.
. .
SPEYISRM 47201
Virgin damage surface of a synthetic analogue to a reservoir sandstone
Tor Eding Unander, [KU Petroleum Research, and Rune M. HoIt, SPE, IKU / NTNU
LWYfi@t 1SSS, %c+ety of Petrc4eum Englc&ars, Inc.
This paper wes Pn$pemd for presemtsdica a! the SPE.ilSRM Eurock 90 held In TrcWhelm,
Norway, S-10 July 199&
TM paper was sakted for presentation by an SPE Prcgram Committee folfoting rwfew of
tnfumatbn wotained in m abstract sutnnffted by the author(s) Ccmtents of the paper, as
presented have nol been reviewd by rho Soclery of Petroleum Enginears and am subied 10
c0w3f0n by the amfw(s). Tfw material, as pmsemed, *S nm rily reftecl any
pesltkm of ffw SOcWy of Petroleum S@7e.sm, Rs ofticws, or membsrs Pspws presented at
SPE meetings are sub@t to pubiicalicm rwlew by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Perro!wm Engineers. t3acrrcmlc rep+cdudcm, dlstrMutfon, or stwe.ga of any pan of this papw
fw @mmerckl purposes wfrhoul me wrlrren con%mt of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prdbiied. Pennlsslcm to reproduca fn mfnf Is reshfcted to en abstract of not mare than S03
wdq iffustrakW may not be w+xed. The abstract must ccalain cuwptcuous
acknawfsdgmem of where and by Wwn the psiw wes presented. Write tibrari~, SpE, p.o.
W Ss5SSS, Ricfurdsco, T% 75CBS-Z336. U.S A,, fax 01-972-952-94S5.
Abstract
This paper is based on laboratory investigations of synthetic
sandstone cemented under stress making it possibIe to perform
mechanical tests directly from the simulated in situ stress state.
We have mapped the acoustic emission damage surface, or
Holcomb surface as we have called it here, around this stress
state. The results show that this surface does not coincide with
the true damage surface as damage is induced in the material
even for very small load deviations from the forming stress
state. The Holcomb surface mapping is done with a new
technique that is able to better describe and quantify onset of
acoustic emission.
Introduction
We have in this work tried to irwestigate how much in situ
stresses in a sandstone reservoir can be changed from the
original stress state without damaging the reservoir rock.
Damage means here irreversible alterations of the rock. . This
has been done by mapping the so-called virgin damage surface
of the reservoir rock. This is the surface in stress space that
encloses aII stress states the material may be loaded to, starting
from the original stress state, without damaging the material.
We have wanted to do this mapping by using acoustic
emission (AE) measurements. This is because we have
assumed that this technique is most sensitive to
micromechanical damage, and due to a general interest in AE
damage surfaces. The AE damage surface is an important
concept in studies of how to determine in situ stress from AE
measurements*, and for AE mechanism studies in generalz.
Note that it is not given that the AE damage surface is the
same as the true damage surface as defined above. Thus, we
have checked this assumption.
h this study, one fundamental problem had to be
23
overcome. Typically, the zero stress state is not within the
virgin damage surface of a reservoir rock. Per definition, any
cored sample is then damaged, and the virginity of the
damage surface is lost. We have circumvented this problem
by making a synthetic rock sample under simulated in situ
conditions and tested it directly from that state. We have
previously used this technique in an extensive study of core
damage investigations3456and the specific material used in
this study is further described elsewhere in these proceedings.
The design goal of this synthetic material was to make it
mechanically and petrophysically similar to a sandstone from a
North Sea gas field.
Studies of the virgin darnage surface are important for two
reasons. First, it is useful in studies of core damage. Here we
show that we cannot unload the sample to zero stress without
crossing the damage surface. This is a manifestation of coring
damage. Second, it is important to know the virgin damage
surface of a reservoir rock when trying to model the
mechanical behaviour of a reservoir. This paper will show
that even small stress changes will permanently deform the
rock. This means that it is inappropriate to assume that the
reservoir deforms elastically as response to depletion or
pressurisation.
The AE damage surface or Holcomb surface
In the acoustic emission (AE) context, the damage surface is a
surface in stress or strain space that encloses all stress,
respectively, strain states that a sample can be loaded to
without inducing AE activity. This concept is primarily
developed by HoIcomb and Costin8. It is analogous to a yield
surface, which encloses all stress states a sample can attain
without being plastified. As mentioned, we do not know a
priori if the AE damage surface is the same as the true
damage surface as defined in the introduction. Thus, to
distinguish these two surfaces, we will refer to the AE damage
surface as the Holcomb surface in the following.
Detection of the Holcomb surface. Unfortunately, the
detection of the Holcomb surface has the same problems as
yield surface detection: A good criterion is needed to
determine the position of the surface. The problem is to
detect a transition from no AE activity to some activity, the so-
called onset. The difficult point is that in the case of AE, zero
activity probably does not exist. It is always a cme of

2 T.E. UNANDER, R.M. HOLT
listening cIosely enough. To circumvent the problem of
identifying zero activity, some activity must be accepted, but it
should conform to a certain pattern. In a recent pape?, a
general method for onset determination is presented. Two
different criteria are also presented there, and both will be
presented and used here. The general idea is that a model for
the time evohrtion of the AE activity is fitted to the measured
data. The onset of AE activity is then a parameter of the
model that can be retrieved after the fitting
After determining the AE onset from several testes where
the stress is changed in various directions from the in situ
stress, the virgin Holcomb surface may be constructed.
According to the definition of the Holcomb surface, the onset
is the point of time when the stress, or strain, crosses the
surface. Then, the 10CUSof alI stress, or strain, states at onset
is the measured Holcomb surface.
Onset models. The two criteria that will be used here
correspond to two different models. They describe two
different ways onset may occur, and consequently they cannot
be directly compared. Note that the two models are not
alternative in the sense that they may be fitted to the same data
set. The situation should be compared to the different failure
mechanisms that are responsible for the total failure surface of
a material. The idea that various parts of the Holcomb
surface are caused by different damage mechanisms has
recently been considered by Pestman and van Munsterl.
The general assumption underlying both models is that the
normrd behaviour is an AE activity increasing exponentially
when a sample is loaded at a constant rate. The activity can be
described by
y(t) = e ...................................................................(l)
where yis a measure of the AE activity, tis time and a and b
are constants. Thk Kind of behaviour is generally observed,
and an onset deviates from this behaviour. In this study, AE
activity is quantified by the hit rate, that is the number of
acoustic emissions recorded by one sensor per unit time. The
proper variable in Eq. 1 is not time, but the co-ordinate in the
space where the Holcomb surface is mapped. For practical
reasons, we will use time, and when stress and strain change
linearly with time, the representations are equivalent.
The two models differ in how deviations in the general
behaviour may occur. The deviations described are localized
in time such that an onset may be defined. The first model
describes the I@iser step2. Tlris is the behaviour seen in cyclic
loading experiments where the Kaiser effect is marked. Due
to a previous Ioad cycle, no AE activity occurs before the
previous maximum stress is exceeded. At that point, the
virgin behaviour described by Eq. 1 resumes. This can be
modelled by multiplying Eq. 1 with a step function h. Usually,
the step is not perfect and the function that will be used here is
...............................................(2)
h(t)
., = ~
l+WJI-W1
[ (.3 )
where t= is a transition time describing the sharpness of the
24
.
IL
SPE 47201
step and to is the onset time. The resulting model is
saw=%
We have called it the Step model, and an example of this
model can be seen in Fig. 3.
The second model describes a process that at a certain time
starts to dominate a background process. Both these
processes are described by Eq. 1, but if the constant b of the
second process is larger than the b of the first process, the
second process will eventually become dominant, The model
can be written as
Ymwe(t)=exp(al +~t)+exp(a, +~t) ............................
The model is called the Emerge model as it may be used to
describe activity from a new AE mechanism emerging out of a
background activity level. An example of this model can be
seen in Fig. 6. The onset point in this model has been defined
as the expected time for the first hit to occur due to a process
given by Eq. 1 with parameters a2 and & As the second
process is the interesting one, it is reasonable that only these
two parameters should be involved. The expectational value
and variance can be found numerically by the expressions
given by
~ = J ~f,(t)d............................................................ (4)
o
Crz= (t-p)*.fr(r)dt................................................(5)
J
o
where the probability density function fr is given by
r(t)=+exp(-ly(z)h))
20(6)
The derivation of these expressions can be found elsewhere.
f.t is defined as the onset time, but note that & cannot be
directly interpreted as the variance in the onset time estimate.
Nevertheless, c? gives an indication of the onset sharpness. In
many cases, this definition of onset gives onset points that are
placed much before the visual impression of an onset.
Note that the Step model can be viewed as the case where
the exponential slope of the process decreases from b+ I/t= to
b as opposed to the Emerge model where the slope increases
from b, to b2. It means that if the estimated logarithm of the
rate versus time is either convex or concave within a certain
interval, it will be reasonably modelled by one of the models.
Moreover, there is never any doubt about which model to use.
Fig. 1 to Fig. 9 show how these two models have been fitted to
the measurements.
As an aside, note that evolution of AE activity with time
has received very little attention in the AE literature, but
already Scholz presented a model for this. His model
assumed that the activity was governed by a Gaussian
SPE 47201 VIRGIN DAMAGE SURFACE OF A SYNTHETIC ANALOGUE TO A RESERVOIR SANDSTONE
variation in the stress field in a material with constant
microscopic strength. This gives a different normai AE
behaviour than the one described by Eq. 1. The rationale
behind our form may be that potential AE sources is
distributed in the sample according to a Boltzmann-like model
where stress has the role of temperature. When the stress
increases, the number of the potential sources that crack
increases exponentially
Experimented method
The experiments presented here have been run in a standard
triaxial testing machine from TerraTek Inc., Utah, on
cylindrical samples with diameter 1.5 (38 mm) and length 3
(76 mm). In the standard triaxial configuration, two of the
three principal stresses are equal, and there is no provision for
rotating the principal stresses. This means that we are only
able to map the damage surface in a two-dimensionai plane in
stress space with crl = cr. and Crz= rs3= p., where a, is the axial
stress and pc is the confining pressure. p. is not necessarily
less than IJWThe axial and lateral deformation of tire sample is
also measured. This enables mapping of the damage surface
in strain space.
Ilk investigation has been performed on a synthetic
materird named Gronstone. This materiai is described in more
detail in an accompanying paper7. The unconfined
compressive strength of the material is around 10 MPa,
porosity 20%, and mean grain size is 180 pm. The important
point in the manufacturing procedure is that the mixture of
sand and cement is loaded to 30 MPa axiai stress and 15 MPa
lateral stress and cured at this stress state. This stress state is
then the simulated in siw stress state, and the actual tests are
run along different stress paths starting from this state.
Table 1 gives an overview of the tests used in this study.
Two of the tests(TT96-11 and TT96- 12) were started with
a series of smaiI stress cycles before the main test. The idea
of these cycles was to check that no damage was induced
when the stress was cycled within the Holcomb surface. For
titk purpose acoustic pulse transmission velocity was
measured during the cycling. These measurements are
performed using pairs of piezo-electric transducers. One of
the transducers is exited with a 300 Vw, one cycle sine wave,
and the arrival of the acoustic pulse is measured by the @her
transducer and recorded with a digital oscilloscope.
The equipment we have used for the acoustic emission
measurements is a LOCAN320 from Physical Acoustics
Corp., New Jersey (PAC). This is a hit description based
device, which means that the exact time of each hit is
recorded. This is necessary for performing the analyses that
we have done here, We have recorded the activity with only
one transducer, a Micro 30 from PAC mounted outside the
confining pressure sleeve. Note that one transducer is
generally not sufficient because there is no way to know what
is the source of the activity. Typicaliy, crushing of grains
between the sample and pistons is the dominant source of
acoustic emission in sandstone, a phenomenon that will be
documented in a future publication. We have checked the
source of the activity in the case of the uniaxial strain tests by
25
3
source location, and in those cases, there is no end surface
effect. In the other cases, this is not checked.
Resuite
The time history plots of aIl the tests are shown in Fig. 1 to
Fig. 9. The plots show the lapse of the stresses with the AE hit
rate and the fitted onset model. The estimated rate is shown as
a step-like curve, and note that the rate is plotted on a
logarithmic scale. This method for rate estimation is presented
in a recent publication. In tests GRONOO1 and GRONO03 the
activity was measured in I s intervals with ionger pauses in
between. Then the inherent stochastic nature of the AE
process becomes more apparent, and this accounts for the
noisy rate curve in these two cases.
The fitted onset model is shown as a thick line in the
figures. The model parameters have been found by calculating
the maximum likelihood estimates of each of the parameters.
The hits are distributed in equally long bins, typicaily 5 or 10s
long, and the number of hits per bin is counted. The likelihood
of the outcome, given the model, is calculated for each bin.
The maximum likelihood estimates are then the parameter
values that maximize the sum of the likelihoods. Note that in
the tests GRON023 (Eg. 6) and lT96- 12 @lg. 7) the Emerge
model has been used. In the other cases, the Step model has
been used. This is solely determined by the shape of the onset,
and not due to any assumptions about mechanism etc. In most
cases, the models fit the measurements well. The behaviour of
uniaxial strain test GRONOO1 deviates from the identical tests
GRONO03 and GRON014, and in GRONO19, the unloading
was stopped before a clear second trend was established.
The stresses and strains at onset are tabulated in Table 2.
The stress values are plotted in Fig. 10. It is also possible to
plot the virgin Holcomb surface in strain space. As we have
defined the material to be undamaged at the forming stress,
this state shotdd also be the zero point for the strain
calculation. Because the tests are both loading and unloading,
it is convenient to use octahedral strains. The relations
between the radial and axial strain, e, and G, and the
11
octahedral normal and shear strains, %~ and ywi are
2e +& ............................................................. (7)
Em = ~
3
The virgin Holcomb surface in strain space using this
representation is shown in Fig. 11.
Damage verification. In the tests TT96-11 and TT96- 12, the
main loading was preceded with some small load cycles to
investigate whether damage was induced for load cycles inside
the Holcomb surface. In TT96- 11, the shear stress was first
increased, then unloaded to the forming stress. In the second
cycle, the shear was decreased by the same amount, and the
reloaded back to the forming stress. The mean stress was kept
constant ali the time. Between each load segment, the acoustic
velocity was measured. TT96- 12 was cycled in a similar way,

4 T.E. UNANDER, R.M. HOLT
but in this case, the mean stress was changed with constant
shear stress. The loadinghutloading was done in the direction
of pure shear and pure mean stress, respectively, due to the
special role of these quantities in linear, isotropic elasticity.
Given a linear, isotropic material pure shear loading will not
affect the volumetric strain, and similarly, mean stress loading
will not affect the shear strain. Note that this material is not
completely isotropic as it is made under anisotropic stresses
and compacted in an anisotropic fashion. Fig. 12 and 13g. 13
show the stress versus strain curves for these to series of
cycles. Note the large permanent deformation due to the shear
loading cycle, which clearly show that it was not within the
true damage surface. Some permanent deformation can be
seen in the other load directions, too.
The assumption that these small cycles were not damaging
the sample was further checked by acoustic emission and
velocity measurements. These measurements are shown in Flg
14 for TT96-I 1. The sensitivity of [he AE measurements was
12 dB higher in these measurements than what is seen in Fig.
5. Wkh the lower sensitivity, the recorded activity would be
negligible. The increase in axial velocity is 20 m/s. The mean
stress cycling in TT96- 12 gave negligible AE activity even
with the increased sensitivity, and the axial velocity was
approximately constant, but the radial velocity increased with
30 mk. Incremental shear and bulk modulus of the material
may be directly found from these stress cycles, and are
2.3 GPa and 4.7 GPa, respectively.
Fig. 15 compares the AE activity recorded during the first
shear loading in test TT96- 11 with the first part of the main
shear loading. When the hit rate is corrected for the difference
in load rate in the two cases, the activity behaves identically.
Normally, a Kaiser effect would have been expected here.
This observation is intriguing in Iight of the Step model used
in this case. The model gives an onset at a stress level beyond
what is plotted in Fig. 15. That means that the first cycle did
not cross the Holcomb surface, and consequently the Holcomb
surface was not distorted by this load cycle. Then, it is as
expected that the AE behaviour is identical in the two cases
because the HoIcomb surface is the same in the two cases.
Discussion
Clearly, the assumption Holcomb surface is the same as the
darnage surface for this material is not valid. It is interesting
to note that the damage is most clearly seen from the
mechanical measurements. Acoustic methods are usually
assumed more sensitive to micromechanical damage.
Consequently, it would have been natural to construct a
damage surface, or actualIy a yield surface, from the
mechanical measurements. This is of course possible, but the
procedure is much more involved including a multitude of
load cycles. One nice example of such mapping is the work of
Tatsuoka and Ishihara12. We can here only speculate about
what the Holcomb surface in this case represent. It may be
that what we measure is a reminiscence of the behaviour of the
sand before cementing.
Generally, the onset points, except GRONO19 and
GRONO15, follow a kind of Mohr-Coulomb criterion. They
26
.
u. \
SPE 47201
may even be fitted to a two-segment line as proposed by
Pestman and van Munster*. The load paths used with
GRONOI 9 and GRON015 do not approach such a criterion. -
These two tests are unloading, and indicate that the zero stress
state is not within our Holcomb surface as expected. While
the shape of the Holcomb surface in stress space (Fig. IO) is
relatively regular, the surface in strain space @lg. I 1) is more
complex. This may partly be attributed to experimental
scatter, but we think that this reflects a variety of damage
mechanisms. Fttst, the AE behaviour in tests GRON023 and
TT96-12 is fundamentally different from the rest. There, the
Emerge model was used as opposed to the Step model
elsewhere. Strictly, those points cannot be compared to the
other. Still, it makes sense to define a damage surface that
represents different damage mechanisms in different
directions. Second, with some imagination it is possible to see
a trend for the sIightly dilative to compactive tests, TT96- 11 to
GRON014. Interestingly enough, the unloading test
GRON015 coincides with the pure shear loading test TT96- 11.
Grain rotation may be the mechanism at work in these tests.
Finally, there are three strongly dilatant cases, GRON023,
TT96-12 and GRON019. Here, the cement may give the AE
activity when local tensile stresses break cement bonds. These
broken bonds may start to coalesce, creating axial extensile
cracks that in turn leads to global failure.
This material is very close or at the virgin damage surface
in the direction of increased shear. Note that the material has a
significant unconfined compressive strength (10 MPa), and
then most probably a significant cohesion. The reason for this
negligible micromechanical strength may be a wedge effect.
Even minute macroscopic stress increases may be amplified to
overcome the cohesion locally. In other directions than the
shear direction, the material seems to endure the load change
more. It is unreasonable to assume that the damage surface is
not completely within the Holcomb surface. That means that
the AE activity seen during unloading indicates that the
damage surface has been crossed.
The two onset models that we have used here have nicely
been able to describe and quantify the AE onset. It is
encouraging that the quantified sharpness of the onset is
good, that is, the transition period is well inside the test
segment. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any need of
other models.
Conclusions
1, This study does not support an assumption that a
reservoir rock has a safe region within the stress may be
varied elastically without damage being induced in the rock.
This means that it is not sufficient to use simple, linearized
models when simulating deformation of a reservoir.
2. For a normally consolidated material, the microscopic
strength may be close to zero for shear loading even if it is
cemented.
3. The AE measurements have given a closed virgin
Holcomb surface that does not include the zero stress state.
However, it is clear that in this case the Holcomb surface does
not coincide with the true damage surface.
 . .

SPE 47201 VIRGIN DAMAGE SURFACE OF A SYNTHETIC ANALOGUE TO A RESERVOIR SANDSTONE 5

4. The two models for describing AE onset have given 5. Holt R. M., Unander T. E., Kenter C. J. and SantarelIi, F.J.:
new possibilities for quantifying onset. This increases the UnIoading effects on mechanical properties of a very weak
possibility to use AE activity to identify damage mechanisms. artificial sandstone: Applications to corirrg: Geotechnica/
Engineering of Hard Soils-Sofi Rocks, Anagnastopouhrs et al.

Acknowledgements
This work has been performed at IKU Petroleum Research. It
has been sponsored partly through the Core quality
programme at IKU and pwtIy through Mr. Unanders Ph. D.-
study. The Ph.D. study is sponsored by Statoils scholarship
programme, VISTA, and SheIl International Exploration and
Production B.V., RTS, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
The authors thank Lasse Stamnes for running the tests.
References
1. Pestrnan, B.J, and van Munster, J.G.: An Acoustic Emission
Study of Damage Development and Stress-Memory Effects in
Sandstone,n Int. J. Rock. iUech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
(1996) 33, No. 6, pp. 585-593.
2. Holcomb, D.J.: Observations of the Kaiser Effect Under
Multiaxial Stress States: Implications for Its Use in Determining
In Situ Stressfl Geophys. Res. Lett. (1993) 20, No. 19, pp. 2119-
2122.
3. HoIt, R.M. and Kenter, C.J.: Laboratory simulation of core
damage induced by stress release, Rock Mechanics, Tlllerson &
Waversik (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam (1992), pp. 959-968.
4. Holt R. M., Unander T. E. and Kenter C. J.: Constitutive
mechanical behaviour of synthetic sandstone formed under
stress, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1993)
30, No.7, PP.719-722.
(eds),A.A.Bafkema,Rotterdam (1993), pp. 1609-1614.
6. HoIt, R.M., Brigrroli, M., Fjax, E., Kenter, C.J. and Unander,
T.E.: Core damage effects on compaction behaviour~ paper
SPE 28027, Eurock 94, Balkema, Rotterdam, (1994), pp. 55-
62.
7. HoIt, R.M., Brignoli, M., Kenter, C.J., Meij, R. and Schutjens,
P.M.T.M.: From core compaction to reservoir compaction:
Correction for core damage effects; paper SPE 47263 presented
at the SPWLSRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July
1998.
8. Holcomb, D.J. and Costin, L.S.: Detecting Damage Surfaces in
Brittle Materials Using Acoustic Emissions: J Appl. &tech.
(1986) 108, pp. 536-544.
9. Unarrder, T. E. and Elvebakk, G.: Tools for Analysis of AE
Time Behavior, Acoustic EmissiotiMicroseismic Activi& in
Geologic Structures and Materials Proceedings of the Sixth
Conference, Trarrs Tech Publications, C1austal-ZelIerfeld,
Germany (1998), pp. 557-570.
10. Sholz, C.H.: Microfracturing and the Inelastic Deformation of
Rock in Compression, J. Geophys Res. (1968) 73, No. 4,
pp. 1417-1432.
11. Chen, W.F. end Han, D.J.: Plastici~ for Structural Engineers,
Springer-Verlag, New York, (1988).
12. Tatsuoka, F. and Ishihara, K.: Yielding of Sand in Triaxial
Comvressiorr, Soils and Foundations (1 974) 14, No. 2, pp. 63-
76.

TABLE I-OVERVIEW OF THE TESTS.

Tvoe of test ~rese.kit rain increment Qnset model used

GRONOOI Uniaxial strain compaaon (Ea >0,6, = o) Step
GRONO03 Uniaxial strain compaction (E. > o,E, = o) Step
GRON014 Uniaxial strain cornpatilon (Ea >0, E, = o) Step
GRON022 Axial loading (u. >0, u, = o) Step
TT96-11 Shear loading (6./6, = -2,6. > o) Step
GRON023 Radial unloading (u. = o, d, < o) Emerge
lT96-12 Isotropic unloading (ua/ur = 1,6= < o) Emerge
GRON019 Prcymrtionalunloading (6./6, =2, & co) Step
GRONOI 5 Axial unloading (Ua <0,6, = o) Step

I TABLE 2.-STRESS AND STRAIN AT AE ONSET

~st name %.l!&81 m &JD@JllkJL?@ml

GRONOOI 37.8 17.0 0.37 1.01
GRONO03 40.1 17.2 0.48 1.38
GRON014 41.5 18.1 0.57 1.48
GRON022 38.4 14.9 -0.05 1.72
TT96-11 33.9 13.1 -0<28 2.00
GRON023 29.9 li.3 -0.31 0.74
TT96-12 23.5 8.5 -0.90 0.70
GFtoNoi9 10.2 5.0 -1.24 1.55
GRON015 13.8 14.9 -0.33 2.17

27
 T.E. UNANDER, R.M. HOLT SPE 47201
R

II ! 1, 1
L 0.01
o
1....,,...,.,..:. i 0.1 o~
530Jsso353w-73@J ~
ssmssoomco-~ ~
Time [s] GRONOI 4
Time [s] GRONOOI

Fig. I.AE rate andthefittad model together with theaxlal and Fig. 3. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and
radial stress for test GRONOOI. The solid vertical lines show the radial stress for teat GRON014. The solid vertical lines show the
estimated onset point. The broken Iineeindicate thesharpness estimated onset point The broken lines indicate the sharpness
of the onset. Sss comment in text regarding the noisy rate curve. of the onset.

lW
SOT -1

10

1 0,
0.1

i
4 I
I 1 0.1 o~
1, ,1,.1 ,+___--.--l 0.01
o ! . .-A -
5w303aI --- 1Om
s3cosews3m-~ -
Time [s] GRON022
Time [s] GRONO03

Fig. 2. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and Fig. 4. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and
radial stress for test GRON022. The solid vertical lines show the
radial stress for test GRONO03. The solid vertical lines show the
estimated onset point. The broken lines indicate the sharpneas
estimated onset po~nt. The broken lines indicate the sharpness
of the onset.
of the onset. Sea comment in text regarding the noisy rate cuwe.
 .

w..

7
SPE 47201 VIRGIN tIAk4AGE suFIFAcE OF A sYNTI-imc ANALOGUE To A FIESERVOIR SANDsTONE

25. ~ 100

10

0.1

I.. l...:.,..:,,. 0.01

0 1 , ;0.01
?4xlms400smJ~ ~ I04C0
7m7e327@XlsotQm -~
Time [s] l-r!wl 1
Time [s] Trs6-12

Fig. 5. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and
radial stress for teat TT96-11. The solid vertical lines show the
aatimated onset point The broken lines indicate thesharPneas
of the onset.
Fig. 7. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and
radial stress for test TT95-I 2. The solid vertical lines show the
estimated onset point. The broken lines indicate the sharpness
of the onset. The drop in activity at 10200s is due to an intended
reduction in measurement sensitivity.

----
oi. !~ S2Co Esoo
I
b 0,1
7W0
01
5scrJ 58W
I I
&3Co
I
SSoo
! 0.01
X-30a

Time [s] GRON019

Time [s] GRON023

Fi&J.6, AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and Fig. 8. AE rate and the fitted model together with the axial and
radial stress for test GRON023. The solid vertical lines show the radial atress for test GRONO19. The solid vertical lines show the
aatImated onset point. The broken lines Indicate the sharpness estimated onset point. The broken lines indicate the sharpness
of the onset. of the onset.

29
 Ii%

8 T.E. UNANDER, R.M. HOLT SPE 47201

Iwo

I
so

~
mzo- -
k
z

10

5. -

0.
5420 5470 5520 5570
llme [s] GRONOI 5

Fig. 9. AE rata and the fitted model together with the axial and radial atresa for test GRONOI 5. The solid
vertfosl lines ahow the estimated onset point. The broken lines indicate the sharpness of the onset.

45

40 78 GRONO14 I
GRONW3
GRONOO1
I
/
/
/
?$ /
/
/
36 /
/
/
,/
/
so GRON023 o & ~ x Forming stress
/
/
~ ,/

~ /
/
~ 25 /
T-T96-12 .O /
/
o /
g /
/
/
20 /

f!
/
GRON019 ,? /
/
, w
15
,~; GRON015

/ b
/
10 / /
/
/
/
/
/
5 /
/
/
/
/

0 I
o 5 10 15 20 2s 20 35 40

Radial stress, u, [MPa]

Fig. 10.The virgin Holcomb surface of Gronstone plotted in stress apace. The solid marks indicate estimated
onset points Square points are estimated using the Step model, and triangular points are estimated using the
Emerge model. The open circles give an indication of the transition region of the onset.

30
. . .

--..- -...-..
SPE 47201 VIRGIN DAMAGE SURFACE OF A SYNTHETIC ANALOGUE TO A RESERVOIR SANDSTONE V

4-

?
3.5- -
1
I
!
t GRON015
1
t, q 3- -
\\
1! aI
$1
tl
!t 2.5- 1
!1 o
t
1,

TrS6-11 ;, ,,+)
~ 2/ - c1
,(
GRONO19 GRON022 f,
:; { ,/
.
m, t ,/
GRON023 1,1. +-
.
\ ! f? GRON014 I
\ Q Al
,, (
GRoNcKr3 I
\ \ -, ! /, 1
\ GRONCKN
. \l
q o , ib ~d
\
\ \ #c)
\ , ; t 4

. I
Q
I
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Normal strain, ~t [1 O?

Fig. 11.The virgin Holcomb surface of Gronstone plotted in strain space. The solid marks indicate estimated
onset points. Square points are estimated using the Step model, and the triangular points are estimated using
the Emerge model. The open circles give an indication of the transition region of the onset.

a ----. . ... .. . ,
CL 8.5-
~

J 8- - - - -- ~*- -
+v/ ~
g- 7.5- ----
~ g 19.5
!l/~ i i
% 7- , , --- -G
Shear ~ K
. .- tJW
% ,, stain ,
~ 6.5- -
a 7i Volumetric -
u) //~ [
ii strain
6- 1 18.5-1 1
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Strain [1 O-T -rW3-11

Strain [107 ~w.12

Fig. 1Z-stress veraus strain curves for the small load cycles Fig. 13-Stress versus strain cuwes for the small load cycles
performed prior to main Iosding in test lT96-11. The arrowa performed prior to main loading in test TT96-12. The arrowa
indicate direction of the first load cycle. T~. = Iu.-u,II2 indicate direction of the first load cycle. C&I= (cr. + 2u,)13

31
10 T.E. UNANDER, R.M. HOLT SPE 47201

r.

I
s

1-=1
[
3150
A A

A
A
A 31(XI

Hi rate

L
3050
Shear stress
Axiil P-wave
---=. A Radml P-wsve
\
2950

i 2850

o Zaca
S3cm 55C0 570U 5900 6100 8WJ 8500
Thna [s]

Fig 14.Time history plot of the shear loading cycle in the test TT96-11, The shear stress is
maximum shear stress, TN = Iu.-u,II2. The mean stress was kept constant during these cycles.

II I
I
2. loading I
1

lo~
7 8 9 10 11

. Shear stress tm.x ~Pa]

1s. Acoustic emission activity during the first shear Iosding and the second main shear
Fig.
loading in test TT96-I 1.

32