1 s2.0 S1674775522001718 Main

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.jrmge.cn
Full Length Article
Mechanical and hydraulic properties of carbonate rock: The critical role of

porosity
Kam Ng a, *, J. Carlos Santamarina b
a
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering and Construction Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA
b
Physical Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Carbonate rocks are extensively used in civil infrastructure and play a critical role in geoenergy geo-
Received 26 February 2022 engineering, either as hydrocarbon reservoirs or potential repositories for CO2 geological storage. Car-
Received in revised form bonate genesis and diagenetic overprint determine the properties of carbonate rocks. This study
4 May 2022
combines recent data gathered from Madison Limestone and an extensive dataset compiled from pub-
Accepted 17 July 2022
Available online xxx
lished sources to analyze the hydraulic and mechanical properties of limestone carbonate rocks. Physical
models and data analyses recognize the inherently granular genesis of carbonate rocks and explain the
strong dependency of physical properties on porosity. The asymptotically-correct power model in terms
Keywords:
Rock porosity
of (1-f/f*)a is a good approximation to global trends of unconfined stiffness E and unconfined
Carbonate permeability compressive strength UCS, cohesive intercept in Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes, and the brittle-to-
Rock unconfined stiffness ductile transition stress. This power model is the analytical solution for the mechanical properties of
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) percolating granular structures. We adopted a limiting granular porosity f* ¼ 0.5 for all models, which
was consistent with the loosest packing of monosize spheres. The fitted power model has exponent
(a ¼ 2) in agreement with percolation theory and highlights the sensitivity of mechanical properties to
porosity. Data and models confirm a porosity-independent ratio between unconfined stiffness and
strength, and the ratio follows a log-normal distribution with mean (E/UCS) z 300. The high angle of
internal shear strength measured for carbonate rocks reflects delayed contact failure with increased
confinement, and it is not sensitive to porosity. Permeability spans more than six orders of magnitude.
Grain size controls pore size and determines the reference permeability k* at the limiting porosity
f* ¼ 0.5. For a given grain size from fine to coarse-grained dominant carbonates, permeability is very
sensitive to changes in porosity, suggesting preferential changes in the internal pore network during
compaction.
Ó 2022 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction driven piles resting on soft carbonate rocks is usually under-

predicted during the design stage, leading to large discrepancies
Carbonate bio-genesis and post-depositional compaction, between estimated and measured pile resistances (Ng et al., 2015;
crushing, dissolution, and remineralization combine to define the Ng and Sullivan, 2017).
porosity, fabric and inherent heterogeneity of carbonate rocks. In Carbonates play an important role in energy geoengineering as
turn, these micro-scale characteristics affect flow and all physico- well. In fact, carbonate reservoirs contain half of the world0 s proven
mechanical properties including stiffness, strength and brittle- oil reserves and contribute 60% of the total oil and gas production
ness. Carbonate heterogeneity and variable engineering properties worldwide. The regimes in the Middle East (e.g. Saudi Arabia,
challenge the design and construction of civil infrastructure and Libya), Europe (e.g. Russia), Asian (e.g. Republic of Kazakhstan), and
lead to conservative approaches. For example, the capacity of North America, host some of the largest carbonate reservoirs (Roehl
and Choquette, 1985; Shepherd, 2009). Heterogeneity and associ-
ated uncertainty in mechanical and fluid flow properties affect
* Corresponding author. drilling operations, reservoir modeling, production management,
E-mail address: kng1@uwyo.edu (K. Ng). and optimization.
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.07.017
1674-7755 Ó 2022 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article as: Ng K, Santamarina JC, Mechanical and hydraulic properties of carbonate rock: The critical role of porosity, Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.07.017
2 K. Ng, J.C. Santamarina / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. Permeability versus porosity. Data sources: databases in Lucia (1995), Lindsay et al. (2006), and Cardona and Santamarina (2020); new data from Fabre and Gustkiewicz
(1997), Vanorio and Mavko (2011), Surdam et al. (2013), Wang (2017), Yu (2018), and Wang et al. (2021). Trends shown as continues lines correspond to Eq. (1) for the same
exponent b ¼ 4.5; the reference permeabilities k* correspond to porosity f* ¼ 0.5.
More recently, porous carbonate rocks have been considered as 2009; Moore and Wade, 2013; Head and Vanorio, 2016). Inter-
candidate repositories for CO2 geological storage. This is the case of connected interparticle pores govern permeability. Together,
the Rock Springs Uplift in southwest Wyoming, USA (Surdam and porosity and permeability determine injectibility, storativity and
Jiao, 2007) where the 76-m thick high-porosity Mississippian recovery (Dullien, 1992; Tiab and Donaldson, 2012).
Madison Limestone sits beneath the low-permeability Cretaceous Our database of porosity and permeability combines data
shale seal. Spatial variability and heterogeneity were detected gathered in our laboratories and reported in the literature including
during the extensive characterization program of the Madison databases in Lucia (1995) and Lindsay et al. (2006). Fig. 1 shows that
Formation (Surdam et al., 2013; Shafer, 2013; Wang, 2017; Yu et al., carbonate permeability spans more than six orders of magnitude.
2019; Ng et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). These characteristics must Given the highly variable interconnected porous network in car-
be properly considered in the design of drilling and injection op- bonate rocks, correlations between porosity f and permeability k
erations to anticipate flow and storativity. are weak.
The study combines recent data gathered from Madison Lime- Narrower estimates of permeability involve pore-scale infor-
stone and an extensive dataset compiled from published sources mation, such as pore size distribution (PSD) and pore geometry
for carbonates around the world. We emphasized porosity as a (Clerke, 2009; Buiting and Clerke, 2013). In fact, the permeability of
valuable index property to assess spatial variability and to obtain carbonates depends on the largest interconnected pores, so it cor-
first-order estimates of material properties in order to guide field relates best with the pore diameter that corresponds to the 80th
characterization and design strategies. Clearly, a more detailed percentile in pore-size distributions (Cardona and Santamarina,
analysis would require pore-scale information related to the ge- 2020).
ometry of pores and the nature of interparticle bonding. As porosity Pore-size is a function of (a) grain size as shown in Fig. 1 where
is systematically reported in the literature, it is available for all permeability is highest in grainstones and lowest in mudstones; and
carbonates in our database. (b) packing density. In general, granular packings exhibit a linear
We tried to improve our understanding and estimation of relationship between permeability k and void ratio e ¼ f/(1-f) in
permeability, unconfined stiffness and strength, stress-dependent log-log scale, in agreement with models of fluid flow in porous
strength, and confining stress at the brittle-to-ductile transition. media (see data and analyses in Ren and Santamarina (2017)).
Observations and analyses recognize the inherent granular genesis Mathematically, this implies:
of carbonates (applied to all carbonates, from grainstones to
mudstones), and build on contact mechanics and percolation the- e b
k f b
ory, rather than on pore-fracture analyses. ¼ 0 k ¼ k* (1)
k* e * 1f
2. Porosity and permeability where k* and e* are reference values, b is the exponent value.
The second expression in Eq. (1) is obtained for a reference void
Carbonate genesis and diagenetic overprint often produce ratio e* ¼ 1 with a corresponding porosity f* ¼ e*/(1þe*) ¼ 0.5 that
complex multi-scale pore structures that can vary from the sub- resembles the porosity of a simple cubic packing of monosized
micron scale intraparticle/interparticle/moldic pores to kilometer- particles with fsc ¼ 0.476. The lines superimposed on Fig. 1 are
scale cave systems (Saller et al., 1994; Mazzullo, 2004; Moh0 d, computed with Eq. (1) for a typical exponent b ¼ 4.5. It can be
K. Ng, J.C. Santamarina / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx 3
Table 1
Database of uniaxial compressive test results of dry carbonates compiled from published literature.
Carbonate Location Number of Tests Percent f rb (g/cm3) UCS (MPa) E (GPa) y Source
calcite (%)
Madison WY, USA 17 98 0.065e0.08$ 2.49e2.53 27e77 NA NA Surdam et al. (2013)

Indiana IN, USA 4 99.6 0.153e0.17# 2.23e2.26 44e59.3 29e29.6 0.18e0.2 Chitty et al. (1994); Prasad et al. (2009)
Fusselman TX, USA 1 97 0.03# 2.55 39 NA NA Handin and Hager (1957)
Wolfcamp NM, USA 1 96 0.042# 2.63 111 NA NA Handin and Hager (1957)
Carthage MI, USA 1 99.9 0.017# 2.62 89 71.6 NA Prasad et al. (2009)
Bina Israel 18 NA 0.06e0.218# 2.19e2.63 15.4e187 10e60.45 0.15e0.4 Palchik (2010, 2011); Palchik
and Hatzor (2000, 2002)
Nekarot Israel 6 NA 0.076e0.104# 2.42e2.49 141e184 44.4e49 0.23e0.28 Palchik and Hatzor (2002)
Yarka Israel 4 NA 0.157e0.179# 2.3e2.36 38.7e71 6.2e8.4 0.15e0.24 Palchik (2010; 2011)
Sakhnin Israel 3 NA 0.071e0.132# 2.43e2.6 89e144.6 40.7e57.3 NA Palchik (2011)
Shmone Israel 1 NA 0.057# 2.64 172.4 54.4 0.28 Palchik (2011)
Yanuach Israel 1 NA 0.161# 2.35 35 35.4 0.32 Palchik (2011)
Solnhofen Germany 4 97.9 0.017e0.055&# 2.08e2.73 277e310 NA NA Renner and Rummel (1996);
Mogi (1967, 2007); Prasad et al. (2009)
Miocene Hungary 39 NA 0.114e0.45# 1.52e2.41 3.08e38.8 0.61e21.1 NA Vasarhelyi (2005)
Devonian Turkey 21 >91 0.0114e0.0412þ# 2.61e2.73 74.2e138.1 16.7e46.8 NA Zarif and Tugrul (2003);
Handin and Hager (1957)
Kirechane Turkey 7 90e100 0.074e0.182# 2.24e2.71 16.7e21.4 NA NA Ceryan et al. (2013)
Cebecikoy Turkey 3 NA 0.021e0.023# 2.35e2.42 34e38 NA 0.32e0.34 Kurtulus et al. (2016)
Sogucak Turkey 3 NA 0.02e0.025# 2.2e2.55 28e45 NA 0.29e0.38 Kurtulus et al. (2016)
Hereke Turkey 8 NA 0.02e0.023# 2.33e2.5 33e40 NA 0.29e0.35 Kurtulus et al. (2016)
Akveren Turkey 10 NA 0.022e0.026# 2.22e2.33 28e33 NA 0.33e0.38 Kurtulus et al. (2016)
Akiyoshi Japan 2 NA 0.005; 0.009# 2.71; 2.72 101; 75 NA NA Sato et al. (1981)
Soignies Belgium 2 95 0.004 2.7 139; 170 NA NA Descamps et al. (2011)
Moca Belgium 1 98.5 0.08 2.65 79 NA NA Descamps et al. (2011)
Asmari Iran 63 93.4 0.0037e0.225# 2.1e2.7 25.1e180 4.7e90 NA Jamshidi et al. (2017); Najibi et al. (2015)
Kingston Canada 1 92.6 0.006# 2.72 144 90.3 NA Prasad et al. (2009)
Note: $: Neutron-density porosity logs; #: Gravimetric method; &: Hydrostatic loading method; þ: ISRM suggested method; y: Poisson’s ratio; and NA: Not available.
observed that (a) grain size controls the reference permeability k* composition, porosity and dry bulk density rb of the dry carbonates
at the limiting porosity f* ¼ 0.5; (b) the exponent b ¼ 4.5 is higher in the database. Porosity f values range from 0.004 for Asmari
than the power coefficients of b ¼ 2 and 3 proposed in the Kozeny- Limestone to 0.45 for a Hungarian Miocene Limestone. Dry bulk
Carman parallel tube model where k f f3/(1-f)2 (Kozeny, 1927; densities rb range from 1.52 g/cm3 to 2.73 g/cm3 with some lime-
Carman, 1937); and (c) the high sensitivity to porosity points to stones approaching the density of calcite 2.71 g/cm3.
preferential changes in the internal pore network structure during The reported stiffness values in terms of Young0 s modulus vary
compaction. from E ¼ 0.61 GPa for the Hungarian Miocene Limestone to
Other factors influence the permeability and its spatial vari- E ¼ 90.3 GPa for the Kingston Limestone. Genesis, post-depositional
ability, such as mechanically induced changes (confining stress, burial and diagenesis, and exhumation effects contribute to the
Brace et al. (1968); deviatoric stress, Zoback and Byerlee (1975)), observed wide range in stiffness. Fig. 2a shows the inverse rela-
thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling (Summers et al., 1978), and tionship between Young0 s modulus E and porosity f values
fracture characteristics (Kranz et al., 1979; Cardona et al., 2021). observed in the database. We adopted an asymptotically-correct
power function to satisfy the following limits: (a) stiffness tends
3. Unconfined stiffness and strength to E/E0 (GPa) as porosity f/0; and (b) there is virtually no
stiffness in the initial granular packing with limiting porosity f*
Pores and flaws cause stress concentrations, therefore, strength before burial and diagenesis. This limiting porosity f* can be
and stiffness correlations often include rock porosity (Palchik and related to the concept of critical porosity fc that separates two
Hatzor, 2000, 2002). From a granular perspective, porosity is an domains: a continuous frame-supported rock medium with f < fc
indicator of contact deformation, as in sintered granular materials. and fluid-supported solid suspensions with f > fc (Nur et al., 1998).
In this section, we explored the correlation between porosity, However, very few studies investigate the fc for carbonate rocks
stiffness and strength based on datasets compiled for carbonate (Fournier and Borgomano, 2009), and the fc ¼ 0.4 suggested for
formations worldwide. The carbonate formations are mostly carbonate rocks by Nur et al. (1998) is close to the f* ¼ 0.5 based on
limestone with a minimum of 90% calcite. Other formations with a simple cubic packing of monosized particles. Then, we have
missing calcite content are believed to be limestone based on their
formation names.
f a
E ¼ E0 1 * ¼ 30 ð1 2fÞ2 (2)
f
3.1. Unconfined stiffness
The second equality in Eq. (2) shows the fitted trend super-
Our database contains stress-strain data measured in 142 un- imposed on Fig. 2a with the asymptotic value E0 ¼ 30 GPa.
confined compression tests for 12 different carbonate samples. All Nonlinear equations were fit using the statistical software RStudio
specimens having a minimum of 90% calcite (i.e. limestones) had a to determine the asymptote and the exponent (R Core Team, 2016).
length to diameter ratio of two, and were either air- or oven-dried. Results in Fig. 2a support the following observations: (a) the
All tests were conducted at room temperature (25 C), subjected to mean stiffness at zero porosity E0 ¼ 30 GPa is significantly lower
a typical strain rate of about 1 105/s, and involved strain gauges than the stiffness of a single calcite crystal due to the presence of
mounted directly on rock specimens. Table 1 summarizes the crystal boundaries and impurities at contacts (single crystal: 60e
Fig. 2. Young’s modulus under unconfined conditions. (a) As a function of porosity: mean trend E ¼ 30ð1 2fÞ2 . (b) As a function of bulk dry density: mean trend E ¼
2
2rb
30 2:71 1 . In both cases, the lower and upper bounds are shown in dashed lines and correspond to E0 ¼ 10 GPa and E0 ¼ 90 GPa, respectively.
70 GPa, see Beiki et al., 2013); (b) the limiting porosity of a granular

packing f* z 0.5 is an adequate upper bound; and (c) the exponent f b
a ¼ 2 captures the sensitivity of stiffness to porosity. For a given UCS ¼ UCS0 1 * ¼ 100 ð1 2fÞ2 (4)
f
porosity, the variability in stiffness among different carbonate for-
mations in the database reflects the differences in formation his- The second equality in Eq. (4) assumes f* ¼ 0.5, and the fitted
tory and geological processes such as compaction, dissociation, values capture the average strength at zero porosity UCS0 ¼ 95 MPa
precipitation, and pore topology (Roehl and Choquette, 1985; (see also Beiki et al., 2013). The exponent b ¼ 2 reflects the high
Mazzullo et al., 1992; Durrast and Siegesmund, 1999). strength sensitivity to porosity. The variability in strength at low
Porosity f is a function of the rock dry bulk density rb (g/cm3) porosity points to the differences in mineralogy and the effect of
and the mineral density rm (g/cm3). Then, we can relate stiffness to impurities on contact strength. In terms of dry bulk density, Eq. (4)
dry bulk density, from Eq. (2): becomes (Fig. 3b):
a 2 b 2
r 2rb r 2 rb
E ¼ E0 2 b 1 ¼ 30 1 (3) UCS ¼ UCS0 2 b 1 ¼ 100 1 (5)
rm 2:71 rm 2:71
The second equality in Eq. (3) shows the fitted trend with
assumed values f* ¼ 0.5 and rm ¼ 2.71 g/cm3 for calcite (Fig. 2b).
3.3. Relationship between unconfined stiffness, strength and

porosity
3.2. Unconfined compressive strength database
Fig. 4 shows a linear relationship between E and UCS, where

The initial porosity plays a prevalent role on the unconfined
both parameters increase by two orders of magnitude when
compressive strength (UCS) of cohesive media, including carbonate
porosity decreases from 0.5 to 0. The log-log plot in Fig. 4 allows a
rocks (Rzhevsky and Novick, 1971; Farquhar et al., 1994; Chang,
clear assembly of the wide range of stiffnesses from 0.61 GPa to
2004; Faÿ-Gomord et al., 2016; Astorqui et al., 2017; Maryam
90.3 GPa. Furthermore, the trend is independent of porosity f
et al., 2018). The mean grain size and mineralogy have a second-
(Fig. 4 includes 133 entries). Indeed, Eqs. (2) and (4) or Eqs. (3) and
ary effect on strength, except for low-porosity homogenous car-
(5) predict a porosity-independent linear relation between E and
bonates (Chang et al., 2006; Moh0 d, 2009; Asef and Farrokhrouz,
UCS:
2010; Jensen et al., 2010).
The database compiled for this study contains 221 UCS values
E ¼ 300UCS (6)
gathered from 24 different dry limestone samples at 13 locations
from around the world (Table 1). Data show a range from The linear relationship is recommended over a power relationship
UCS ¼ 3.08 MPa for the Hungarian Miocene Limestone to due to its simplicity and comparable prediction. The ratio (E/UCS)
UCS ¼ 310 MPa for Solnhofen Limestone. Data trends in Fig. 3a follows a log-normal distribution with mean m[log10(E/UCS)] ¼ 2.46
confirm the inverse relationship between UCS and f. Once again, and standard deviation SD[log10(E/UCS)] ¼ 0.153; the corresponding
the data suggest a power function relation between UCS and f factors are 287 for m, and 202 and 408 for m SD. The stiffness-
(Fig. 3), where the two asymptotes are (a) the rock strength at zero strength relationship observed in carbonates resembles that for
porosity UCS0; and (b) vanishing strength UCS/0 as porosity most solids, where stiffness is 2e3 orders of magnitude larger than
approached the limiting granular porosity f/f*. strength.
2
2rb
Fig. 3. Unconfined compressive strength. (a) As a function of porosity: mean trend UCS ¼ 100ð1 2fÞ2 ; (b) As a function of bulk dry density: mean trend UCS ¼ 100 2:71 1 .
In both cases, the lower and upper bounds are shown in dashed lines and correspond to UCS0 ¼ 33 MPa and UCS0 ¼ 300 MPa, respectively.
Fig. 4. Young’s modulus versus unconfined compressive strength under unconfined conditions. The central trend is E ¼ 300UCS. The lower and upper bounds shown in dashed
lines correspond to E ¼ 150UCS and E ¼ 450UCS. Porosity values of the carbonates are included in the parentheses.
4. Stress-dependent strength and ductility 4.1. Strength
The previous section addressed unconfined conditions. Rock The database compiles 22 triaxial compression test datasets
stiffness and strength are stress-dependent properties (Farquhar, gathered from 15 dry carbonate samples at 10 different locations
1993; Vernik et al., 1993). This section explores the effective (Table 2). The minimum calcite component is 90% in all samples, i.e.
stress-dependent strength and brittle-to-ductile transition of limestones, except Wolfcamp Limestone from Texas, USA and Saint
carbonates. Maximin Limestone from France. Porosity f values range from
0.003 for Oak Hall Limestone to 0.37 for Saint Maximin Limestone. The UCS is the effective axial stress s01 at failure when s03 ¼ 0.
All triaxial compression data are gathered at room temperature Then, Eq. (10) predicts:
(25 C).
Data analysis seeks to identify strength parameters, including a 1 sin 4
link between confined and unconfined strengths. Fig. 5 (inset) c ¼ UCS (11)
2 cos 4
shows the Mohr circle from an axial compression triaxial test and
the linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope both on the normal We used the compiled triaxial dataset to determine the Mohr-
stress and shear stress plane. The effective normal s0f and shear Coulomb strength parameters 4 and c (Eq. (9), Table 2). The mean
stress s0f on the failure plane are a function of the effective major s01 angle of internal shear strength is 4 ¼ 31 for carbonates with a
and minor s03 principal stresses and the angle of internal shear minimum of 90% calcite, i.e. limestone, and a maximum porosity
strength 4: f 0.3 (Note: Saint Maximin Limestone with f ¼ 0.37 exhibits
4 ¼ 14 ). Porosity has a negligible effect on the angle of internal
1 0 1 shear strength (see also Scott, 1989).
s0f ¼ s1 þ s03 s01 s03 sin 4 ¼ p0 q0 sin 4 (7)
2 2 Fig. 5 shows the cohesive intercept c measured in triaxial tests
(red dots) and computed from unconfined compressive strength
1 0 UCS assuming 4 ¼ 31. The fitted trend parallels with Eq. (4):
s0f ¼ s s03 cos 4 ¼ q0 cos 4 (8)
2 1

f j
where p0 ¼ ðs01 þs03 Þ=2 and q0 ¼ q ¼ ðs01 s03 Þ=2. The Mohr- c ¼ c0 1 * ¼ 80ð1 2fÞ3 (12)
Coulomb failure criterion relates the normal s0f and shear stress s0f f
on the failure plane through the rock cohesion c and the angle of The second equality shows the mean trend for a limiting
internal shear strength 4. porosity f* ¼ 0.5. The mean cohesion at zero porosity c0 is 80 MPa,
and the fitted exponent j ¼ 3. Analogous to the UCS, cohesion c
s0f ¼ c þ s0f tan 4 (9) rapidly decreases as porosity tends to f/f*. Finally, Eqs. (9) and
Eqs. (7)e(9) are combined to anticipate the relationship be- (12) combine in the following mean failure criterion for carbon-
tween principal stresses at failure: ates based on the available data:
2c cos 4 1 þ sin 4 0 sf ¼ 80ð1 2fÞ3 þ sf tan 31

s01 ¼ þ s (10) (13)
1 sin 4 1 sin 4 3
In terms of the mean effective stress p0 ¼ ðs01 þs03 Þ=2 and the
Table 2
Database of triaxial compressive test results of dry carbonates compiled from published literature.
Carbonate Location Number of Percent Calcite f Effective confining stress (MPa) εmax Mohr- Failure Source
tests (%) (%) Coulomb
criterion
c 4
(MPa) ( )
Madison WY, USA 3 98 0.085$ 17, 35, 55 0.65 7.15 39.4 B; T Shafer (2013)
Madison@ WY, USA 6 98 0.094 7, 35, 55 B; T Wang (2017), Yu (2018), Ng et al.
e0.23* (2019)
Fusselman TX, USA 3 97 0.03@ 0, 101, 203 16 NA NA B; T; D Handin and Hager (1957)
Wolfcamp TX, USA 3 75 0.042@ 0, 101, 203 4 NA NA B; T; D Handin and Hager (1957)
Wolfcamp NM, USA 3 96 0.042@ 0, 101, 203 9 NA NA B; T; D Handin and Hager (1957)
Oak Hall PA, USA 8 99 0.003 18, 41, 76, 125, 159, 220, 335, 466 4 109.6 29.3 B; T; D Byerlee (1968)
Indiana Indiana, 11 99 0.194@ 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 34, 41, 48, 55, 62, 69 2.7 9 30.8 B; T; D Schwartz (1964)
USA
Indiana Indiana, 6 99 0.156@ 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 3.5 14 27.1 B; T; D Vajdova et al. (2004)
USA
Soignies Belgium 5 95 0.004 0, 30, 50, 75, 90 3 52.8 30.4 B; T Descamps et al. (2011)
Moca Belgium 8 98.5 0.08 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100 3.5 24.4 32.9 B; T; D Descamps et al. (2011)
Sorcy Belgium 6 w100 0.30 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60 1.5 11.7 29.7 B; T; D Descamps et al. (2011)
Solnhefon Germany 6 99 0.03@ 50, 100, 200, 300, 350, 435 5 76.7 35.5 B; T; D Baud et al. (2000)
Solnhefon Germany 7 99 0.048 17, 37, 60, 81, 122, 204, 517 5 81.6 26.9 B; T; D Byerlee (1968)
Solnhefon Germany 7 99 0.017@ 0, 76, 101, 127, 152, 304, 507 1.9 85.1 32.9 B; T; D Heard (1960)
Solnhefon Germany 5 99 0.059@ 100, 200, 400, 600, 800 2 NA NA T; D Edmond and Paterson (1972)
Solnhefon Germany 8 99 0.015 35, 35, 69, 69, 104, 104, 138, 138 1.4 NA NA B; T Serdengecti and Boozer (1961)
St. France 5 61 0.37@ 3, 5, 6, 9, 12 1.6 5.8 14.1 B; T; D Baud et al. (2000)
Maximin
Tavel France 8 NA 0.104@ 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200, 240 4.6 67.3 22.8 B; T; D Vajdova et al. (2004)
White France 14 99 0.147@ 0, 20, 20, 35, 35, 55, 55, 55, 70, 70, 70, 85, 4.4 10.4 29.8 B; T; D Nicolas et al. (2016)
Tavel 85, 85
Majella Italy 3 NA 0.32@ 25, 25, 25 NA NA NA D Vajdova et al. (2012)
Comiso Italy 4 97.7 0.101@ 7, 15, 30, 50 1.3 25.4 36.9 B; T; D Castagna et al. (2018)
Devonian Turkey 3 NA 0.023@ 0, 101, 203 20 NA NA B; T; D Handin and Hager (1957)
Note: εmax: Maximum axial strain attained in percentage at the maximum applied deviator stress; @: Temperature at 93 C and brine-saturated; *: Gas expansion method; B:
Brittle regime; T: Transition regime; and D: Ductile regime.
Fig. 5. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion e Cohesion intercept as a function of porosity. Red dots: Values extracted from sets of triaxial tests. White diamonds: Computed from
unconfined compressive strength for mean 4 ¼ 31. The mean trend is c ¼ 80ð1 2fÞ3 . The lower and upper bounds shown in dashed lines correspond to c0 ¼ 50 MPa and
c0 ¼ 110 MPa, respectively.
Fig. 6. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in q-p0 space. Data collected from the literature. All trends computed for the same parameters (Eq. (14)). Porosity values of the carbonates are
included in the parentheses.
deviatoric stress at failure qf ¼ ðs01 s03 Þmax =2, the Mohr-Coulomb Compiled experimental results lead to the following semi-
failure criterion is empirical function for deviatoric stress at failure in terms of the
mean effective stress (Eq. (12) and (14)):
qf ¼ c cos 4 þ p0 sin 4 (14)
Fig. 7. Brittle-to-ductile transition. (a) determination of the brittle-to-ductile transition using the large strain slope, and (b) Triaxial data versus porosity: single tests and inferred
brittle to ductile transition stress (back diamonds). The dividing boundary is sbd ¼ 130 ð1 2fÞ2:2 .
slope changes from negative “strain-softening” to positive “strain-

qf ¼ 80 ð1 2fÞ3 cos31 þ p0 sin31 (15) hardening” (Fig. 7a).
We repeated this methodology for published triaxial datasets
Fig. 6 shows the predicted p0 and qf failure lines using Eq. (15)
obtained for 19 dry carbonates at room temperature 25 C (Table 2).
superimposed on top of triaxial test data gathered for 13 carbon-
Fig. 7b shows all test results plotted on a confining stress versus
ates (porosities f from 0 to 0.37).
porosity space. Each data point represents a triaxial test: green
squares mean ductile strain-hardening response (positive slope),
red circles mean brittle post-peak softening response (marked
4.2. Brittle-to-ductile transition post-peak negative slope), and white triangles mean transitional
response.
Rocks subjected to low confinement experience propagation of Black diamonds show the determined sbd for each dataset
contact breakage, contiguous damage coalescence, shear localiza- following the procedure described above (as in Fig. 7a). sbd values
tion, dilation and a sudden loss in strength (Brace, 1978; Baud et al., range from 15.5 MPa for Saint Maximin Limestone to 610 MPa for
2000, 2009; Vajdova et al., 2004; Nicolas et al., 2017). However, Oak Hall Limestone (see also: Heard, 1960; Rutter, 1972). Overall,
rocks under high confinement above brittle-to-ductile transition the data suggest that lower-porosity carbonates exhibit brittle-to-
experience shear-enhanced compaction, pore collapse, crystal ductile transitions at higher confining stresses (see also Logan,
plasticity, distributed grain debonding and micro-cracking, grain 1987). In agreement with models selected above, we used a po-
rotation and grain-scale plastic flow (Fredrich et al., 1989; Dresen wer model to relate the brittle-to-ductile transition stress sbd (MPa)
and Evans, 1993; Renner and Rummel, 1996; Paterson and Wong, to porosity f (solid line in Fig. 7b),
2005; Zhu et al., 2010; Dautriat et al., 2011).
The stress-dependent brittle-to-ductile transition in carbonate x
f
rocks follows similar patterns (Renner and Rummel, 1996; Wong sbd ¼ s0 1 ¼ 130ð1 2fÞ2:2 (16)
et al., 1997; Vajdova et al., 2004; Wong and Baud, 2012; Nicolas f*
et al., 2016). Internally, there is a transition from frictional sliding
in brittle failure to cataclastic flow in ductile failure (e.g. Logan, where s0 is confining stress when f approaches zero, and the
1987; Wong and Baud, 2012). However, the brittle-to-ductile exponent x ¼ 2.2.
transition in carbonate rocks is often unclear as these rocks may In this case, the limiting porosity f* ¼ 0.5 is in agreement with
experience substantial inelastic strain but eventually fail in brittle inherently ductile, very loose granular packing.
mode (Jaeger et al., 2007). The extended strain hardening response
reflects additional deformation mechanisms in carbonate rocks,
including calcite twinning and slip (Turner et al., 1954; Griggs et al., 5. Physical model analysis
1960; Fredrich et al., 1989).
There is no standardized protocol to determine the confining Published empirical models for the hydraulic and mechanical
stress at the brittle-to-ductile transition sbd. Previous studies properties of carbonate rocks are either exponential or power func-
considered the axial stress at volumetric strain reversal (Walton tions written in terms of density r, porosity f or solidity S ¼ 1ef.
et al., 2017) and the post-yield strength and dilatancy (Wong and Table 3 summarizes these models and includes the new relations
Baud, 2012). We followed a simple yet robust approach to esti- adopted in this study (Tables 1 and 2).
mate the sbd from stress-strain triaxial data (Fig. 7a): (a) determine Previous studies often considered rocks as a continuum where
the stress-strain slope at large-strain; (b) plot the measured slope pores and flaws are soft anomalies that cause stress concentrations
against the confining stress; and (c) the brittle-to-ductile transition and act as nucleation sites for fracture initiation and propagation.
is the effective confining stress at the zero intercept, where the When tested against our databases, these models show adequate
Table 3
Carbonate rocks: Empirical equations for hydraulic and mechanical properties (See Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A for details and fitting parameters).
Equations Source
Permeability k
k f b
¼ This study (limiting granular porosity f* ¼ 0.5)
k * 1f
Unconfined stiffness E
E ¼ E0 eaf r a Farquhar et al. (1994); Ameen et al. (2009); Faÿ-Gomord et al. (2016)
E ¼ E0 ð1 2fÞa ¼ E0 2 b 1 This study (limiting granular porosity f* ¼ 0.5)
r
E ¼ a0 þ b UCS m
Afsari et al. (2009); Palchik (2011); this study
E ¼ aUCSq fw dug (Unit of UCS in MPa) Palchik and Hatzor (2000); Chang (2004); Asef and Farrokhrouz (2010); Najibi et al. (2015)
Unconfined compressive strength UCS
UCS ¼ UCS0 ebf r b Farquhar et al. (1994); Chang (2004); Moh0 d (2009); Faÿ-Gomord et al. (2016)
UCS ¼ UCS0 ð1 fÞb ¼ UCS0 b Rzhevsky and Novick (1971); Astorqui et al. (2017)
rm
b
r
UCS ¼ UCS0 ð1 2fÞb ¼ UCS0 2 b 1 This study (limiting granular porosity f* ¼ 0.5)
rm
UCS ¼ a0 b lnf Hebib et al. (2017)
UCS ¼ a0 b f c r þ d Sw Maryam et al. (2018)
Stress at brittle-to-ductile transition sbd

f x
sbd ¼ s0 1 * ¼ 130 ð1 2fÞ2:2 This study (for initial granular porosity f* ¼ 0.5)
f
Confinement-dependent shear strength qf
qf ¼ c0 ð1 2fÞj cos 4 þ p0 sin4 This study
Note: dg: mean grain size; Sw: water saturation; Fitting factors a0 , b, c, d and exponents a, b, q, u, w, x.
Sources: Rocks from multiple locations including Algeria, Belgium, France, Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, United Kingdom, and USA.
trends for low porosity carbonates, but fail to anticipate trends at carbonates in our database have porosities between the two
high porosity. boundaries identified above, 0.035 f 0.476.
In fact, the inherent granular genesis of carbonates readily The rock strength and stiffness are determined by localized
confirmed by SEM images: (a) supports a contact-mechanics based contact deformation and contact strength, which are function of
analysis rather than a porous-continuum formulation; (b) enforces the contact area relative to the total area. A geometric analysis and
a limiting porosity f* where particles jam and start forming algebraic manipulations lead to the following relationship between
percolating force chains; and (c) implies that mechanical properties relative contact area Ar and porosity f (see Appendix A)
P below the percolation porosity f < f* follow a power function of
" #1
the form (Sahimi, 1994; Kovacik, 1999; Nezamabadi et al., 2021; p 1 pffiffiffiffi =
f ¼ 1 3Ar þ 3 p
32
Ternero et al., 2021): (19)
2 p þ 4Ar

f a Eq. (19) predicts a trend that is very similar to the power func-
P ¼ P0 1 * (17) tion ð1 2fÞ2 adopted above for stiffness, strength, and brittle-to-
f
ductile transition (with limiting porosity f* ¼ 0.5, Eqs. (2), (4) and
(16), see Appendix A). Therefore, contact mechanics determines the
Indeed, this expression matches trends identified above for all the
small and large strain mechanical properties of carbonates. Note
mechanical parameters. The Taylor expansion of Eq. (17) for f/0 is
that the relationship between relative contact area Ar and porosity
f in Eq. (9) is independent of grain size, as observed in experi-
af a mental studies reported above.
P ¼ P0 1 * ¼ P0 ð1 2 a fÞ (18)
f Rock studies using discrete element simulations with cemented
grains show that the brittle-to-ductile transition corresponds to the
where P0 is the mechanical property at the percolation porosity; the stress where bond breakage changes from tensile-controlled (at
second equality corresponds to f* ¼ 0.5. Clearly, we can always low confinement) to shear-controlled at high confinement (Garcia,
approximate trends with a linear relationship near f/0 as adopted 2020). The high angle of internal shear strength observed in car-
in some earlier studies where pore-scale characteristics dominate. bonates 4 z 31 indicates delayed contact tensile failure with
On the other hand, percolation and contact mechanics gain rele- increased confinement (Fig. 6).
vance at high initial porosities f/f*.
The simple cubic packing is the loosest arrangement of mono- 6. Conclusions
sized spherical particles, thus its porosity f0 ¼ 0.476 is an upper
bound for the porosity granular materials may attain (Note: there Results in this context show that the mechanical and hydraulic
may be intra-particle vuggy porosity in carbonates). This bound is properties of limestone carbonates reflect their granular genesis
consistent with our database and justifies the adopted limiting and diagenetic overprint and exhibit a strong dependency on
porosity f* ¼ 0.5. Time and confinement promote contact yield as porosity. Power functions capture the effect of porosity on uncon-
well as dissolution-precipitation. Under isotropic conditions, the fined stiffness, compressive strength and the brittle-to-ductile
six contacts around a particle flatten and spherical caps at contacts transition stress. The observed power functions (1-f/f*)a agree
dissolve and re-precipitate coating free surfaces nearby. Spherical with percolation theory. We adopted a limiting granular porosity
caps in x, y, z directions interfere when contact areas reach a radius f* ¼ 0.5 for all models which is consistent with the loosest packing
a ¼ rsin45 (r: particle radius). At this point, the remaining pores of monosize spheres. Asymptotes for the mechanical properties at
become isolated and the occluded porosity f is 0.035, as observed zero porosity are lower than the corresponding mechanical prop-
in sintered materials in powder metallurgy (see Danninger et al., erties for a single calcite crystal due to compliance and the presence
1993). Detailed analysis is listed in Appendix A. In fact, most of impurities at crystal interfaces. On the other hand, the
unconfined stiffness, compressive strength and brittle-to-ductile Brace, W.F., Walsh, J.B., Frangos, W.T., 1968. Permeability of granite under high
pressure. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 73, 2225e2236.
transition stress vanish as the limestone carbonate porosity ap-
Buiting, J.J.M., Clerke, E.A., 2013. Permeability from porosimetry measurements:
proaches the loosest granular packing f/f*. The fitted power derivation for a tortuous and fractal tubular bundle. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 108, 267e
equations have exponents a ¼ 2 or greater in agreement with 278.
percolation theory, highlighting the sensitivity of mechanical Byerlee, J.D., 1968. Brittle-ductile transition in rocks. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 73,
4741e4750.
properties to porosity. Cardona, A., Santamarina, J.C., 2020. Carbonate rocks: matrix permeability esti-
The linear relationship between unconfined stiffness E and mation. AAPG Bull. 104 (1), 131e144.
strength UCS resembles trends observed for a wide range of solids. Cardona, A., Finkbeiner, T., Santamarina, J.C., 2021. Natural rock fractures: from
aperture to fluid flow. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 54, 5827e5844.
In the case of limestone carbonates, E/UCS is porosity independent Carman, P.C., 1937. Fluid flow through granular beds. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 15, 150.
and follows a log-normal distribution with mean m (E/UCS) z 300 Castagna, A., Ougier-Simonin, A., Benson, P.M., et al., 2018. Thermal damage and
and standard deviation SD (E/UCS) z 100. pore pressure effects of the brittle-to-ductile transition in Comiso limestone.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 7644e7660.
The high angle of internal shear strength measured for lime- Ceryan, N., Okkan, U., Kesimal, A., 2013. Prediction of unconfined compressive
stone carbonates reflects delayed contact failure with increased strength of carbonate rocks using artificial neural networks. Environ. Earth Sci.
confinement, and it is not sensitive to porosity. However, the 68, 807e819.
Chang, C., 2004. Empirical rock strength logging in boreholes penetrating sedi-
cohesive intercept c decreases with porosity f. Consequently, fail- mentary formations. Geophys. Geophys. Explor. 7 (3), 174e183.
ure envelopes define parallel lines as a function of porosity in the s- Chang, C., Zoback, M.D., Khaksar, A., 2006. Empirical relations between rock
s or q-p0 spaces. strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 51, 223e
237.
The permeability of carbonates spans more than six orders of
Chitty, D.E., Blouin, S.E., Sun, X., Kim, K., 1994. Laboratory Investigation and Analysis
magnitude. Grain size controls pore size and determines the of the Strength and Deformation of Joints and Fluid Flow in Salem Limestone.
reference permeability k* at the limiting porosity f* ¼ 0.5. For a Applied Research Associates, Inc., South Royalton, VT, USA. Technical report
given grain size from fine to coarse-grained dominant carbonates, DNA-TR-93-63.
Permeability, relative permeability, microscopic displacement efficiency and pore
permeability k is very sensitive to changes in porosity due to in- geometry of M_1 dimodal pore systems in Arab-D limestone. In: Clerke (Ed.),
ternal changes in pore structure and connectivity. SPE J. 14 (3), 524e531.
Danninger, H., Jangg, G., Weiss, B., Stickler, R., 1993. Microstructure and mechanical
properties of Sintered Iron. Part I. Basic considerations and review of literature.
Declaration of competing interest Int. J. Powder Metall. 25, 111e117.
Dautriat, J., Bornert, M., Gland, N., Dimanov, A., Raphanel, J., 2011. Localized defor-
The authors declare that they have no known competing mation induced by heterogeneities in porous carbonate analysed by multi-scale
digital image correlation. Tectonophysics 503 (1), 100e116.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have Descamps, F., Tshibangu, J.P., Silva, M.R., Verbrugge, J.C., 2011. Behavior of carbon-
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. ated rocks under true triaxial compression. In: Proceedings of the 12th ISRM
Congress on Rock Mechanics. Beijing, China.
Dresen, G., Evans, B., 1993. Brittle and semibrittle deformation of synthetic marbles
Acknowledgments composed of two phases. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 11921e11933.
Dullien, F.A.L., 1992. Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, second ed.
This research was supported by the KAUST Endowment at King Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Durrast, H., Siegesmund, S., 1999. Correlation between rock fabrics and physical
Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia. We properties of carbonate reservoir rocks. Int. J. Earth Sci. 88 (3), 392e408.
thank Gabrielle. E. Abelskamp in Energy GeoEngineering Labora- Edmond, J.M., Paterson, M.S., 1972. Volume changes during the deformation of
tory at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology for rocks at high pressure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9, 161e182.
Fabre, D., Gustkiewicz, J., 1997. Poroelastic properties of limestones and sandstones
editing the manuscript.
under hydrostatic conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (1), 127e134.
Farquhar, R.A., 1993. Petro-mechanical Characterisation of the Rotliegendes Sand-
Appendix A. Supplementary data stone. PhD Thesis. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Farquhar, R.A., Somerville, J.M., Smart, B.G., 1994. Porosity as a geomechanical in-
dicator: an application of core and log data and rock mechanics. In: Proceeding
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at of the European Petroleum Conference. London, UK, pp. 481e489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.07.017. Faÿ-Gomord, O., Descamps, F., Tshibangu, J., Vandycke, S., Swennen, R., 2016.
Unraveling chalk microtextural properties from indentation tests. Eng. Geol.
209, 30e43.
References Fournier, F., Borgomano, J., 2009. Critical porosity and elastic properties of micro-
porous mixed carbonate-siliciclastic rocks. Geophysics 74 (2), E93eE109.
Astorqui, J.S.C., Merino, M.d.R., Sáez, P.V., Porras-Amores, C., 2017. Analysis of the Fredrich, J.T., Evans, B., Wong, T.F., 1989. Micromechanics of the brittle to plastic
relationship between density and mechanical strength of lightened gypsums: transition in Carrara marble. J. Geophys. Res. 94 (B4), 4129e4145.
proposal for a coefficient of lightning. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 7092521. Garcia, A., 2020. Thermo-hydro-mechanically Coupled Processes in Fractured Rocks.
Afsari, M., Ghafoori, M., Roostaeian, M., Haghshenas, A., Ataei, A., Masoudi, R., 2009. PhD Thesis. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi
Mechanical earth model (MEM): an effective tool for borehole stability analysis Arabia.
and managed pressure drilling (case study). In: Proceeding of the SPE Middle Griggs, D.T., Turner, F.J., Heard, H.C., 1960. Deformation of rocks at 500 C to 800 C.
East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, SPE-118780-MS. In: Griggs, D.T., Handin, J. (Eds.), Rock Deformation. Memoirs Geological Society
Ameen, S.A., Smart, B.G.D., Somerville, J.M., Hammilton, S., Naji, N.A., 2009. Pre- of America, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 39e104.
dicting rock mechanical properties of carbonates from wireline logs (A case Handin, J., Hager, R.V., 1957. Experimental deformation of sedimentary rocks under
study: arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia). Mar. Petrol. Geol. 26 (4), confining pressure: tests at room temperature on dry samples. AAPG Bull. 41
430e444. (1), 1e50.
Asef, M.R., Farrokhrouz, M., 2010. Governing parameters for approximation of car- Head, D., Vanorio, T., 2016. Effects of changes in rock microstructures on perme-
bonates UCS. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 15, 1581e1592. ability: 3-D printing investigation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7494e7502.
Baud, P., Schubnel, A., Wong, T.F., 2000. Dilatancy, compaction, and failure mode in Heard, H.C., 1960. Transition from brittle to ductile flow in Solenhofen limestone as
Solnhofen limestone. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105, 19289e19303. a function of temperature, confining pressure and interstitial fluid pressure. In:
Baud, P., Vinciguerra, S., David, C., Cavallo, A., Walker, E., Reuschile, T., 2009. Rock Deformation (A Symposium). Geological Society of America, New York,
Compaction and failure in high porosity carbonates: mechanical data and USA, pp. 193e226.
microstructural observations. Pure Appl. Geophys. 166, 869e898. Hebib, R., Belhai, D., Alloul, B., 2017. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of
Beiki, M., Majdi, A., Givshad, A.D., 2013. Application of genetic programming to North Algeria sedimentary rocks using density, porosity, and Schmidt hardness.
predict the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of carbonate Arabian J. Geosci. 10 (383), 1e13.
rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 63, 159e169. Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.W., 2007. Fundamentals of Rock Me-
Brace, W.F., 1978. Volume changes during fracture and frictional sliding: a review. chanics, fourth ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., UK.
Pure Appl. Geophys. 116, 603e614.
Jamshidi, A., Zamanian, H., Sahamieh, R.Z., 2017. The effect of density and porosity R Core Team, 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
on the correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and p-wave velocity. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 51, 1279e1286. org/. (Accessed 29 July 2022).
Jensen, L.R.D., Friis, H., Fundal, E., Møller, P., Jespersen, M., 2010. Analysis of lime- Ren, X.W., Santamarina, J.C., 2017. The hydraulic conductivity of sediments: a pore
stone micromechanical properties by optical microscopy. Eng. Geol. 110 (3e4), size perspective. Eng. Geol. 233, 48e54.
43e50. Renner, J., Rummel, F., 1996. The effect of experimental and microstructural pa-
Kovacik, J., 1999. Correlation between Young0 s modulus and porosity in porous rameters on the transition from brittle failure to cataclastic flow of carbonate
Materials. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 18, 1007e1010. rocks. Tectonophysics 258, 151e169.
Kozeny, J., 1927. About Capillary Conduction of Water in the Soil (Ascent, Infiltration Roehl, P.O., Choquette, P.W., 1985. Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer, Berlin,
and Application to Irrigation), vol. 136. Academy of Sciences Meeting Report, Germany, pp. 1e15.
Vienna, Austria, pp. 271e306 (in German). Rutter, E.H., 1972. The effects of strain-rate changes on the strength and ductility of
Kranz, R.L., Frankel, A.D., Engelder, T., Scholz, C.H., 1979. The permeability of whole Solenhofen limestone at low temperatures and confining pressures. Int. J. Rock
and jointed Barre Granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 16, 225e Mech. 9, 183e189.
234. Rzhevsky, V., Novick, G., 1971. The Physics of Rocks. Mir Publishers, Moscow, Russia.
Kurtulus, C., Cakir, S., Yogurtcuog lu, A.C., 2016. Ultrasonic study of limestone rock Sahimi, M., 1994. Applications of Percolation Theory, first ed. Taylor and Francis, CRC
physical and mechanical properties. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 52 (6), 348e354. Press, London, UK.
Lindsay, R.F., Cantrell, D.L., Hughes, G.W., Keith, T.H., Mueller III, H.W., Russel, S.D., Saller, A.H., Dickson, J.A.D., Boyd, S.A., 1994. Cycle stratigraphy and porosity in
2006. Ghawar arab-D reservoir: widespread porosity in shoaling-upward car- pennsylvanian and lower permian shelf limestones, eastern central basin
bonate cycles, Saudi Arabia. In: Harris, P.M., Weber, L.J. (Eds.), Giant Hydrocar- platform, Texas. AAPG Bull. 78 (12), 1820e1842.
bon Reservoirs of the World: from Rocks to Reservoir Characterization and Sato, K., Kawakita, M., Kinoshita, S., 1981. The Dynamic Fracture Properties of Rock
Modelling, vol. 88. AAPG Memoir, pp. 97e137. under Confining Pressure. Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, vol. 15.
Logan, J.M., 1987. Porosity and the brittle-to-ductile transition in sedimentary rocks. Hokkaido University, pp. 467e478.
AIP Conf. Proc. 154, 229e242. Schwartz, A.E., 1964. Failure of rock in the triaxial shear test. In: Proceedings of the
Lucia, F.J., 1995. Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for 6th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Rolla, MO, USA, Paper No. ARMA-64-
reservoir characterization. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 79 (9), 1275e1300. 109, pp. 109e151.
Maryam, H., Moradi, S., Fattahi, M., Zargar, G., Kamari, M., 2018. Estimation of rock Scott, T.E., 1989. The Effects of Porosity on the Mechanics of Faulting in Sandstones.
uniaxial compressive strength for an Iranian carbonate oil reservoir: modeling PhD Thesis. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
vs. artificial neural network application. Prod. Res. 3, 336e345. Serdengecti, S., Boozer, G.D., 1961. The effects of strain rate and temperature on the
Mazzullo, S.J., 2004. Overview of porosity in carbonate reservoirs. Kansas Geol. Soc. behavior of rocks subjected to triaxial compression. In: Proceedings of 4th U.S.
Bull. 79, 412e422. Symposium of Rock Mechanics. University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 83e97.
Mazzullo, S.J., Chilingarian, G.V., Bissell, H.J., 1992. Carbonate rock classification. In: Shafer, L., 2013. Assessing Injection Zone Fracture Permeability through the Iden-
Carbonate Reservoirs Characterization: A Geological-Engineering Analysis. Part tification of Critically Stressed Fractures at the Rock Springs Uplift CO2
1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 59e108. Sequestration Site, SW Wyoming. MSc Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Mogi, K., 1967. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure. J. Geophys. WY, USA.
Res. Solid Earth 72 (20), 5117e5131. Shepherd, M., 2009. Carbonate reservoirs. In: Oil Field Production Geology, vol. 91.
Mogi, K., 2007. Experimental Rock Mechanics, Geomechanics Research Series, vol. 3. AAPG Memoir, pp. 301e309.
Taylor and Francis, UK. Summers, R., Winkler, K., Byerlee, J., 1978. Permeability changes during the flow of
Moh’d, B.K., 2009. Compressive strength of Vuggy Oolitic Limestones as a function water through Westerly granite at temperatures of 100-400 C. J. Geophys. Res.
of their porosity and sound propagation. Jordan J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2, 18e25. 83, 339e344.
Moore, C.H., Wade, W.J., 2013. Natural fracturing in carbonate reservoirs. In: Car- Surdam, R., Jiao, Z., 2007. The Rock Springs Uplifts - an Outstanding Geological CO2
bonate Reservoirs, second ed. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands (Chapter Sequestration Site in Southwest Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological Survey,
11). Challenges in Geologic Resource Development No. 2. Citizen Printing, Fort
Najibi, A., Ghafoori, M., Lashkaripour, G.R., Asef, M.R., 2015. Empirical relations Collins, CO, USA.
between strength and static and dynamic elastic properties of Asmari and Surdam, R., Bentley, R., Campbell-Stone, E., et al., 2013. Site Characterization of the
Sarvak Limestones, two main oil reservoirs in Iran. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 126, 78e82. Highest-Priority Geologic Formations for CO2 Storage in Wyoming. Final report
Nezamabadi, S., Radjai, F., Mora, S., Delenne, J., Chadiri, M., 2021. Rheology of soft submitted to Department of Energy, Award Number DE-FE0002142, Carbon
granular Materials: uniaxial compression. Euro Phys. J. Web Conf. 249, 05008. Management Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA.
Nicolas, A., Fortin, J., Regnet, J.B., Dimanov, A., Geuguen, Y., 2016. Brittle and semi- Ternero, F., Rosa, L.G., Urban, P., Montes, J.M., Cuevas, F.G., 2021. Influence of the
brittle behaviours of a carbonate rock: influence of water and temperature. total porosity on the properties of sintered materials-A review. Metals 11 (730),
Geophys. J. Int. 206, 438e456. 1e21.
Nur, A., Mavko, G., Dvorkin, J., 1998. Critical porosity: a key to relating physical Tiab, D., Donaldson, E.C., 2012. Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring
properties to porosity in rocks. Lead. Edge 17 (3), 357e362. Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties, third ed. Gulf Professional
Nicolas, A., Fortin, J., Regnet, J.B., Dimanov, A., Geuguen, Y., 2017. Brittle and semi- Publishing, Boston, USA.
brittle creep of Tavel Limestone deformed at room temperature. J. Geophys. Turner, F.J., Griggs, D.T., Heard, H.C., 1954. Experimental deformation of calcite
Res. Solid Earth 122, 4436e4459. crystals. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 65, 883e934.
Ng, K.W., Sullivan, T.A., 2017. Case studies to demonstrate challenges of driven piles Vasarhelyi, B., 2005. Statistical analysis of the influence of water content on the
on rock. Geotech. Res. 4 (2), 82e93. strength of the Miocene limestone. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 38 (1), 69e76.
Ng, K.W., Yasrobi, S.Y., Sullivan, T.A., 2015. Current limitations and challenges with Vajdova, V., Baud, P., Wong, T.F., 2004. Compaction, dilatancy, and failure in porous
estimating resistance of driven piles on rock as demonstrated using three case carbonate rocks. J. Geophys. Res. 109 (B05204), 1e16.
studies in Wyoming. In: Proceedings of the International Foundations Congress Vajdova, V., Baud, P., Wong, T.F., 2012. Micromechanics of inelastic compaction in
& Equipment Exposition. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 256, San Antonio, two allochemical limestones. J. Struct. Geol. 43, 100e117.
TX, USA, pp. 500e517. Vanorio, T., Mavko, G., 2011. Laboratory measurements of the acoustic and transport
Ng, K.W., Yu, H., Kaszuba, J., Alvarado, V., Grana, D., Campbell, E., 2019. Geo- properties of carbonate rocks and their link with the amount of microcrystalline
mechanical investigation of the carbon sequestration reservoir at Rock Springs matrix. Geophysics 76 (4), 1JAeZ99.
Uplift, Wyoming, USA. In: Proceedings of the 53rd US Rock Mechanics/Geo- Vernik, L., Bruno, M., Bovberg, C., 1993. Empirical relations between compressive
mechanics Symposium, New York, USA. strength and porosity of siliclastic rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Palchik, V., 2010. Mechanical behavior of carbonate rocks at crack damage stress Abstr. 30 (7), 677e680.
equal to uniaxial compressive strength. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 43, 497e503. Walton, G., Hedayat, A., Kim, E., Labrie, D., 2017. Post-yield strength and dilatancy
Palchik, V., 2011. On the ratios between elastic modulus and uniaxial compressive evolution across the brittle-to-ductile transition in Indiana Limestone. Rock
strength of heterogeneous carbonate rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 44, 121e128. Mech. Rock Eng. 50, 1691e1710.
Palchik, V., Hatzor, Y.H., 2000. Correlation between mechanical strength and Wang, H., 2017. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Studies of Rock Characterization in
microstructural parameters of dolomites and limestones in the Judea Group. CO2 Storage and Sequestration. PhD Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Israel. Israel J. Earth Sci. 49, 65e79. WY, USA.
Palchik, V., Hatzor, Y.H., 2002. Crack damage stress as a composite function of Wang, H., Alvarado, V., Bagdonas, D., et al., 2021. Effect of CO2-Brine and rock re-
porosity and elastic matrix stiffness in dolomites and limestones. Eng. Geol. 63, actions on pore architecture and permeability in dolostone: implications for
233e245. CO2 storage and EOR. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 107, 103283.
Paterson, M.S., Wong, T.F., 2005. Experimental Rock Deformation: the Brittle Field, Wong, T.F., Baud, P., 2012. The brittle-to-ductile transition in porous rock: a review.
second ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. J. Struct. Geol. 44, 25e53.
Prasad, U., Curry, D., Hughes, B., Mohanty, B., Nasseri, M.H.B., 2009. Improved Wong, T.F., David, C., Zhu, W., 1997. The transition from brittle faulting to cataclastic
method for estimating the strength of carbonate rocks. In: Proceedings of the flow in porous sandstones: mechanical deformation. J. Geophys. Res. 102 (B2),
International Petroleum Technology Conference. Doha, Qatar. Paper IPTC 14043. 3009e3025.
Yu, H., 2018. Geotechnical Characterization of CO2 Storage Reservoirs on the Rock Dr. Kam Ng obtained his BSc, MSc and PhD degrees in Civil
Springs Uplift. PhD Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. Engineering from Iowa State University, USA. He had 10-
Yu, H., Ng, K.W., Kaszuba, J., Campbell-Stone, E., Alvarado, V., Drana, D., 2019. year building consulting and construction experiences. He
Experimental investigation of the effect of compliant pores on reservoir rocks is currently an Associate Professor at University of
under hydrostatic and triaxial compression stress states. Can. Geotech. J. 56, Wyoming, and a Professional Engineer registered with the
983e991. State of Wyoming, USA. His research focuses on trans-
Zarif, I.H., Tugrul, A., 2003. Aggregate properties of devonian limestones for use in portation and energy geotechnics, and innovative building
concrete in istanbul, Turkey. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 62, 379e388. materials. He received the 2022 Samuel Hakes
Zhu, W., Baud, P., Wong, T.F., 2010. Micromechanics of cataclastic pore collapse in Outstanding Graduate Research and Teaching Award from
limestone. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B04405. the College of Engineering and Applied Science, 2022 Mid-
Zoback, M.D., Byerlee, J.D., 1975. The effect of microcrack dilatancy on the perme- Career Graduate Faculty Mentor Award from the Univer-
ability of Westerly granite. J. Geophys. Res. 80, 752e755. sity of Wyoming, 2013 Young Professor Paper Award, first
runner-up, from the Deep Foundation Institute and 2012
Soil Mechanics Best Paper Award from the Transportation
Research Board. He was the 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers Geo-Institute
State-of-Practice Speaker. He published more than 85 papers and 20 technical reports
and received more than 6.5 millions in research funding.

1 s2.0 S1674775522001718 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1674775522001718 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1674775522001718 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Full Length Article

Mechanical and hydraulic properties of carbonate rock: The critical role of

1. Introduction driven piles resting on soft carbonate rocks is usually under-

Madison WY, USA 17 98 0.065e0.08$ 2.49e2.53 27e77 NA NA Surdam et al. (2013)

3.3. Relationship between unconﬁned stiffness, strength and

Fig. 4 shows a linear relationship between E and UCS, where

4. Stress-dependent strength and ductility 4.1. Strength

2c cos 4 1 þ sin 4 0 sf ¼ 80ð1 2fÞ3 þ sf tan 31

slope changes from negative “strain-softening” to positive “strain-

You might also like