1887
Volume 64 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A sample of Bentheim sandstone was characterized using high‐resolution three‐dimensional X‐ray microscopy at two different confining pressures of 1 MPa and 20 MPa. The two recordings can be directly compared with each other because the same sample volume was imaged in either case. After image processing, a porosity reduction from 21.92% to 21.76% can be deduced from the segmented data. With voxel‐based numerical simulation techniques, we determined apparent hydraulic transport properties and effective elastic properties. These results were compared with laboratory measurements using reference samples. Laboratory and computed volumes, as well as hydraulic transport properties, agree fairly well. To achieve a reasonable agreement for the effective elastic properties, we define pressure‐dependent grain contact zones in addition to mineral phases in the digital rock images. From that, we derive a specific digital rock physics template resulting in a very good agreement between laboratory data and simulations. The digital rock physics template aims to contribute to a more standardized approach of X‐ray computed tomography data analysis as a tool to determine and predict elastic rock properties.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12400
2016-06-14
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AndräH., CombaretN., DvorkinJ., GlattE., KabelM., KeehmY.et al. 2013. Digital rock physics benchmarks—part II: computing effective properties. Computers & Geosciences50, 33–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AndrewM., BijeljicB. and BluntM.2015. Reservoir condition pore‐scale imaging of multiple fluid phases using X‐ray microtomography. Journal of Visualized Experiments96, e52440.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ArafinM.A. and SzpunarJ.A.2010. Modeling of grain boundary character reconstruction and predicting intergranular fracture susceptibility of textured and random polycrystalline materials. Computational Material Science50, 656–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ArnsC., MadadiM. and SheppardA.2007. Linear elastic properties of granular rocks derived from X‐ray CT images. In: International Exposition and Annual Meeting of the Society for the Exploration Geophysicists 2007, Society of Exploration Geophysicists , Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DubelaarC.W. and NijlandT.G.2015. The Bentheim sandstone: geology, petrophysics, varieties and its use as dimension stone. In: Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, Vol. 8 (eds G.Lollino et al.), pp. 557–563, Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DvorkinJ., DerzhiN., DiazE. and FangQ.2011. Relevance of computational rock physics. Geophysics76, E141–E153.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fischer‐CrippsA.C.2004. Nanoindentation, 2nd edn. Springer‐Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FusseisF., XiaoX., SchrankC. and De CarloF.2014. A brief guide to synchrotron radiation‐based microtomography in (structural) geology and rock mechanics. Journal of Structural Geology65, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HassanzadeganA., BlöcherG., MilschH., UrpiL. and ZimmermannG.2014. The effects of temperature and pressure on the porosity evolution of Flechtinger sandstone. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering47, 421–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HenaultE., CosterM. and ChermantJ.1991. Grain‐boundary reconstruction by automatic image‐analysis on etch pits. Materials Research Bulletin26(7), 569–575.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. JizbaD.L.1991. Mechanical and acoustical properties of sandstones and shales. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. KawakataH., ChoA., YanagidaniT. and ShimadaM.1997. The observations of faulting in westerly granite under triaxial compression by X‐ray CT scan. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences34, 151.e1–151.e12.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KingM.S.1969. Static and dynamic elastic moduli of rocks under pressure. The 11th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), June 16–19, Berkeley, California.
  14. KleinC.A. and CardinaleC.F.1992Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of CVD diamond. Diamond and Related Materials2(5–7), 918–923.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LebedevM., WilsonM.E.J. and MikhaltsevitchV.2014. An experimental study of solid matrix weakening in water‐saturated Savonnières limestone. Geophysical Prospecting62, 1253–1265.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LebedevM.2015. Low cost pressure cell for micro computer tomography. Third International Workshop on Rock Physics, 13–17 April 2015, Perth, Australia, Extended Abstract.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LebedevM., PervukhinaM., MikhaltsevitchV., DanceT.V., BilenkoO. and GurevichB.2013. An experimental study of acoustic responses on the injection of supercritical CO2 into sandstones from the Otway Basin. Geophysics78(4), D293–D306.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MadonnaC., QuintalB., FrehnerM., AlmqvistB.S.G., TisatoN., PistoneM.et al. 2013. Synchrotron‐based X‐ray tomographic microscopy for rock microstructure investigations. Geophysics78, D53–D64.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MadonnaC., AlmqvistB.S.G. and SaengerE.H.2012. Digital rock physics: numerical prediction of pressure‐dependent ultrasonic velocities using micro‐CT imaging. Geophysical Journal International189, 1475–1482.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. MahabadiO.K., RandallN.X., ZongZ. and GrasselliG.2012. A novel approach for micro‐scale characterization and modeling of geomaterials incorporating actual material heterogeneity. Geophysical Research Letters39, L01303.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SaengerE.H., MadonnaC., TisatoN. and QuintalB.2014. Towards a representative rock model from a micro‐CT image. EAGE Workshop on Rock Physics: Integration & Beyond, 12–15 January 2014, Muscat, Oman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SaengerE.H., GoldN. and ShapiroS.A.2000. Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite‐difference grid. Wave Motion31(1), 77–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SaengerE.H., EnzmannF., KeehmY. and SteebH.2011. Digital rock physics: Effect of fluid viscosity on effective elastic properties. Journal of Applied Geophysics74, 236–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ShulakovaV., PervukhinaM., MüllerT., LebedevM., MayoS., SchmidS.et al. 2013. Computational elastic up‐scaling of sandstone on the basis of X‐ray micro‐tomographic images. Geophysical Prospecting61, 287–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. OsornoM., UribeD., RuizO.E. and SteebH.2015. Finite difference calculations of permeability in large domains in a wide porosity range. Archive of Applied Mechanics85, 1043–1054.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WalshJ.B. and BraceW.F.1984. The effect of pressure on porosity and the transport properties of rock. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth89, 9425–9431.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WildenschildD. and SheppardA.P.2013. X‐ray imaging and analysis techniques for quantifying pore‐scale structure and processes in subsurface porous medium systems. Advances in Water Resources51, 217–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. WatanabeN., IshibashiT., OhsakiY., TsuchiyaN.Y., TamagawaT., HiranoN.et al. 2011. X‐ray CT based numerical analysis of fracture flow for core samples under various confining pressure. Engineering Geology123, 338–346.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12400
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12400
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Digital rock physics; Elastics; Modelling; Numerical study; Rock physics; Seismics

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error