Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Home · Contact · About · Disclaimer ·

Translating laboratory compaction test results to field scale

Publication files not online:

Author: Roholl, J.A. · Thienen-Visser, K. van · Breunese, J.N.
Publisher: American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA)
Source:50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium 2016. 26 June 2016 through 29 June 2016 volume 4, 4, 3180-3186
Identifier: 745590
ISBN: 9781510828025
Keywords: Geosciences · Gas industry · Laboratories · Natural gas fields · Rock mechanics · Subsidence · Geological Survey Netherlands · 2015 Energy · 2015 Geo · AGEA - Advisory Group for Economic Affairs · ELSS - Earth, Life and Social Sciences


In recent studies on the surface subsidence caused by hydrocarbon recovery of the Groningen gas field, the predicted subsidence is overestimated if results of compaction experiments are not corrected by an empirical `upscaling factor'. In order to find an explanation for this `upscaling factor', an analysis is presented of different laboratory experiments conducted by NAM on samples of the Groningen field. In the mentioned studies, the result of the 1' loading cycle is generally used for the compaction calculations, while in the 2" and subsequent loading cycles a lower compaction coefficient (Cm) is observed. It is also observed that stress path has a significant influence on the measured Cm. A maximum of 25 % of the discrepancy in lab and reservoir scale compaction can likely be attributed to this difference in stress path between laboratory and reservoir. The Cm values of the 2" cycle compaction experiments with a stress path similar to the stress path of the Groningen reservoir are very comparable to the best-fit line used for predicting reservoir compaction. These results would imply that a 2" loading cycle is more representative of actual reservoir compaction