Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks

ABSTRACT Static moduli of rocks are usually different from the corresponding dynamic moduli. The ratio between them is generally complex and depends on several conditions, including stress state and stress history. Different drainage conditions, dispersion (often associated with pore fluid effects),...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Geophysical Prospecting 2019-01, Vol.67 (1), p.128-139
1. Verfasser: Fjær, Erling
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 139
container_issue 1
container_start_page 128
container_title Geophysical Prospecting
container_volume 67
creator Fjær, Erling
description ABSTRACT Static moduli of rocks are usually different from the corresponding dynamic moduli. The ratio between them is generally complex and depends on several conditions, including stress state and stress history. Different drainage conditions, dispersion (often associated with pore fluid effects), heterogeneities and strain amplitude, are all potential reasons for this discrepancy. Moreover, comparison of static and dynamic moduli is often hampered and maybe mistaken due to insufficient characterization of anisotropy. This paper gives a review of the various mechanisms causing differences between static and dynamic moduli. By careful arrangements of test conditions, it is possible to isolate the mechanisms so that they can be studied separately. Non‐elastic deformation induced by the large static strain amplitudes is particularly challenging, however a linear relationship between non‐elastic compliance and stress makes it possible to eliminate also this effect by extrapolation to zero strain amplitude. To a large extent, each mechanism can be expressed mathematically with reasonable precision, thus quantitative relations between the moduli can be established. This provides useful tools for analyses and prediction of rock behaviour. For instance, such relations may be used to predict static stiffness and even strength based on dynamic measurements. This is particularly useful in field situations where only dynamic data are available. Further, by utilizing the possibility for extrapolation of static measurements to zero strain amplitude, dispersion in the range from seismic to ultrasonic frequencies may be studied by a combination of static and dynamic measurements.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1365-2478.12711
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2160653056</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2160653056</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3561-12150f2a2e9455048d8b516c64fceb2e9e825a377e95ec56c5c25b96215690363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM9LwzAUx4MoOKdnrwHP3ZK0L21vytApDJSh55Cmr9DZNjNpGf3vTa14NZcXvny_78eHkFvOVjy8NY8lRCJJsxUXKednZPGnnJMFY1xGGRNwSa68PzAWM4BkQe732Oi-tp2nBfYnxI76PgiG6q6k5djpNvxbWw5NTW1FPZZ1i12v3UidNZ_-mlxUuvF481uX5OPp8X3zHO1ety-bh11kYpA84oIDq4QWmCcALMnKrAAujUwqg0VQMROg4zTFHNCANGAEFLkMMZmzWMZLcjf3PTr7NaDv1cEOrgsjleCSSQgHTa717DLOeu-wUkdXt2FZxZmaMKkJipqgqB9MIQFz4lQ3OP5nV9u3_Zz7Bnh4Z8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2160653056</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Fjær, Erling</creator><creatorcontrib>Fjær, Erling</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Static moduli of rocks are usually different from the corresponding dynamic moduli. The ratio between them is generally complex and depends on several conditions, including stress state and stress history. Different drainage conditions, dispersion (often associated with pore fluid effects), heterogeneities and strain amplitude, are all potential reasons for this discrepancy. Moreover, comparison of static and dynamic moduli is often hampered and maybe mistaken due to insufficient characterization of anisotropy. This paper gives a review of the various mechanisms causing differences between static and dynamic moduli. By careful arrangements of test conditions, it is possible to isolate the mechanisms so that they can be studied separately. Non‐elastic deformation induced by the large static strain amplitudes is particularly challenging, however a linear relationship between non‐elastic compliance and stress makes it possible to eliminate also this effect by extrapolation to zero strain amplitude. To a large extent, each mechanism can be expressed mathematically with reasonable precision, thus quantitative relations between the moduli can be established. This provides useful tools for analyses and prediction of rock behaviour. For instance, such relations may be used to predict static stiffness and even strength based on dynamic measurements. This is particularly useful in field situations where only dynamic data are available. Further, by utilizing the possibility for extrapolation of static measurements to zero strain amplitude, dispersion in the range from seismic to ultrasonic frequencies may be studied by a combination of static and dynamic measurements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-8025</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2478</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12711</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Houten: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Amplitude ; Amplitudes ; Anisotropy ; Borehole geophysics ; Deformation ; Deformation mechanisms ; Dispersion ; Elastic deformation ; Extrapolation ; Modulus of elasticity ; Petrophysics ; Rock physics ; Sedimentary rocks ; Seismics ; Stiffness ; Strain ; Stress ; Stress history</subject><ispartof>Geophysical Prospecting, 2019-01, Vol.67 (1), p.128-139</ispartof><rights>2018 European Association of Geoscientists &amp; Engineers</rights><rights>2019 European Association of Geoscientists &amp; Engineers</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3561-12150f2a2e9455048d8b516c64fceb2e9e825a377e95ec56c5c25b96215690363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3561-12150f2a2e9455048d8b516c64fceb2e9e825a377e95ec56c5c25b96215690363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2478.12711$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2478.12711$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fjær, Erling</creatorcontrib><title>Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks</title><title>Geophysical Prospecting</title><description>ABSTRACT Static moduli of rocks are usually different from the corresponding dynamic moduli. The ratio between them is generally complex and depends on several conditions, including stress state and stress history. Different drainage conditions, dispersion (often associated with pore fluid effects), heterogeneities and strain amplitude, are all potential reasons for this discrepancy. Moreover, comparison of static and dynamic moduli is often hampered and maybe mistaken due to insufficient characterization of anisotropy. This paper gives a review of the various mechanisms causing differences between static and dynamic moduli. By careful arrangements of test conditions, it is possible to isolate the mechanisms so that they can be studied separately. Non‐elastic deformation induced by the large static strain amplitudes is particularly challenging, however a linear relationship between non‐elastic compliance and stress makes it possible to eliminate also this effect by extrapolation to zero strain amplitude. To a large extent, each mechanism can be expressed mathematically with reasonable precision, thus quantitative relations between the moduli can be established. This provides useful tools for analyses and prediction of rock behaviour. For instance, such relations may be used to predict static stiffness and even strength based on dynamic measurements. This is particularly useful in field situations where only dynamic data are available. Further, by utilizing the possibility for extrapolation of static measurements to zero strain amplitude, dispersion in the range from seismic to ultrasonic frequencies may be studied by a combination of static and dynamic measurements.</description><subject>Amplitude</subject><subject>Amplitudes</subject><subject>Anisotropy</subject><subject>Borehole geophysics</subject><subject>Deformation</subject><subject>Deformation mechanisms</subject><subject>Dispersion</subject><subject>Elastic deformation</subject><subject>Extrapolation</subject><subject>Modulus of elasticity</subject><subject>Petrophysics</subject><subject>Rock physics</subject><subject>Sedimentary rocks</subject><subject>Seismics</subject><subject>Stiffness</subject><subject>Strain</subject><subject>Stress</subject><subject>Stress history</subject><issn>0016-8025</issn><issn>1365-2478</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM9LwzAUx4MoOKdnrwHP3ZK0L21vytApDJSh55Cmr9DZNjNpGf3vTa14NZcXvny_78eHkFvOVjy8NY8lRCJJsxUXKednZPGnnJMFY1xGGRNwSa68PzAWM4BkQe732Oi-tp2nBfYnxI76PgiG6q6k5djpNvxbWw5NTW1FPZZ1i12v3UidNZ_-mlxUuvF481uX5OPp8X3zHO1ety-bh11kYpA84oIDq4QWmCcALMnKrAAujUwqg0VQMROg4zTFHNCANGAEFLkMMZmzWMZLcjf3PTr7NaDv1cEOrgsjleCSSQgHTa717DLOeu-wUkdXt2FZxZmaMKkJipqgqB9MIQFz4lQ3OP5nV9u3_Zz7Bnh4Z8w</recordid><startdate>201901</startdate><enddate>201901</enddate><creator>Fjær, Erling</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201901</creationdate><title>Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks</title><author>Fjær, Erling</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3561-12150f2a2e9455048d8b516c64fceb2e9e825a377e95ec56c5c25b96215690363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Amplitude</topic><topic>Amplitudes</topic><topic>Anisotropy</topic><topic>Borehole geophysics</topic><topic>Deformation</topic><topic>Deformation mechanisms</topic><topic>Dispersion</topic><topic>Elastic deformation</topic><topic>Extrapolation</topic><topic>Modulus of elasticity</topic><topic>Petrophysics</topic><topic>Rock physics</topic><topic>Sedimentary rocks</topic><topic>Seismics</topic><topic>Stiffness</topic><topic>Strain</topic><topic>Stress</topic><topic>Stress history</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fjær, Erling</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Geophysical Prospecting</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fjær, Erling</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks</atitle><jtitle>Geophysical Prospecting</jtitle><date>2019-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>128</spage><epage>139</epage><pages>128-139</pages><issn>0016-8025</issn><eissn>1365-2478</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Static moduli of rocks are usually different from the corresponding dynamic moduli. The ratio between them is generally complex and depends on several conditions, including stress state and stress history. Different drainage conditions, dispersion (often associated with pore fluid effects), heterogeneities and strain amplitude, are all potential reasons for this discrepancy. Moreover, comparison of static and dynamic moduli is often hampered and maybe mistaken due to insufficient characterization of anisotropy. This paper gives a review of the various mechanisms causing differences between static and dynamic moduli. By careful arrangements of test conditions, it is possible to isolate the mechanisms so that they can be studied separately. Non‐elastic deformation induced by the large static strain amplitudes is particularly challenging, however a linear relationship between non‐elastic compliance and stress makes it possible to eliminate also this effect by extrapolation to zero strain amplitude. To a large extent, each mechanism can be expressed mathematically with reasonable precision, thus quantitative relations between the moduli can be established. This provides useful tools for analyses and prediction of rock behaviour. For instance, such relations may be used to predict static stiffness and even strength based on dynamic measurements. This is particularly useful in field situations where only dynamic data are available. Further, by utilizing the possibility for extrapolation of static measurements to zero strain amplitude, dispersion in the range from seismic to ultrasonic frequencies may be studied by a combination of static and dynamic measurements.</abstract><cop>Houten</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2478.12711</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-8025
ispartof Geophysical Prospecting, 2019-01, Vol.67 (1), p.128-139
issn 0016-8025
1365-2478
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2160653056
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Amplitude
Amplitudes
Anisotropy
Borehole geophysics
Deformation
Deformation mechanisms
Dispersion
Elastic deformation
Extrapolation
Modulus of elasticity
Petrophysics
Rock physics
Sedimentary rocks
Seismics
Stiffness
Strain
Stress
Stress history
title Relations between static and dynamic moduli of sedimentary rocks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T01%3A37%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Relations%20between%20static%20and%20dynamic%20moduli%20of%20sedimentary%20rocks&rft.jtitle=Geophysical%20Prospecting&rft.au=Fj%C3%A6r,%20Erling&rft.date=2019-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=128&rft.epage=139&rft.pages=128-139&rft.issn=0016-8025&rft.eissn=1365-2478&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12711&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2160653056%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2160653056&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true