4.7 Article

Micromechanisms of borehole instability leading to breakouts in rocks

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.06.002

关键词

borehole breakouts; borehole instability; failure micromechanism; compaction bands; micromechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the different borehole breakout failure micromechanisms observed during a multiyear laboratory research effort at the University of Wisconsin. Vertical borehole drilling experiments were conducted in a variety of granites, limestones, and sandstones under a wide ranee of pre-existing stress fields. Test samples that developed breakouts during drilling were analyzed under optical and scanning electron microscopes to establish the micromechanics of failure. All rocks tested, except for the quartz-rich sandstones, develop dog-eared breakouts along the minimum horizontal far-field stress springline, even though the grain-scale mechanisms leading to the final appearance may differ considerably. The common denominator is the incipient failure in the form of dilatant microcracking in the zones of the highest compressive stress concentration around the borehole. Dependent on rock type, these microcracks could be tensile or shear openings, extending inter- or intra-granularly. A type of failure not hitherto recognized was discovered in quartz-rich sandstones, which develop tabular slot-shaped breakouts that maintain a constant very narrow width over an extensive length, resulting in a fracture-like appearance. Such breakouts are the result of a largely non-dilatant micromechanism consisting of localized grain debonding and repacking leading to the formation of an apparent reduced-porosity compaction band along the minimum horizontal far-field stress springline. Breakouts are produced by the removal, with the help of the circulating drilling fluid, of loose grains and grain fragments that were debonded in the process of compaction band forming. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据