3.8 Article

Characterizing rock transverse anisotropic spatial variations using digital drilling

Journal

GEOENERGY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Volume 232, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212451

Keywords

Transverse anisotropy; Drilling strength; Specific energy; Spatial variation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the transverse anisotropy in rock masses using digital drilling tests and evaluates them using various indices. The results show significant variations in transverse anisotropy among different rock types at different depths.
Transverse anisotropy plays an important role in the engineering behavior of rock masses. This study examines the transverse anisotropic spatial variations and evaluates them using the coefficient of variation (CV) and anisotropy index (AI) through digital drilling tests. Four types of rocks, shale (SH), mudstone (MU), sandstone (SA), and schist (SC), are studied in four directions, revealing significant transverse anisotropy at the cutting point. The results demonstrate that the effect of the depth per rotation on the difference is weaker compared to the scaled weight and torque. The ranking of transverse anisotropy in the tested rocks is: MU > SA > SH > SC. Transverse anisotropy changes along the drilling depth vary across rock types. With the increase of drilling depth, SH experiences a decrease, rebound, and another decrease. MU shows an initial increase followed by a decrease. For SA, the degree of transverse anisotropy decreases and is sustained at a lower extent. SC exhibits slight fluctuations with the exception of the abrupt change. The time when the drilling bit is in perfect contact with the rock and the cutting efficiency in different drilling directions are the main factors causing the transverse anisotropy. The intricate evolution of transverse anisotropy should be worth investigating on a wider scale.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available