Unit 2

PEAU 3003 (Geomechanics)

Dr. Sayantan Ghosh
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES – DEHRADUN (2021)

1
Unit II: Basic Principles
Principles of stress and strain; Effective stress concept; Effect of pore
pressure on stresses; Stress around a borehole; Rock failure
mechanisms and criteria; Rock deformation and mechanical behavior
models; Failure theories

2
Stress and Strain Principle

3
Laboratory rock mechanics tests
• Strength is typically measured via either uniaxial or triaxial
(compressional) tests.
• Pore pressure is frequently accommodated as an independent
variable in these tests by using a flexible, impermeable sleeve
outside the sample.
• Pore pressure is not used in uniaxial tests.
• It is also not used in polyaxial tests because of the
experimental difficulty of sealing pressure within the samples
• Direct tensile test (uniaxial or triaxial extension) in which
sample is pulled to its breaking point to determine the ultimate
tensile strength generally is not performed on rocks.
• Experiments are generally performed at constant strain rates

Zoback (2007) 4
Laboratory rock mechanics test (Brazilian test)

5
Stress-strain relationships

Zoback (2007) 6
Types of failure in rock-mechanics tests

Large diffuse failure zones

General observations: a) Tensile fracture under low confining stresses

b) Shear fractures under higher confining stresses
c) No clear failure plane at very high confining stresses 7
Effect of various parameters on rock strength
Brittleness and ductility are functions of:
• Confining stress
• Pore pressure

8
Temperature dependence of strength

9
Brittle vs. ductile rock failure
• Mineral composition
• Brittle rocks tend to have higher Young’s Modulus and lower Poisson’s ratio

Slatt et al. (2011)

10
Effect of strain rate

11
Triaxial compression test in detail

Long term

B’
B

Residual strength

Post peak (large permanent deformations)

Reversible change Irreversible change

Elastic
Ductile Brittle
12
Generalized Hooke’s law

13
Generalized Hooke’s law (Cont.)

yz

14
Hydrostatic compression test

• Porosity is measured as a function of confining pressure

• Irreversible deformation characterized by loss of porosity
due to pore collapse as confining pressure or shear
stress increases beyond a limiting value

15
Relationships among elastic moduli in isotropic materials

16
Rock Mechanical Behavior Models

17
Stress-strain models

18
Rock Failure Criteria
Compression

19
Tresca Criterion
Maximum shear stress or the Tresca criterion predicts failure, manifested by yielding,
when the maximum shear stress τmax on any plane reaches a certain critical value τo

Where, again, τo is the shear yield strength of the material, i.e., a material mechanical
property.

20
Mohr Coulomb failure criterion
The basis for the Mohr circle construction is that it is possible to
evaluate graphically the shear stress, τ , and effective normal stress
(σn = Sn − Pp) on the failure line

Normal and shear stresses at failure:

Linearized Mohr failure line can be written as

Where,

As cohesion (S0) is not a physically measurable parameter, it is more

common to express rock strength in terms of C0 (i.e. UCS). The
relationship between S0 and C0 is:

21
 Mohr Coulomb failure criterion (cont.)
Laboratory strength tests at 0, 10 and 15 MPa
confining pressure defines the Mohr envelope for a
sandstone sample recovered from a depth of 3065 m
in southeast Asia. A linearized Mohr–Coulomb failure
envelope and resultant values of S0, C0 and µi are
shown.
(uniaxial compressive strength)
Illustration of how strength values determined
from a series of triaxial tests can be used to
extrapolate a value of C0. Slope of this line can
be used to determine µi. 22
Cohesive strength and internal friction

23
Mohr-Coulomb Criterion (cont.)
The linearized form of the Mohr failure criterion may
be generally written as:

24
Hoek and Brown
• Originally developed for estimating the strength of rock masses for
application to excavation design.
• Hoek and Brown (1980) proposed that the maximum principal stress at
failure as:

• For intact rock materials, s is equal to one. For a completely

granulated specimen or a rock aggregate, s is equal to zero

25
 Modified Lade
• The Lade criterion (Lade 1977) is a three-dimensional failure criterion
• Originally developed for frictional materials without effective
cohesion (such as granular soils that have curved failure envelopes).
• Modified Lade criterion developed by Ewy (1999)

The modified Lade criterion predicts a

strengthening effect with increasing
intermediate principal stress, σ2, followed
by a slight reduction in strength as σ2
increases. 26
 Modified Wiebols and Cook
Wiebols and Cook (1968) proposed an effective strain energy
criterion for rock failure that depends on all three principal
stresses

(4.18)

(4.19)

(4.20)

(4.21)
Maximum Octahedral shear stress criteria
Zoback (2007) 27
Modified Wiebols and Cook (cont.)

(4.22)

(4.23)

(4.24)

For polyaxial states of stress, the strength predictions made by this criterion are slightly higher than those found using
the linearized Mohr–Coulomb criterion.

28
 Shear enhanced compaction
• Another form of compressional rock failure in porous rocks is
sometimes referred to as shear-enhanced compaction.
• Used to understand reservoir compaction with depletion
• Irreversible deformation (i.e. plasticity) is characterized by the loss
of porosity due to pore collapse as confining pressure and/or shear
stress increases beyond a limiting value.
• To represent these ductile yielding behaviors of rocks, end-caps (or
yield surfaces of constant porosity) are used.
• These yield surfaces (end caps) represent the locus of points that
have reached the same volumetric plastic strain. Their position (and
exact shape) depends on the properties of the specific rock.
• Represented in p–q space where p is the mean effective stress and
q is a function of the differential stresses.

The Cam–Clay model of rock deformation is presented in p–q space as modified by Chan and Zoback
(2002) following Desai and Siriwardane (1984) which allows one to define how inelastic porosity loss
accompanies deformation. The contours defined by different porosities are sometimes called end-caps.
Loading paths consistent with hydrostatic compression, triaxial compression and triaxial extension tests
are shown.

Zoback (2007) 29
 Shear enhanced compaction (cont.)
The equation of the yield loci shown in previous figure is given by Desai and Siriwardane (1984) as:

Where, M is known as the critical state line and can be expressed as

• If the in situ stress state in the reservoir is within the domain bounded by the failure envelope in p–q space, the
formation is not likely to undergo plastic deformation.
• The intersection of the yielding locus and the p-axis is defined as p0 (also known as the preconsolidation pressure)
and each end-cap has its own unique p0 that defines the hardening behavior of the rock sample.
• The value of p0 can be determined easily from a series of hydrostatic compression tests in which porosity is
measured as a function of confining pressure.

Zoback (2007) 30
 Shear enhanced compaction (cont.)
• In weak formations such as weakly cemented sand, porous chalk or diatomite, once loading reaches an end-cap,
compaction and grain rearrangement (and eventually grain crushing and pore collapse) will be the dominant
deformation modes.
• If the loading path reaches the shear failure line, M, slip on a pre-existing fault will occur.
• Porosity is irreversibly lost at shear stresses less than that required to cause shear failure
• Even in the absence of shear stress (i.e., moving just along the abscissa) porosity would be irreversibly lost as
the mean stress increases
• In weak formations, such as chalks and uncemented sands, grain crushing can occur at much lower pressures
than those for sandstones. Compaction is important in weak formations
• In addition to porosity loss, there can be substantial permeability loss in compacting reservoirs as well as the
possibility of surface subsidence and production-induced faulting in normal faulting environments. The degree
to which these processes are manifest depends on the lithology, depth, thickness of the reservoir, the initial
stress state and pore pressure and the reservoir stress path, or change in horizontal stress with depletion
• Wong, David et al. (1997) demonstrated that the onset of grain crushing and pore collapse in sand reservoirs
depends roughly on the product of the porosity times the grain radius. However, in uncemented or poorly
cemented sand reservoirs, there will also be inelastic compaction due to grain rearrangement

31
Rock strength anisotropy
Dependence of rock strength on the angle of weak bedding or
foliation planes. (a) Rock samples can be tested with the orientation
of normal to the weak planes at different angles, β, to the maximum
principal stress, σ1. (b) The strength can be defined in terms of the
intact rock strength (when the weak planes do not affect failure) and
the strength of the weak planes (when weak planes affect failure). (c)
Prediction of rock strength (normalized by the cohesion of bedding
planes) as function of β. Modified from Donath (1966) and Jaeger
and Cook (1979).
μ0= μi= coeff. of internal friction
μw= μs= coeff. of sliding friction

Zoback (2007) 32
 Rock strength anisotropy (cont.)
Mathematically, it is possible to estimate the degree to which bedding planes lower rock strength using a theory
developed by Donath (1966) and Jaeger and Cook (1979). The maximum stress at which failure will occur, σ1, will
depend on σ3, Sw, and σw by

This is shown in previous figure. At high and low β, the intact rock strength (shown normalized by Sw) is unaffected
by the presence of the bedding planes. At β ∼ 60◦, the strength is markedly lower.

33
Empirical relationships between UCS and other physical properties in sand

Zoback (2007)
34
Empirical relationships between UCS and other physical properties in shales

Zoback (2007)
35
Rock Failure Criteria
Tension

36
Tensile failure
• Compared to the compressional strength of rock and the frictional strength of fractures and faults in earth’s
crust the tensile strength of rock is relatively unimportant.
• The reasons for this are multifold:
-First, the tensile strength of essentially all rocks is quite low, on the order of just a few MPa. When pre-
existing flaws oriented in almost all directions exist in rock (as in most rock volumes), tensile strength would
be expected to be near zero.
- Second, in situ stress at depth is almost never tensile.

• In the case of hydraulic fracture propagation, it is quite straightforward to demonstrate that rock strength in
tension is essentially unimportant in the fracture extension process. In terms of fracture mechanics, the stress
intensity at the tip of an opening mode planar fracture (referred to as a Mode I fracture), is given by:

Where, Ki is the stress intensity factor, Pf is the fluid pressure within the fracture (taken to be uniform for
simplicity), L is the length of the fracture and S3 is the least principal stress.
• Fracture propagation will occur when the stress intensity factor Ki exceeds Kic, the critical stress
intensity, or fracture toughness.

Zoback (2007) 37
Tensile failure (cont.)

The difference between internal fracture pressure and the least principal stress as a function of fracture length for a
Mode I fracture for rocks with extremely high fracture toughness (such as very strong sandstone or dolomite) and very
low fracture toughness (weakly cemented sandstone).

Zoback (2007) 38
Tensile failure (cont.)
• Figure in previous slide shows the value of (Pf − S3) required to cause failure as
a function of fracture length L, for a rock with a high fracture toughness, such
as a very strong, low-porosity sandstone or a strong dolomite, and a rock with
a very low fracture toughness, such as a poorly cemented sandstone (Rummel
and Winter 1983).
• While the fracture toughness is important to initiate and initially extend a
fracture, once a fracture reaches a length of a few tens of cm, extremely small
pressures in excess of the least principal stress are required to make the
fracture grow, regardless of the rock’s fracture toughness. This means, of
course, that the principal control on fracture propagation is that Pf exceed S3
by only a small amount
• Once the Mode I fracture starts to grow, the strength of the rock in tension is
irrelevant.

Zoback (2007)

39
tuff

tuff

40
Rock Failure Criteria
Shear

41
 Shear failure
-Slip on faults is important in a number of geomechanical contexts:
• Shear well casings
• Fluid injection associated with water flooding operations can induce
earthquakes
• Flow along active shear faults at a variety of scales (reservoir
permeability, hydraulic fracturing)
• Frictional strength of faults in order to provide constraints on the
magnitudes of principal stresses at depth (stress calibration)

-Friction experiments were first carried out by Leonardo da Vinci (1400’s

and 1500’s), whose work was later translated and expanded upon by
Amonton in 1600’s

-Da Vinci found that frictional sliding on a plane will occur when the ratio
of shear to normal stress reaches a material property, µ, the coefficient
of (sliding) friction. This is known as Amontons’ law

(µ= µs=sliding friction)

Zoback (2007)
where τ is the shear stress resolved onto the sliding plane. 42
Shear failure (cont.)
• The role of pore pressure on frictional sliding is introduced via σn, the effective normal stress, defined as (Sn −
Pp), where Sn is the normal stress resolved onto the sliding plane.
• Thus, raising the pore pressure on a fault (through fluid injection, for example) could cause fault slip by reducing
the effective normal stress (Hubbert and Rubey 1959).
• The coefficient of friction, µ, is not to be confused with the coefficient of internal friction µi, defined above in
the context of the linearized Mohr–Coulomb criterion

Zoback (2007)
43
Coulomb failure function

• Failure function is negative (shear stress on fault is lower than µ*σn)

• As CFF approaches zero, frictional sliding will occur on a pre-existing fault plane as there is sufficient shear stress
to overcome the effective normal stress on the fault plane.
• Assumption: cohesive strength of a fault is very small compared to the shear and normal stresses acting upon it.

Zoback (2007)

44
Byerlee’s Law
• Sliding friction is a material property of a fault and Byerlee
(1978) summarized numerous laboratory experiments on a wide
variety of faults in different types of rock.
• He performed experiments on natural faults in rock, faults
induced in triaxial compression tests and artificial faults (i.e.,
sawcuts in rock) of different surface roughness.
• For an extremely wide variety of rock types, Byerlee showed
that at elevated effective normal stress (>10 MPa), friction on
faults is independent of surface roughness, normal stress and
rate of slip, such that the coefficient of friction is found to be
within a relatively small range

45
 Failure of preexisting faults
• Earth’s crust contains widely distributed faults, fractures, and planar discontinuities at many different scales
and orientations
• Stress magnitudes at depth (specifically, the differences in magnitude between the maximum and minimum
principal stresses) will be limited by the frictional strength of these planar discontinuities.
• The shear and normal stresses acting on a fault whose normal makes and an angle β with respect to the
direction of maximum horizontal compression, S1, is given by:

Zoback (2007)
46
 Critically-stressed fault orientations

Strike-slip case Black: critically stressed (active) [1]

Optimal angle for frictional Thin grey: High normal stress [2]
sliding: Thick grey: Low shear and normal stress [3]

• Shear and normal stresses acting on the fault depend on the magnitudes of the principal stresses, pore pressure and the
orientation of the fault with respect to the principal stresses. It is clear from Mohr diagram that for any given value of σ3
there is a maximum value of σ1 established by the frictional strength of the pre-existing Zoback (2007)
Mohr Coulomb + E.M. Anderson
Combining optimal angle for frictional sliding relation with the principles of Anderson’s
classification scheme, it is straightforward to see (assuming µ ≈ 0.6):
• Normal faults are expected to form in conjugate pairs that dip ∼60◦ and strike parallel to
the direction of SHmax.
• Strike-slip faults are expected to be vertical and form in conjugate pairs that strike ∼30◦
from the direction of SHmax.
• Reverse faults are expected to dip ∼30◦ and form in conjugate pairs that strike normal to
the direction of SHmax.
• In each case, S2 is always parallel to the line of intersection of the two faults.

Zoback (2007)
Conjugate normal faults

49
Slip on existing faults video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrrLJ4vXHCs
Range of possible values of Shmin and SHmax
At each depth, the range of possible values of Shmin and SHmax are
established by
(i) Anderson faulting theory (which defines the relative stress magnitude)
(ii) The fact that the least principal stress must always exceed the pore
pressure (to avoid hydraulic fracturing) and
(iii) The difference between the minimum and maximum principal stress
which cannot exceed the strength of the crust

Zoback (2007)

51
Limiting values of in situ principal stress-magnitude differences

Eq. A

Eq. B

Eq. C

Jager and Cook (1979)

• Stress magnitudes cannot exceed these values as fault will slip
Effective stress for three faulting regimes

Eq. A Eq. A Eq. B Eq. B

• Difference between principal stresses increases with depth (due to the increase of the
frictional strength of the crust with depth) but decreases as severe overpressure develops due
to the decrease of frictional strength with elevated pore pressure
• Magnitude of pore pressure will affect stress magnitudes whether one is in a normal, strike-
slip, or reverse faulting environment.
• In an area of critically stressed normal faults, when pore pressure is hydrostatic, the lower
bound value of the least principal stress Shmin ∼ 0.6Sv. Shmin cannot be lower since Eq A will
be violated
• In the case of strike-slip faulting the maximum value of SHmax depends on the magnitude of
the minimum horizontal stress, Shmin. If the value of the minimum principal stress is known
Eq B can be used to put an upper bound on Shmax
• For reverse faulting, because the least principal stress is the vertical stress, Sv, limiting value
for SHmax is very high. In fact, the limiting case for the value of SHmax is ∼2.2Sv for
Eq. C hydrostatic pore pressure and µ = 0.6
Eq. C
• Differential stresses decrease with increase in pore pressure
53
Zoback (2007)
Effective stresses variations

Zoback (2007)
54
Stress polygon (constraints on Shmin and SHmax)

Figure 4.31: Polygons which define possible stress magnitudes at a given depth are shown for a depth of
3 km for (a) hydrostatic pore pressure and (b) pore pressure equal to 80% of the overburden.
Poroelasticity and Effective Stress

56
 Effective stress
• In a porous elastic solid saturated with a fluid, the theory of poroelasticity
describes the constitutive behavior of rock
• Originally defined by Biot (1962)
• Assumptions are:
a) interconnected pore system uniformly saturated with fluid
b) total pore volume is small compared to the rock
• pore pressure influences the normal components of the stress tensor, σ11, σ22,
σ33 and not the shear components σ12, σ23, σ13

57
Effective stress (Cont.)
Nur and Byerlee (1971) proposed an “exact” effective stress law. In their formulation,

σ = S − α*Pp
α = 1 − Kb/Kg
Where, α is the Biot parameter
Kb is drained bulk modulus of the rock
Kg is the bulk modulus of the rock’s individual solid grains.
0 ≤ α ≤ 1.

• For a nearly solid rock with no interconnected pores (such as quartzite), lim φ→0, α = 0 such that pore
pressure has no influence on rock behavior.
• Conversely, for a highly porous, compliant formation (such as uncemented sands), α = 1 and pore pressure
has maximum influence.

58
Modulus dependence on pressure

Comparison between static bulk modulus measurements and dynamic (ultrasonic) measurements
for a dry, uncemented sand as a function of pressure.

59
Biot’s Coefficient pressure dependency

Confining

Laboratory measurements of the Biot coefficient, α, for a porous sand and well-cemented sandstone

60
Rock strength and pore pressure
(a) Dependence of rock strength on confining
pressure in the absence of pore pressure for
Berea sandstone. (b) Dependence of strength
on confining pressure and pore pressure. (c)
and (d) show similar data for Marianna
limestone. Data derived from Handin, Hager et
al. (1963)

Zoback (2007)
61
Effect of pore pressure on strength

62