Hydraulic fracturing for in situ stress measurement

Serdyukov, S. V.; Kurlenya, M. V.; Patutin, A. V.

doi:10.1134/s1062739116061563

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Models of downhole tools were made with different packer systems, including the use of several sealing elements in the form of polyurethane cylinders of different lengths with separating metal inserts between them. On the basis of experimental data, a comparative analysis of the methods for determining the shut-in pressure P s used for stress measurement was carried out [2]. It was shown that the fracture pressure and the direction of fracture propagation depend on the shape of the bottom of the model borehole, the presence and direction of initiating slots on its wall, and the value of compressive stresses [3].…”

Section: Types Of Laboratory Facilities For the Study Of The Hf Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory stands for hydraulic fracturing simulation in a nonuniform stress field

Patutin

Serdyukov

2022

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper considers the capabilities of well-known laboratory facilities for hydraulic fracturing modeling under the true triaxial loading conditions. Of greatest interest are the stands that allow you to create a crack in large cubic samples with an edge length of 200 mm or more. In this case, it is possible to reduce the influence of edge effects from the boundaries of the sample on the propagation path of the discontinuity. The review includes research results obtained using 10 different facilities located in major scientific centers.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Laboratory Facilities For the Study Of The Hf Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory stands for hydraulic fracturing simulation in a nonuniform stress field

Patutin

Serdyukov

2022

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to a lack of hydraulic fracturing and leak-off test data in the Gachsaran Formation of the Marun Oil Field, to calculate minimum horizontal stress, mud losses information of the formation was used. Thus, if the mud weight leads to the fracture initiation and/or reopening the pre-existing fractures in the formation, the total mud weight can be considered equivalent to the minimum horizontal stress (Zoback 2010;Ward and Andreassen 1997;Serdyukov et al 2016;Wang and Mi 2016). Based on mud weight information in the daily drilling reports, pore pressure in member 4 of the Gachsaran Formation up to the cap rock (member 1) in the Marun Oil Field would be about 0.022 MPa/m.…”

Section: Determination Of Minimum Horizontal Stress (S Hmin )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the domain of in situ stress around Marun Oil Field’s failed wells, SW Iran

Farsimadan

Dehghan

Khodaei

2020

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate determination of the in situ stress domain in oil fields is of paramount importance in drilling, completion, and maintenance of wells and in petroleum geomechanics. Determination of the magnitude and direction of stresses induced by drilling around the wellbores is the first step in geomechanical studies and wellbore stability analyses. Regarding the importance of casing collapse problems in Marun Oil Field, as the first step of this investigation, geomechanical studies were conducted to determine the in situ stress domain in the failed wellbores. Using density measurements, the vertical stress (S V ) was estimated to be within the range of 85-90 MPa for all wellbores. To estimate maximum-horizontal-stress (S Hmax ) domain, Anderson's faulting theory and stress polygon were employed, and a value close to S V was achieved. Also, minimum horizontal stress (S hmin ) was estimated using different approaches and was found to have the minimum in situ stress. Finally, the faulting regime of the areas was found to be normal/strike slip, where the stress values are close to each other due to salt lithology and high pore pressures in the Gachsaran Formation and thereby could be assumed as hydrostatic stresses.

show abstract

“…The Hydraulic Fracturing Technique is an in-situ stress measurement technique that is effective in measuring stress for deep areas. Mainly used for in-situ stress measurement in hydropower engineering, road engineering, subway, and others (Serdyukov et al, 2016). Meanwhile, according to Lulić et al (2023), the flat jack test technique is a direct, in-situ testing method that requires only slotting into the wall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Stress and Pillar Strength in Underground Coal Mines

Prengki,

Dwinagara,

Koesnaryo

et al. 2023

SENJOP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underground coal mining is located in Tanah Kuning, Batu Tanjung Village, Talawi District, Sawahlunto City. Some constraints arose in a CV. BMK is the existence of several mining fronts on mining blocks that have started to become critical and fail. It can be seen from the condition of the supports in some places that they have started to crook and break. In addition, in several locations, many rocks were found hanging (wedges) on the roof of the openings that could be seen between the rows of supports. This indicates a significant change in strain around the coal pits and pillars. The research was carried out by testing in situ stresses using Flat-jack, observing the condition of the rock mass, and testing the physical and mechanical properties of the rock. The purpose of this study was to find out the magnitude of the strength and stress on the pillarbased on the theory of tributary area loading, to provide safe and economical pillar geometry recommendations, and to discover the causes of rock mass movements. Based on the results of the analysis using the Tributary Area theory, the Safety factor Pillar 1 obtained was categorized as unsafe based on the reference value of the safety factor. The most ideal pillar size recommendation based on previous geotechnical studies was 9 m x 9 m with a maximum recovery of 38% and a safety factor of 1.7. Based on the results of the calculation of strength and loading on the pillars, the value of Pillar 1 strength is 6.0 MPa, Pillar 2 strength was 9.57 MPa, and Pillar 3 was 10.9 MPa with the value of Pillar load for Pillar 1 = 5.1 MPa, Pillar 2 = 4.47 MPa and Pillar 3 = 5.58 Mpa.

show abstract

Hydraulic fracturing for in situ stress measurement

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Laboratory stands for hydraulic fracturing simulation in a nonuniform stress field

Laboratory stands for hydraulic fracturing simulation in a nonuniform stress field

Determining the domain of in situ stress around Marun Oil Field’s failed wells, SW Iran

Analysis of Stress and Pillar Strength in Underground Coal Mines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About