval of power-
peaking generation. The required a i r flow and pressure magnitudes are
based on a combination of the anticipated power demand load, the characteristics
of the surface f a c i l i t i e s of the CAES plant, and the limits s e t by the
site- specific s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a f o r the a i r reservoir caverns.
Compensated caverns are maintained a t nearly constant pressure by
a brine column extending t o a ground surface lake. The pressure within
the cavern does not attain the amp1 i tudes exhi bi ted by noncompensated
caverns ; however, t h i s system i s compl i cated by an additional reservoir
and conduit to handle the compensating liquid. Smaller volume CAES
reservoirs can be used because a "cushion" of a i r i s not required t o
maintain the pressure within limits over the interval of power generation.
6.5.2 Relative Effects on Cavern Stability
Table 6 summarizes relative effects on cavern s t a b i l i t y f o r compensated
versus noncompensated CAES caverns (Thorns and Martinez 1978a).
Erosion-dissolution due to the cyclic flow of the compensating
brine i n a compensated cavern and associated conduits and/or reservoir
could possibly be a negative effect (Thorns 1978). If the brine i s not
always completely saturated the long-term effects on highly soluble rock
s a l t surrounding openings could be destructive. Degree of brine saturation
is not very sensitive t o pressure and temperature variations; b u t the
frequent and long-term cycling associated w i t h CAES could cause cumulative
effects of significance.
The champagne effect for compensated caverns refers to the rapid
exsolution of a i r from the compensating brine column. I t i s caused by
decrease i n hydrostatic pressure when the column i s raised d u r i n g a i r
injection. The onset of exsolution tends to exacerbate the effect. The
final stage, i n principle, could cause a rapid depressurization of the
CAES cavern. This, in turn, could cause a severe roof f a l l or other
brittle- fracture effect within the walls of the s a l t cavern.

TABLE 6. Relative Effects for Compensated Versus

Noncompensated CAES Caverns in Salt Domes

Topic Noncompensated Compensated

Erosion-Dissolution Not Applicable Possibly Negative
Champagne Effect Not Appl icable Possibly Negative
Pressure Magnitude More Fl exi bi 1i t y Limited
Cyclic Loadings Possibly Negative Decreased Effect
Volume of Caverns Larger Vol ume Required Small e r Volume
ConiplicationsofConstruc- Few Possibly More
t i on
 The pressure magnitude w i t h i n noncompensated caverns can be c o n t r o l l e d ;
however, compensated caverns a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o pressures c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
t h e b r i n e "head" t o t h e ground surface. Pressures w i t h i n noncompensated
caverns t h e r e f o r e c o u l d be increased t o correspond more n e a r l y w i t h
g e o s t a t i c pressure 1eve1 s, provided a maxiniuni value was n o t exceeded.
Decreasing t h e pressure d i f f e r e n c e between g e o s t a t i c and cavern pressure
should increase cavern s t a b i l i t y .

Conipensated caverns w i l l be 1 i m i t e d t o about 10 kPa p e r meter o f

depth. T h i s corresponds t o a depth from ground s u r f a c e t o cavern f l o o r
o f 900 m f o r a pressure o f 9.0 MPa. The maximum f e a s i b l e depth f o r a
compensated s a l t cavern may be l e s s than t h e 1200-m depth proposed f o r
uncompensated caverns.

C y c l i c l o a d i n g e f f e c t s c o n s t i t u t e a major unknown f a c t o r i n long-

term s t a b i l i t y o f CAES caverns i n s a l t domes. The amplitudes of c y c l i c
pressure and temperature loadings o b v i o u s l y w i l l be l a r g e r f o r noncompensated
than f o r compensated caverns. Thus t h e associated long- term s t a b i l i t y
e f f e c t s c o u l d be more severe f o r noncompensated caverns.

Volume o f caverns w i l l be l a r g e r f o r noncompensated caverns. Thus,

t h e volume of s a l t affected by t h e s t a t e of s t r e s s w i l l be more extensive.
A l t e r n a t e l y , a number of caverns can be c o n s t r u c t e d t o a v o i d p o s s i b l e
n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s associated w i t h v e r y l a r g e openings i n r o c k s a l t . I f
an adequate volume o f s a l t i s present, no d i f f i c u l t y should prevent
c o n s t r u c t i n g mu1 t i p l e caverns f o r a CAES a i r r e s e r v o i r system.

Complications o f c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be o f much g r e a t e r magnitude f o r

compensated caverns. T h i s may n o t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t long- term s t a b i l i t y ;
however, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f s t a b i l i t y r e l a t e d concerns c o u l d increase.
For exanipl e, we1 1 casings , v a l ves, and r e s e r v o i r connections would
increase i n number; thereby, p o s s i b i l i t i e s would a l s o increase f o r
events a f f e c t i n g long- term cavern s t a b i l i t y , e.g., b r i n e induced c o r r o s i o n
o f metal components.

I n conclusion, two f a c t o r s w i l l determine t h e choice between compensated

and uncompensated caverns, r e l i a b i l i t y and c o s t . Given reasonable design
i n terms o f rock mechanics, the s i m p l i c i t y o f t h e uncompensated system
would s t r o n g l y support i t s choice i n terms of r e l i a b i l i t y .
Cost considerations
would be based on comparing incremental s o l u t i o n i n g costs f o r a d d i t i o n a l
cushion volume against t h e cost o f a l a r g e conipensation s h a f t designed
f o r h i g h f l o w r a t e s and surface compensating b r i n e r e s e r v o i r . An engineering
study f o r t h e s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n may be r e q u i r e d t o assess t h i s c o s t
impact, b u t t h e low incremental c o s t o f volume by s o l u t i o n i n g would
probably be l e s s than t h e compensation system i n t h e average case. It
i s recommended t h a t the noncompensated system be considered f i , r s t i n
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f CAES f e a s i b i l i t y .

6.6 CAVERN MONITORING

Cavern monitoring includes sensor d e t e c t i o n of the following:

three- dimensional shape, s t r e s s l e v e l s , e l a s t i c waves o r i g i n a t i n g i n o r
near the cavern, a c o u s t i c waves, t i l t i n g and subsidence, a i r leakage,
temperature, pressure, humidity and presence of l i q u i d water, and presence
o f cavern w a l l minerals w i t h i n withdrawn a i r .

Three-dimensional mapping can be performed by l a s e r ranging through

pressurized gas, photogrammetry, t e l e v i s i o n , and extensometers. The
l a s e r ranging device can monitor distances w i t h i n a gas- pressurized s a l t
cavern t o -
+ 10 cm (Thoms 1978). Sonar can be employed t o survey t h e
c a v i t y c o n f i g u r a t i o n during and immediately a f t e r d i s s o l u t i o n , b u t i t i s
n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o a g a s - f i l l e d cavern. Changes i n s t r e s s l e v e l s can be
followed w i t h s t r e s s meters and microseismic monitors. Microseismic
disturbances may d i v u l g e and l o c a t e r o o f f a l l s o r slabbing from w a l l s .
F i v e sensors a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s a r e recommended t o l o c a t e t h e source.
T i l t m e t e r s and p r e c i s e l e v e l - r e c o r d i n g instruments w i l l reveal minute
degrees o f subsidence (Thoms 1978). S i g n i f i c a n t a i r 1eakage w i 11 be
detectable by l o s s o f performance. Lesser leakage may be detected by
m o n i t o r i n g observation w e l l s f o r gaseous t r a c e r s added t o t h e compressed
air. Thermistors, pressure sensors, microphones, and humidity measuring
devices w i 11 monitor physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e cavern atmosphere.
A simple bypass o r screen can be used t o c o l l e c t f i n e mineral g r a i n s i n
t h e withdrawn a i r .
 Surveys a t Huntorf showed that caverns have withstood 1000 load
changes without significant change (Quast 1981 ) . Exact long-term behavior
has been followed with a new laser survey procedure. Temperature measure-
ments within the caverns indicated stable a i r cushions existed during a l l
phases of operation.
Golder Associates (1979) has conducted detai 1ed studies of oi 1
storage caverns in s a l t domes. After a cavern has been completed they
recommend a shut-in pressure t e s t t o a maximum of 20.37 kPa per meter of
overburden. The shut-in cavern pressure i s monitored continuously for
24 hours. A pressure drop of less than 69 kPa was judged satisfactory
for oil storage. During any depressurization microseismic monitoring
can be used to detect fracturing, slabbing, spa11 ing, buck1 ing, or
heaving of cavern surfaces.
Throughout cavern use a surface survey network can detect vertical
and horizontal movements. Surveys of strain in well casings should also
be conducted. The caprock overlying the s a l t dome i s often highly
fractured and cavernous, which may induce or modify surface displacements.
Borehole logs of cavern access holes should include: 1 ) caliper,
2 ) three-dimensional velocity , 3) cement bond, 4) neutron, 5) compensated
density, 6 ) temperature, and 7) velocity. One reason for logging i s to
characterize the roof rock before and a f t e r cavern pressurization.
The two most important devices used to monitor deformations above a
roof are extensometers, which measure deformations parallel to the axis
of the borehole, and inclinometers which sense deformations normal t o
the direction of the borehole (Golder Associates 1979).
Techniques are available to obtain a measure of absolute stresses
and stress changes adjacent to cavern walls. Most methods would require
separate holes drilled t o the top and sides of the cavern. More than
one technique should be used.
 7.0 DESIGN AND STABILITY CRITERIA

The design and s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a currently available to the CAES

s a l t cavity designer, a r e presented i n Table 7. Categories include
general geologic environment, hydro1ogy, petrography, structure, design
dimensions, operating c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and rock mechanical characteristics.
In evaluating a particular s i t e , the minimum acceptable design should be
compared w i t h the known geology and environmental requi rements before
recommending preliminary exploration. Such f a c t o r s as s a l t dome history,
caprock and ha1 it e qua1 i t y , brine disposal, and dimensional compatibi 1i t y
with the planned cavern array should be considered.
P L aJ u o a
XaJ s .r P 3: 0 0 Z'a
mC, aJ s n u
aJ 1 0 - r 5.22,aJ C, a, Ear
.? 30%
3 s aJ
s u
0 o w
v w C , a
V E O E
a r UaJ
G U
.
r C ,
uulu a alc L 0 6 - U-
-
aJaJaJE
L L w s u
't s - aJ
0 >
>-
u
E n
Q

.r n 3
L3C,
a
V)
. l a
- L O a
PL-rs m
n
U U-r
aJ E - r
aJ9- c r

rn
a,
-
7 %L '4-
-0aJ 0 h o w + m .r E 4
Zrn warm F a v o C, LC, 3
f a r V) ~ )m .r n LA a~ L - r
mE 3 o . r 5 s't m m s o 5 OC,
s -0 C, a.7 E a U.r
.rE't m s aJC,'tS 3 c I
m aaJ
-
s o o a a , CUES0
.r .r Ea a a E U E E
E F aJ.r aJum L L s E.r 3
EC, 0 0 7 .r E .r aJ 3 rn L . r
S-r 3 C, L P 3 > o x n L
0 E - a . r a Q I S U aLC, n
-
.r 0 s > + n0 aJ um m-r
C,O >C, L E n - r L
3- 3aJ a awl-
a o > U -!-- >,
0 o r n a s U 3.8- Q
V)C,l- a U 4 r n E E E
 -
cn aJ
-
0 s s
- -
L O 0 0
- o r NC,
0 XU
n . ~
X E
L a m
w 0
s a J P aJ
.r "P
E V- .P
.

u?
P C, 3

.r
-
PC,

L
a,
.r U s -
U
E m
au.7
-
?C, C 0 3 rrJ a J m 0 a J s s
L c a- m L o = aJ 0
0 aJC,- a 3 C, 'P
m u 0 m LC,= ?U
m.- nr n u s r - m
w m 3 m m - 3
U ?L - h 33C,
U - a aJ m C , 2 OY-.r
m.-r-Q a J m U L a J m
oC,3 s O X L
'4- m o t - O W LC, m U
0 2 Us N S u~ . ~
m
sC, m
o m c v r
-7 0 . ro

. -r m
3 -
m m s
OaJCC,
so

U O
Q)

.mu
aJ
amn

V-
a-r
C, El-- 0 L.P a - P m
m -s 3 a3
U a,.? C, >-C, E 0 w
O L L W m 3 aJ 0 r - C
-I m o E U m n U mC,
C, L . C, s m
C, 3 a- m
m m m -rTI E.f
?$r s a -r a ~ r w m
cc 0 L U O A C , L a m - m
0 m w - r - r m sC, c
-
m v
m m X C , w a J m
C, w-r
m v o
s 3-C,
O L
. r U V ) O L P a J
m a m u
s ns
8 00)
m m s
- u N L a J a J
3 -
W O aJm-waJ
-C, s - > 3.r N
7.r m ar m 7 . r
L .r L-
C,= U
o s w
u7.r L
m
a s
L L
C,
C

3
U
3
L
,

-
w
C,
s
.
m m
 u u
I S I a a
.r U 0 U .r N L
L 7 . r 8 SC, .r 0
W W Q O 5 L V) 4 2 1
P - r 5 .r L 8.r U
X'-I- EC, a) > Q).r8 QI
a L 5 > > 0.-
2.z~-3 0 0 om
rnr
W Q)m 5
O Z E . f
h 5 O l
.
a
o u E - a n m E
C,
m
=
5 s u L C 5
h- C,L
8 U 8 mC,
3.r
L Y SC, n o w w r c l ~
0 5 W 5 S .rU U a -
U
.,-=aJ
> 5
3
5 s m . r IS,N
- a m O a r r w ~ a c r r
a QI n L V - W S L L
* L U O O a U- s u
IS,-@ 5 - S V1.r 0 m C
E- V)'-I- U > m C ,
. r 5 L w L w w w-r
- m c c s r o s ~ L C L S
w O ~ C , + O P L a
U* - r U Q ) U
O U m L m C , ,-L>rnC
E O C , . O S 5 S O 5 S 5
L C U t ' L E O'-I-v..-
? w w . r w L r L w
5 S E U S > O m 3 3 E
UOQIQ)05'-I- 0 .m.r
.r L a E v a s - a 5 . Q
L m S C U L-EaJ
a C , m - L w 5 3 E s
~ , ' S ~ T S %
Z O
Z E E ~ L C U u ~ , > n ~ ,
Z h . 2
k-?Z.e
L 5C,u
rn 3C,
\ s m a J
V) L 5 s
a aJo
E >-
Ila ce.
.-E
O f : or=
 Category Requirement
d. Thickness o f s a l t above cavern c e i l i n g Minimum t h i c k n e s s i s t o be 150 m.
R a t i o o f overburden s a l t t h i c k n e s s
t o c a v i t y span i s t o be a t l e a s t
2.5. Local o r s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s
may e s t a b l i s h minima here.
e. D i s t a n c e o f cavern w a l l from nearest Minimum d i s t a n c e i s t o be 100 t o
s a l t dome o r s a l t a n t i c l i n e g e o l o g i c 150 m o r a t l e a s t 3 times t h e
contact cavern diameter, whichever i s
1arger.
Operating Characteri s t i c s
a. Cavern temperature Wall temperature should n o t exceed
80°C. I n j e c t e d a i r temperature
may be somewhat higher.
b. Cavern a i r p r e s s u r e Not t o exceed 16.39 kPa p e r meter
o f depth f o r homogeneous s a l t .
Not t o exceed 10.6 kPa p e r meter
f o r nonhomogeneous s a l t . Most
1i k e l y maximum pressure i s near
9.0 MPa.
c. Temperature c y c l i n g Between cavern ambient temperature
and 80°C maximum.
d. Pressure c y c l i n g r a t e D e p r e s s u r i z a t i o n l i m i t e d t o 11 MPa
p e r hour.
Qua1i f i c a t i o n
The H u n t o r f t h i c k n e s s and r a t i o a r e
150 m and 2.5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Evalua-
t i o n o f s t r e n g t h and g e o l o g i c a l i n -
homogeneities may r e v i s e these
q u a n t i t i e s upward a t some s i t e s .
E s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o n t a c t geometry and
l o c a t i o n may be d i f f i c u l t due t o over-
hanging s a l t , o t h e r i n t r u s i v e i r r e g u -
l a r i t i e s , f a u l t gauge zones, e t c . The
s a l t c o n t a c t should be mapped w i t h
an a p p r o p r i a t e margin f o r e r r o r , e.g.,
25 t o 50 m.
Wall temperature i s t o be monitored
c o n t i n u o u s l y a t t h e r o o f w i t h redundant
thermi s t o r s .
Cavern p r e s s u r e i s t o be monitored
c o n t i nuously a t t h e r o o f w i t h redundant
p r e s s u r e transducers o r o t h e r sensors.
The s p e c i f i e d maximum i s 77% o f over-
burden pressure computed f o r 100% dense
ha1 it e .
Temperature i s t o be c o n t i n u o u s l y
monitored.
T h i s i s s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a n 10 atm/hour,
t h e maximum r a t e s p e c i f i e d a t Huntorf.
Pressure i s t o be monitored c o n t i n u o u s l y .
 Category
Rock Mechanical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
a. H o r i z o n t a l s t r e s s
b. Octahedral shear s t r e n g t h
Requirement
Not t o exceed 25.42 kPa p e r meter
o f depth. A t 800 m t h e maximum
h o r i z o n t a l s t r e s s would be
20.34 MPa .
Not l e s s than 3.8 MPa
Qua1i f i c a t i o n
To be measured d u r i n g g e o l o g i c a l q u a l i -
f i c a t i o n procedures by i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n
o f boreholes. These numbers correspond
t o 120% o f t h e overburden pressure o f
h a l i t e a t a s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y o f 2.16
(2,160 kg p e r m3)
To be measured by l a b o r a t o r y procedure
and c o r r o b o r a t e d by f i e l d data. This
i s e q u i v a l e n t t o 551 p s i .
 REFERENCES

Aamodt, P. L., M. R. Engler, P. Madden, and R. B. Stone. 1975. Evaluation

o f Hazardous Wastes Emplacement. EPA-600/2-75-040, Fenix and Scisson, Inc.,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

A l l e n , K. 1972. "Eminence Dome - Natural Gas Storage I n S a l t Comes o f

Age." J. o f Petroleum Technology. November, pp. 1299-1301.

Asiala, R. A. 1974. "Cavern Storage o f Feedstock f o r Synthetic Natural

Gas Plant." I n Proceedings o f t h e Fourth Symposium on S a l t , Vol. 2,
pp. 301-303. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Baar, C. A. 1970. " Correct I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Data f o r B e t t e r Understandins

o f - s a l t P i l l a r Behavior i n ~ i n e s . " I n Proceedings Second Symposium on h i t ,
eds. J. L. Rau and L. F. Dellwig, Vol 2, pp. 280-289. Northern Ohio
Geol. Soc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Baar, C. A. 1971. Applied Rock Mechanics i n Deep Potash Mines. Internal

Report No. E71/2, Saskatchewan Research Council, Canada.

Baar, C. A. 1977. Applied S a l t Rock Mechanics I, t h e I n - S i t u Behavior

o f S a l t Rocks. E l s e v i e r S c i e n t i f i c P u b l i s h i n g Company, New York, New York.

B i l l i n g s , M. P. 1972. S t r u c t u r a l Geology. Prentice- Hall , Inc., New York,

New York.

Boresi, A. P., and D. U. Deere. 1963. Creep Closure o f a Spherical

C a v i t y i n an I n f i n i t e Medium ( w i t h Special A p p l i c a t i o n t o P r o j e c t Dribble,
Tatum S a l t Dome, M i s s i s s i p p i ) . Holnies and Narver, Inc., Orange, C a l i f o r n i a .

Chang, C- Y and K. Nair. 1974. " A n a l y t i c a l Methods f o r P r e d i c t i n g Subsidence

Above S o l u t i o n Mined Cavities." I n Proceedings o f t h e Fourth Symposium on
-
S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 101-117. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Chang, G. C., P. A. Thompson, R. D. Allen, and W. V. Loscutoff. 1980.

"Underaround Com~ressedA i r Enersv Storase f o r E l e c t r i c U t i 1it i e s . " I n
~ o c k s t 6 r e80, subsurface Space, FFoceediigs o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium,
ed. S. M. Bergman, Vol 2, pp. 579-585. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England

Clark, S. P., J r . 1966. Handbook o f Physical Constants. Memoir 97, The

Geological Society o f America, New York, New York.

Corcoran, A. E., F. W. Jessen, and H. Von Schonfeldt. 1974a. " F e a s i b i l i t y of

S t o r i n g Large Q u a n t i t i e s o f Crude O i l i n S a l t Dome S o l u t i o n C a v i t i e s . "
I n Proceedings o f t h e Fourth Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 277-283.
Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Corcoran, A. E., C- Y Chang, R. D. Singh, and A. M. Abdullah. 1974b.
"Time-Dependent Anal-ysis t o P r e d i c t Closure i n S a l t C a v i t i e s . " I n
proceedings o f t h e ~ o u r t hSymposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 129-1 39.
Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Corcoran, A. E., R. L. Thoms and V. K. J i n d a l . 1970. "Model Studies o f

E f f e c t s o f Closure o f S o l u t i o n Caverns i n S a l t Domes." I n Proceedings o f
t h e T h i r d Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2 pp. 308-320. Northern Ohio Geol.
Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Cruden, D. M. 1971. "The Form o f t h e Creep Law f o r Rock Under U n i a x i a l

.
Compression." I n t . J. Rock Mechs Min Sci 8(2): 105-126, Pergamon Press.

Cundey, Thomas E. and Shosei Serata. 1978. "Numerical Model i n s o f Behavior

o f caverns i n S a l t f o r Compressed A i r Energy Storage." I n ~ r o c e e d i n g s
o f the 1978 Mechanical and Magnetic Energy Storage Contractors' Review
Meeting, pp. 394-401, CONF-781046, National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia.

Desai, C. S. 1971. "Nonlinear Analysis Using S p l i n e Functions," I n Proceedings

ASCE, Jour. Soi 1 Mechanics and Foundation Design. 97(10).

Dreyer, W. E. 1974. " Results o f Recent Studies on the S t a b i l i t y o f

Crude O i l and Gas Storage i n S a l t Caverns." I n Proceedings o f t h e Fourth
Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 65-92. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio.

Dwyer, M. G. and R. L. Thoms. 1974. " F i n i t e Element Analysis o f S a l t Domes

w i t h Stored Hot Wastes." Fourth Symposium on S a l t , ed. A. H. Coogan,
V. 11, pp. 343. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Fenix and Scisson. 1978. "Conceptual Design f o r Compressed A i r Energy

.
Storage (CAES) " prepared f o r Middle South Services, Inc. by Fenix
and Scisson, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Gay, F. W. "Means o f S t o r i n g F l u i d f o r Power Generation," U.S. Patent

2433896, January, 1 948.

General E l e c t r i c Company. 1976. Economic and Technical Feasi b i l it y

Study o f Compressed A i r Storage. ERDA-76-76, Schenectady, New York.

Go1der Associates. 1979. "Report t o Gul f I n t e r s t a t e Engineeri ng Company

on Discussions he1d i n New Or1eans concerning P o t e n t i a l Problems w i t h
Underground O i l Storage Caverns i n S a l t Domes." Vols I and 11, Vancouver,
B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada.

Heard, H. C. 1972. "Steady S t a t e Flow i n P o l y c r y s t a l l i n e H a l i t e a t Pressure

o f 2 Kilobars." Flow and Fracture o f Rocks, I n Geophysical Monograph
Series Vol 16, pp. 191-209. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Herbst, C. H . , H. Hoffeins, and Z. S. Stys. 1979. "Huntorf 290 MW A i r
Storage System Energy Transfer (Asset) P l a n t Design, Construction, and
Commissioning." In 1978 Compressed Air Energy Storage Symposium Proceedings,
Vol. 1 , pp. 1-17, CONF-780599, National Technical Information Service.
springfield, Virginia.
Howells, D. A. 1977. " E f f e c t s of Pressure and Temperature Change i n a
Compressed A i r Storage Cavern." In Rockstore 77, Proceedings of t h e F i r s t
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium, ed. M . Bergman, Vol 3, p . 789. Pergamon Press
Oxford, England.
Hurlbut, C. S. 1941. Dana's Manual of Mineralogy. 15th ed. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Katz, D. L. and E. R. Lady. 1976. Compressed Air Storage. pp. 139-169.
U l r i c h ' s Books, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
King, M. 1971. "A Method f o r Determining t h e Long-Term Strength of Evaporites."
Can. I n s t . Min. and Met. Bull. 64(711), J u l y .
Kupfer, D. H. 1976. "Shear Zones I n s i d e Gulf Coast S a l t Stocks Help t o
Delineate Spines of Movement." Amer Assoc Pet. Geols Bull. 60:1434-1447.
Kupfer, D. H. 1978. "Problems Associated with Anomalous Zones i n Louisiana
S a l t Stocks, U.S.A." Paper presented a t 5th I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on
S a l t , May 1978, Hamburg, West Germany.
LeCompte, P:l965. "Creep i n Rock S a l t . " Journal of Geology 73. p. 469-484,
May.
Lewis, G . J . 1970."The Problem of Subsidence i n Salt- Producinq Areas."
In Proceedings of t h e Third Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2 , pp. 2931297.
Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Lewis, G. J . 1974. " U t i l i z a t i o n o f S t r e s s Envelopes i n Design of Solution
C a v i t i e s ." In Proceedings of the Fourth symposium on s a l t ; Vol 2, pp. 51-64.
Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Martinez;J. and R. Thoms. 1977. "A Systems Concept of Space U t i l i z a t i o n

i n Gulf Coast S a l t Domes." In Proceedings of t h e F i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Symposium on Storage i n Excavated Rock Caverns. Rock S t o r e 77, pp. 105-109.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.
McNamara, J . F., F. T s a ' i and S. S e r a t a . 1981 " F i e l d C a l i b r a t i o n of t h e
REM Computer Method Used f o r CAES Cavern Design," In Proceedings of
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage and
Compressed Air Energy Storage, pp. 545-552, CONF-811066, Vol 2, Nat onal I

Technical Information S e r v i c e , S p r i n g f i e l d , V i r g i n i a .
Medley, A. 1978. "Crude Oil S t o r a g e i n S a l t Domes." Paper presented a t API
1978 P i pel i ne Conference, Apri 1 17-18, 1978, Houston, Texas.
Morgan, H. S. , R. D. Krieg and R. V . Matalucci .
1981 "Comparative Analysis
of Nine S t r u c t u r a l Codes Used i n t h e Second WIPP Benchmark Program,"
Sandia Report SAND 81 -1 389, November.
Nair, K. and D. U . Deere. 1970. "Creep Behavior o f S a l t i n T r i a x i a l
Extension T e s t s . " In Third Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 208-215. Northern
Ohio Geol. Soc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Obert, L. 1962. "In S i t u Determination of S t r e s s i n Rock." Mining
Engineer, p. 51 -58, August.
Panek, L. A. 1970. "Methods and Equipment f o r Measuring Subsidence."
In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 321-338.
Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Q u a s t , P. and H. Lorenzen. 1979. "The Huntorf 290-MW CAES Power P l a n t :
Desian. Construction and Comnissioninq o f Underqround F a c i l i t i e s . "
m ~ o s i ngs, Vol . 1 ,
In 1978 Compressed A i r Energy ~ t o r a ~ e - ~ ~ um-~roceedi
pp. 19-49, CONF-780599, National Technical Information S e r v i c e , S p r i n g f i e l d
Virginia.
Quast, P. 1981. "The Huntorf P l a n t : Over Three Years Operating Experience
with Compressed A i r Caverns," In Proceedings of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference
on Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage and Compressed A i r Energy Storage,
pp. 562-573, CONF-811066, Vol 2 , National Technical Information S e r v i c e ,
Springfield, Virginia.
Q u e r i o , C. W. 1980. "Design and Construction of S o l u t i o n Mined Caverns
f o r LPG Storage." Paper presented a t t h e S o l u t i o n Mining Research I n s t i t u t e ,
October 13, 1980, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Rohr. H. U. 1974. "Mechanical Behavior of a Gas S t o r a g e Cavern i n
~ v a ~ o r i t Rock."
ic In Proceedings 4 t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l symposium on S a l t ,
Vo1 11, pp. 93-100. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Cleveland, Ohio.
R u s s e l l , J. E. 1978. " A Creep Mod-el f o r S a l t . " Paper presented a t Vth
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on S a l t , May 1978, Hamburg, West Germany;
a1 s o , Report Y/OWI/TM-32, Offi c e of Waste I s o l a t i o n , Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
S e r a t a , S. 1970. " P r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r Application of F i n i t e Element Method
t o Solution C a v i t i e s and conventional Mines." In Proceedings of t h e Third
Symposium on S a l t , Vol 2, pp. 249-279. Northern Ohio Geol. Soc., Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio.
S e r a t a , S. and T. E. Cundey. 1979. Numerical Modeling Behavior of Caverns
i n S a l t f o r Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). S e r a t a Geomechanics, Inc.
Berkeley, Cal i f o r n i a .
S e r a t a , S. and J . F. McNamara. 1980. Numerical Modeling of Behavior
of Caverns i n S a l t f o r Compressed Air Energy Storage w i t h Elevated
Temperatures. S e r a t a Geomechanics, Inc., Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a .

Louisiana.
Stickney, R. G. 1977. "Case History Rock Mechanical Examination of t h e
J e f f e r s o n Island S a l t Mine: 111. Evaluation of E f f e c t s of Laboratory
Specimen Dimensions on t h e Uniaxial Strength and Deformational
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Dome S a l t . " Tech. Mem. RSI-0059, RE/SPEC, Inc.,
Rapid C i t y , South Dakota.
Thoms , R. L . 1978. "Preliminary Lonq-Term Stabi 1i t y C r i t e r i a f o r
compressed Air Energy storage- caverns i n S a l t DOGS." In Proceedings
t h e 1978 Mechanical and Magnetic Energy Storage Contractors ' Review
Meetina., - DD. 376-383. CONF-781046. National Technical Information
I I

Service, s p r i n g f i e l d ; Virginia. -
Thoms, R. L . 1979. "Long Term S t a b i l i t y of Compressed Air Energy Storage
C a v i t i e s i n S a l t Domes." Paper presented a t Soc. of Mining Engineers of
AIME Annual Meeting, February 1979, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Thorns, R. L. 1980. "Laboratory Tests o f Rock S a l t . " In Proceedings of
Mechanical , Magnetic, and Underground Energy Storage 1980 Annual
C o n t r a c t o r s ' Review, pp. 199-205, CONF-801128, National Technical
Information S e r v i c e , S p r i n g f i e l d , Virginia.
Thoms, R. L. and J . D. Martinez. 1978a. Preliminary Long-Term S t a b i l i t y
C r i t e r i a f o r Compressed Air Energy Storage Caverns i n S a l t Domes.
Louisiana S t a t e University, I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental S t u d i e s , Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Thoms, R. L. and J . D. Martinez. 1978b. "Blowouts i n Domal S a l t . " Paper
presented a t 5th I n t e r . Symposium on S a l t , May-June, 1978, Hamburg,
West Germany.
Thorns, R. L. and R. M. Gehle. 1981 " I n S i t u CAES T e s t s f o r S a l t
~ e s e r v o i r s , " In Proceedings of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Seasonal
Thermal Energy Storage and Compressed Air Energy Storage, pp. 553-561 ,
CONF-811066, Vol 2, National Technical Information S e r v i c e , S p r i n g f i e l d ,
Virginia.
United S t a t e s Department of I n t e r i o r , Bureau of Reclamation. October 1962.
T r i a x i a l Compression T e s t s of S a l t Rock Cores f o r t h e United S t a t e s
Atomic Energy Commission - P r o j e c t Dribble, Laboratory Report No. C-1043,
Clearinghouse TID-21592.
Wawersik, Hannum. 1978. "Mechanical Behavior of New Mexico Rock S a l t i n
T r i a x i a l Compression Up t o 200°C. " Paper presented a t V t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Symposium on S a l t , May 29-June 1 , 1978, Hamburg, West Germany.
Weinstein, K. D . , e t a l . 1978. Geologic I s s u e s Related t o Compressed Air
Energy Storage Systems. BOOZ, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland.
 DISTRIBUTION
No of
Copies
OFFS ITE
Acres American, Inc.
A t t n : M. J . Hobson
The Clark Building
S u i t e 329
Columbia, MD 21044
Acres American, Inc.
A t t n : D. W i l l e t t
Liberty Bank Building
Main a t Court
Buffalo, NY 14202
27 DOE Technical Information
Center
5 US Department of Energy
A t t n : R. Shivers
Office of Energy Systems Res.
Forrestal Building, CE-142
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Was h i ngton, DC 20585
US Department of Energy
A t t n : J . H. Swisher
Office of Energy Systems Res.
Forrestal Building, CE-142
1 000 Independence Ave. , S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
US Department of Energy
A t t n : . A. A. C h u r m
Chicago Patent Group
Chicago Operations Office
9800 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
5 US Department of Energy
A t t n : I . Gyuk
Office of Energy Systems Res.
Forrestal Building, CE-142
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
No of
Copies
US Department of Energy
Attn: J . Mathur
Division of Environmental
Safety and Engineering
MS-E201, Germantown
Washington, DC 20545
US Department of Energy
A t t n : R. A. Dunlop
Division of E l e c t r i c Energy Sys.
12 & Pennsylvania
Washington, DC 20585
I1 1i no i s Power Company
A t t n : Mr. G. E . Huck
Manager of Planning
500 South 27th St.
Decatur, IL 62525
2 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
A t t n : Tech. Info. Dept., L-3
University of Cal i fornia
PO Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
5 Louisiana S t a t e University
A t t n : R. L . Thoms
I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental Studies
Room 42, Atkinson Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Marchwood Engineering Labs.
A t t n : I . Glendenning
Head of Long-Term Studies
Southampton, England
Middle South Services
A t t n : L. A. Wilson
Advanced Energy Program Section
Box 6100
New Orleans, LA 701 61
Copies -
Copies

National Science Foundation Tennessee Val 1ey A u t h o r i t y

D i v i s i o n o f Advanced Energy A t t n : Arnold Betbeze
Research and Technology 1150 Chestnut, Tower 2
Room 1140 Chattanooga, TN 37401
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20550 TRW Energy Systems Group
A t t n : E. Berman
Northern Research & Eng. Corp. Technical L i b r a r y
A t t n : J e r r y 0. Melconian 7600 C o l s h i r e D r i v e
39 Olympia Avenue McLean, VA 22101
Woburn, MA 01801
Union E l e c t r i c Co.
PB-KBB Inc. A t t n : E. M. Mabuce
A t t n : J. I s t v a n Manager - Applied Research
PO Box 19672 Corporate Planning Dept.
Houston, TX 77024 PO Box 149
S t . Louis, MO 63166
Potomac E l e c t r i c Power Co
A t t n : P. E. Schaub U n i v e r s i t y o f Massachusetts
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue A t t n : 0. C. Farquhar
Washington, DC 20006 Dept. o f Geology & Geography
M o r r i l l Science Center
RE/SPEC I n c . Amherst, MA 010C3
A t t n : A. F. Fossuni
PO Box 725 Westinghouse E l e c t r i c Corp.
Rapid C i t y , SD 57701 Attn: W. F. Kobett
CAES P r o j e c t Manager
Sandia Laboratories Combustion Turbine System Div.
A t t n : H. M. Dodd Long Range Develop-Lab 100
Organization 5743 PO Box 251
A1 buquerque, NM 8711 5 Concordv i 11e , PA 19331

Sandi a Laboratories ONS ITE

A t t n : R. 0. Woods
Organization 471 5 DOE Richland Operations O f f i c e
A1buquerque, NM 87115
H.E. Ransom/D. R. Segna
Sandi a Laboratories
A t t n : W i l l i a m G. Wilson Pacific Northwestaboratory
PO Box 969
Organization 8453 R.D. A l l e n (5)
Livermore, CA 94550 T.J. Doherty (5)
L.D. Kannberg (25)
Tennessee Val 1ey A u t h o r i t y Technical I n f o r m a t i o n ( 5 )
Energy Research Section Pub1i s h i n g Coordination (2)
1360 Comr,erce Union Bank Bldg
Chattanooga, TN 37401