1

P333 Static and Dynamic Youngs Modulus of Marly

Chalk from the North Sea
AUTHORS
1
1
2
3
C. OLSEN , I. L. FABRICIUS , A. KROGSBLL , M. PRASAD
Address
Environment & Resources, Technical University of Denmark b 115, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark
3
SRB Project, Geophysics Department, Stanford University

Introduction
Deformation properties of a rock are governing factors for production of oil from a reservoir.
These properties can be either determined from geotechnical consolidation testing (also called
static tests) or from acoustic data (dynamic tests). The main differences between the two tests
lie in the frequency of the measurements and the strain amplitude used in the tests. When a
sound wave propagates through a porous medium the deformation of the grains is elastic. In a
geotechnical test the strain is larger and a non-elastic deformation of the sample can occur.
Several studies have shown that static and dynamic properties are different e. g. Wang (2000).
The difference between static and dynamic moduli is often explained by the difference in
frequency and strain amplitude between the static and the dynamic test (Yale et al., 1995).
The frequency difference is believed to have an influence on the moduli because of wave
dispersion in rocks, but moduli are much more influenced by a change in the strain amplitude
than a change in frequency (Yale et al. 1995).
The deformation of the rock during mechanical loading is a combination of elastic and nonelastic deformations, and it is assumed that the total strain increment can be formulated as a
sum of the elastic and the non-elastic strain increment (e.g. Hansen, 2001).
d = d elastic + d non elastic (1)
Under the assumption that both strain increments are proportional to stress increment and that
the overall deformation is controlled by stress alone, equation 1 can be reformulated in terms
of stiffness moduli instead of strains.

1
1
1
=
+
(2)
E E elastic E non elastic
Based on the principle of simultaneous elastic and non-elastic deformation we will in this
paper present a method to determine the non-elastic modulus from mechanical loading tests.
This modulus quantifies the influence from the non-elastic deformation on the static modulus.
The acoustic modulus is determined from sonic logs and the acoustic modulus equals the
elastic modulus. The non-elastic and the elastic modulus are then used to calculate the
modulus for the static loading with Equation 2. The idea is first to show that the difference
between static and dynamic moduli is caused by a non-elastic deformation during the static
EAGE 66th Conference & Exhibition Paris, France, 7 - 10 June 2004

loading and that this non-elastic deformation can be quantified by a non-elastic modulus.
When this non-elastic modulus is combined with the elastic modulus from acoustic data it is
possible to calculate a Youngs modulus in agreement with the measured Youngs modulus
from the loading curve. Secondly we show that the unloading modulus from the unloading
curves equals the acoustic modulus.
The data used in this study is logging data from two wells, Nord Jens-1 and Valdemar-2p, in
the Valdemar field in the North Sea and results from geotechnical testing of core samples
taken from the two wells. The geotechnical data are published in a project report (Christensen,
1999).
Method

The elastic Youngs modulus is determined from logging data and the non-elastic modulus is
determined from the non-elastic deformation during loading (Figure 1).

0
Permanent
strain after
unloadings

Stress [MPa]
4
6

10

0
Eloading

Strain [%]

0.05

0.1

0.15

Eunloading

0.2

Figure 1: Stress-strain relationship during a uniaxial unconfined compression test. The

repeated loading up to 2, 4 and 8 MPa causes increasing permanent deformation. Loading
curve from Christensen (1999).
The permanent strains after each of the 3 unloadings are plotted versus the maximum stress in
each of the loading cycles (Figure 2). The strain versus stress (Figure 2) is approximated with
a straight line. The inverse slope of this line is the non-elastic modulus. From the loading
curve (Figure 1) the Youngs modulus during the first loading is determined as the tangent to
the loading curve. The Youngs modulus during unloading is determined as the slope of the
tangent fitted to the curve shortly after unloading started (Figure 1).
Equation 2 is used to calculate the modulus for the deformation where elastic and non-elastic
deformation occurs at the same time. This is done to compare the calculated modulus to the
measured Youngs modulus from the loading curve.

0.4

Strain [%]

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0

4
6
Stress [MPa]

10

Figure 2: Non-elastic strain vs. maximum stress during repeated loading. Strain is measured
by LVDT. The plot of strain vs. stress is approximated by a straight line and the slope
inversed defines the non-elastic modulus.
Results

When the acoustic modulus and non-elastic modulus are used to calculate the total modulus
(Equation 2) we find that the calculated modulus is close to the measured modulus from the
loading curve (Figure 3). The calculated modulus is 10%-15% larger than the measured
Youngs modulus. A reason for the difference could be that the non-elastic modulus is
assessed too high if the non-elastic strain-stress relationships are non-linear at low stresses.
Finally, not all the loading moduli are determined at 0MPa stress. For some samples the
modulus of the loading curve was determined for higher stresses. If the modulus is stress
dependent it would influence on the modulus.

Ecalculated [GPa]

The acoustic modulus equals the unloading modulus (Figure 4) indicating that the sample
behaves elastically when it expands and is not forced to deform. This also indicates that the
modulus is independent of frequency of the deformation (Cheng & Johnston, 1981). Plona &
Cook (1995)also found that the unloading modulus and the acoustic modulus equal each
other.
7
6
1:1

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

Eloading [GPa]

Figure 3: Calculated Youngs modulus vs. Youngs from the unconfined uniaxial
compression experiments.

EAGE 66th Conference & Exhibition Paris, France, 7 - 10 June 2004

12
Eacoustic [GPa]

10

1:1

8
6
4
2
0
0

10

12

Eunloadimg [GPa]

Figure 4: Youngs modulus from logging data vs. Youngs modulus from the unloading
curve.
The studied data indicate that the discrepancy between static and dynamic moduli is not due
to frequency dispersion. Instead, the discrepancy can be explained by the non-elastic strain
component invariably present in geotechnical tests and that is absent in dynamic acoustic
data.
Acknowledgement

Log data were kindly provided by Mrsk Oil and Gas AS.
References

Cheng, C. H. & Johnston, H. J. 1981. Dynamic and static moduli. Geophysical Research
Letters, 8, 39-42.
Christensen, C. T. 1999. Rock mechanical properties - Lower Cretaceous, Valdemar. Danish
Energy Agency publication, Copenhagen. pp 65.
Hansen, B. 2001. Advanced theoretical soil mechanics. Danish Geotechnical Society, Kgs.
Lyngby, dgf-Bulletin, 20, pp 557.
Plona, T. J. & Cook, J. M. 1995. Effects of stress cycles on static and dynamic Youngs
moduli in Castlegate sandstone. In: Daemen, J.J.K. & Schulz, R. A. (ed.) Proceedings of the
35th U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, 155-160.
Wang, Z. 2000. Dynamic versus static elastic properties of Reservoir rocks. In: Wang, Z., &
Nur, A. (ed.). Seismic and acoustic velocities in reservoir rocks. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, 19, 531-539.
Yale, D. P., Nieto, J.A. & Austin, S. P. 1995. The effect of cementation on the static and
dynamic mechanical properties of the Rotliegendes sandstone. In: Daemen, J.J.K. & Schulz,
R. A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 35th U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 169-175.