3D Fracture Analyses of Various Rock Samples Through X-Ray Micro-Tomography
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3D FRACTURE ANALYSES OF VARIOUS ROCK SAMPLES THROUGH X-RAY MICRO-TOMOGRAPHY Aswien Dwarkasing October 2016 1 3D fracture analyses of various rock samples through x-ray micro-tomography By Aswien Dwarkasing in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Monday 10 October , 2016 at 14:00u Supervisor: Dr. A. Barnhoorn Thesis committee: Prof. dr.P.L.J. Zitha TU Delft Dr. N.J.Hardebol TU Delft This thesis is non-confidential and can be made public. An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. 2 Abstract Hydrocarbon reservoirs are currently declining. Reservoirs are becoming depleted, and production needs to satisfy the demand and supply of hydrocarbons. For tight reservoirs such as shales, fracturing will become the main source of improving the permeability. It is therefore vital to conduct research into the behavior of fractures in the reservoir. The aim is to study how fractures develop in terms of fracture size, coalescence, patterns and in which dimensions they often occur. Often the importance of the behavior of these fractures and their contribution to flow in reservoirs also formed part of this research. In this investigation, the Posidonia shale core was examined using three different layering orientations. The three different layer orientated shale cores were subjected to axial loading in order to induce fracturing. These induced fractures were created in two ways. The first was by axial loading until the core reached maximum failure. The second involved loading in stages and scanning the core after each loading stage in the micro-CT scanner. This procedure was repeated until maximum failure was reached. An Indiana limestone core and sandstone core were also analyzed. The behavior, coalescence, frequently seen fracture patterns, angle with respect to the z-axis and apertures of the fractures were studied and compared. This was performed in both a quantitative and qualitative matter using the commercial Avizo® Fire software at TU Delft. A small part of this study touch on the modeling of the observed shear fracture pattern from a shale core preformed in Abaqus. The results from the fracture analyses shows that the largest fractures are seen in the shale cores, for which the fracture initiation was created by one loading stage until failure. Another observation shows that there is clear set of different fractures that is seen for each distinctive layered core. From the observed patterns a simple 2D simulation is built in Abaqus. From the simulation is seen that for cracks under a certain angle, the master fracture is intersected by a 300 smaller fracture, the results in opening of the master fracture. This is also the case in the 2D slice, which is a representation of the 2D-model fracture configuration. Keywords: Posidonia Shale, Sandstone, Limestone, Fracture analyses,Avizo®Fire,Fracture mode, Fracture angle, Abaqus modeling. 3 Acknowledgements This thesis is a continuation of work performed by former students. By using the information they had gathered and drawing on the challenges they faced, some of the problems that were encountered concerning fracture analyses were solved. First of all, this thesis would not have been possible without the help of my supervisor, Auke Barnhoorn, who showed tremendous patience in the progress of the work. Auke has always been available when challenges or setbacks arose, and he helped me think and guided me to solutions, and also provided guidance when writing the thesis. I would also like to thank Nico Hardebol and Quiten Boersma, for their great support in the modelling in Abaqus at the last moment. Nico also introduced me to Jurgen Foegen, who was willing to help with the Avizo Fire and share his experience. Special thanks go to Jurgen. Thank you also goes to Joost van Meel and Guus Lohlefink for allowing me to use their workstation and office to analyze the cores. Thanks also go to the graduated students who had stored their data carefully and clearly. In the end a special thanks to my father for the support and believe, also a special thanks to my wife for the support and our newly born son. 4 Table of contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 4 Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... 5 List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 7 List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Motivation ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Research question .............................................................................................................................. 14 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 15 § 3.1 shales cores .............................................................................................................................. 16 § 3.2 Sandstone sample .................................................................................................................... 17 § 3.4 Indiana limestone sample ........................................................................................................ 17 4. Fracture analysis in Avizo® Fire and modelling in Abaqus ................................................................ 18 §4.1.0 Image processing and segmentation ................................................................................. 19 § 4.1.1 Fracture characterization .................................................................................................. 23 §4.1.3 Quantification of orientation ............................................................................................. 28 §4.2 Modeling in Abaqus .................................................................................................................. 31 §4.2.1 Objective for modelling? .................................................................................................... 31 §4.2.2 Building a 2D-model in Abaqus .............................................................................................. 32 5. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 33 §5.1 Qualitative analyses .................................................................................................................. 33 §5.1.0 Comparison of fracture patterns with different layering orientations .............................. 38 §5.1.1 Fracture interaction (coalescence) .................................................................................... 38 §5.1.2 Frequently observed fracture patterns .............................................................................. 40 §5.2Quantitative analyses ................................................................................................................ 45 §5.2.1 Sandstone sample .............................................................................................................. 47 §5.2.2 Limestone sample .............................................................................................................. 49 §5.2.3 Shale sample 53B ............................................................................................................... 50 §5.2.4 Shale sample 36A ............................................................................................................... 52 §5.2.5 Shale_JV ............................................................................................................................. 53 §5.2.4 Comparison of the quantified results ................................................................................ 54 §5.3 Modeling fracture geometry ..................................................................................................... 56 6. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 58 5 §6.1 Aperture .................................................................................................................................... 58 §6.2 Fracture length .......................................................................................................................... 58 §6.3 Fracture angle ........................................................................................................................... 58 §6.4 Comparison of the quantitative and qualitative analyses ........................................................ 59 §6.5 Contribution to flow .................................................................................................................. 59 §6.6 Setbacks ...................................................................................................................................