Some thoughts on porosity reduction: rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    Abstract

    A currently popular paradigm, that porosity reduction occurs as a direct consequence of the effective stress acting on the rock framework grains, is mechanistically incorrect. The commonly observed covariance between porosity and effective stress does not reflect a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it arises because both low effective stress and slow porosity reduction are consequences of the inability of compacting rocks to expel their pore fluids quickly enough to maintain normal fluid pressures. The process of porosity loss is here divided into sequential steps, and we argue that the expulsion of pore fluids is the rate-determining step leading to overpressuring. Thus, Darcy’s law assumes equal importance with the relationships describing the mechanical compaction of sediments. In this paper we describe how compaction can be treated as a Coulomb-plastic response that is functionally dependent on effective mean stress, deviatoric stress, and the state of compaction. In the next generation of basin models, a mechanistically correct approach is needed, combining both rock mechanics and hydrogeology.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationBasin modelling
    Subtitle of host publicationpractice and progress
    EditorsS J Duppenbecker, J E Iliffe
    Place of PublicationLondon
    PublisherGeological Society of London
    Pages73-81
    Number of pages9
    ISBN (Print)1862390088
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Sep 1998

    Publication series

    NameGeological Society special publication
    PublisherGeological Society of London
    Volume141
    ISSN (Print)0305-8719
    ISSN (Electronic)2041-4927

    Fingerprint

    rock mechanics
    overpressure
    fluid flow
    effective stress
    porosity
    compaction
    fluid
    hydrogeology
    fluid pressure
    rock
    plastic
    basin
    sediment

    Cite this

    Waples, D. W., & Couples, G. D. (1998). Some thoughts on porosity reduction: rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow. In S. J. Duppenbecker, & J. E. Iliffe (Eds.), Basin modelling: practice and progress (pp. 73-81). (Geological Society special publication; Vol. 141). London: Geological Society of London. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04
    Waples, D W ; Couples, Gary Douglas. / Some thoughts on porosity reduction : rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow. Basin modelling: practice and progress. editor / S J Duppenbecker ; J E Iliffe. London : Geological Society of London, 1998. pp. 73-81 (Geological Society special publication).
    @inbook{45f6e6fbe1b34ff5a4ba6bae6a088be4,
    title = "Some thoughts on porosity reduction: rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow",
    abstract = "A currently popular paradigm, that porosity reduction occurs as a direct consequence of the effective stress acting on the rock framework grains, is mechanistically incorrect. The commonly observed covariance between porosity and effective stress does not reflect a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it arises because both low effective stress and slow porosity reduction are consequences of the inability of compacting rocks to expel their pore fluids quickly enough to maintain normal fluid pressures. The process of porosity loss is here divided into sequential steps, and we argue that the expulsion of pore fluids is the rate-determining step leading to overpressuring. Thus, Darcy’s law assumes equal importance with the relationships describing the mechanical compaction of sediments. In this paper we describe how compaction can be treated as a Coulomb-plastic response that is functionally dependent on effective mean stress, deviatoric stress, and the state of compaction. In the next generation of basin models, a mechanistically correct approach is needed, combining both rock mechanics and hydrogeology.",
    author = "Waples, {D W} and Couples, {Gary Douglas}",
    year = "1998",
    month = "9",
    doi = "10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04",
    language = "English",
    isbn = "1862390088",
    series = "Geological Society special publication",
    publisher = "Geological Society of London",
    pages = "73--81",
    editor = "Duppenbecker, {S J} and Iliffe, {J E}",
    booktitle = "Basin modelling",
    address = "United Kingdom",

    }

    Waples, DW & Couples, GD 1998, Some thoughts on porosity reduction: rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow. in SJ Duppenbecker & JE Iliffe (eds), Basin modelling: practice and progress. Geological Society special publication, vol. 141, Geological Society of London, London, pp. 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04

    Some thoughts on porosity reduction : rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow. / Waples, D W; Couples, Gary Douglas.

    Basin modelling: practice and progress. ed. / S J Duppenbecker; J E Iliffe. London : Geological Society of London, 1998. p. 73-81 (Geological Society special publication; Vol. 141).

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    TY - CHAP

    T1 - Some thoughts on porosity reduction

    T2 - rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow

    AU - Waples, D W

    AU - Couples, Gary Douglas

    PY - 1998/9

    Y1 - 1998/9

    N2 - A currently popular paradigm, that porosity reduction occurs as a direct consequence of the effective stress acting on the rock framework grains, is mechanistically incorrect. The commonly observed covariance between porosity and effective stress does not reflect a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it arises because both low effective stress and slow porosity reduction are consequences of the inability of compacting rocks to expel their pore fluids quickly enough to maintain normal fluid pressures. The process of porosity loss is here divided into sequential steps, and we argue that the expulsion of pore fluids is the rate-determining step leading to overpressuring. Thus, Darcy’s law assumes equal importance with the relationships describing the mechanical compaction of sediments. In this paper we describe how compaction can be treated as a Coulomb-plastic response that is functionally dependent on effective mean stress, deviatoric stress, and the state of compaction. In the next generation of basin models, a mechanistically correct approach is needed, combining both rock mechanics and hydrogeology.

    AB - A currently popular paradigm, that porosity reduction occurs as a direct consequence of the effective stress acting on the rock framework grains, is mechanistically incorrect. The commonly observed covariance between porosity and effective stress does not reflect a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it arises because both low effective stress and slow porosity reduction are consequences of the inability of compacting rocks to expel their pore fluids quickly enough to maintain normal fluid pressures. The process of porosity loss is here divided into sequential steps, and we argue that the expulsion of pore fluids is the rate-determining step leading to overpressuring. Thus, Darcy’s law assumes equal importance with the relationships describing the mechanical compaction of sediments. In this paper we describe how compaction can be treated as a Coulomb-plastic response that is functionally dependent on effective mean stress, deviatoric stress, and the state of compaction. In the next generation of basin models, a mechanistically correct approach is needed, combining both rock mechanics and hydrogeology.

    U2 - 10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04

    DO - 10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04

    M3 - Chapter

    SN - 1862390088

    T3 - Geological Society special publication

    SP - 73

    EP - 81

    BT - Basin modelling

    A2 - Duppenbecker, S J

    A2 - Iliffe, J E

    PB - Geological Society of London

    CY - London

    ER -

    Waples DW, Couples GD. Some thoughts on porosity reduction: rock mechanics, overpressure and fluid flow. In Duppenbecker SJ, Iliffe JE, editors, Basin modelling: practice and progress. London: Geological Society of London. 1998. p. 73-81. (Geological Society special publication). https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.141.01.04