地质CO2封存中断层破裂的流体力学模拟:两种破坏准则的比较

IF 4.6 1区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
M. Cao, Y. Guglielmi, J. Rutqvist, A. Cihan, S. Glubokovskikh, P. Jordan, M. Reagan, J. Birkholzer
{"title":"地质CO2封存中断层破裂的流体力学模拟:两种破坏准则的比较","authors":"M. Cao,&nbsp;Y. Guglielmi,&nbsp;J. Rutqvist,&nbsp;A. Cihan,&nbsp;S. Glubokovskikh,&nbsp;P. Jordan,&nbsp;M. Reagan,&nbsp;J. Birkholzer","doi":"10.1029/2025GL115250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The large-scale implementation of geological carbon sequestration has raised concerns about potential fault activation and induced seismicity, which could compromise storage integrity and pose seismic risks. We theoretically compared two failure criteria, Mohr-Coulomb (MC) and Modified Cam-Clay criteria (MCC), to assess fault rupture during CO<sub>2</sub> storage. Both criteria characterize fault behavior in a specific stress regime but differ in reducing the complexity of fault rupture to a few key mechanisms. Using a coupled hydromechanical model, we demonstrate that the choice of a failure criterion and the physics of fault weakening associated with these criteria strongly condition fault response to a given fluid injection. MC mainly relates rupture to friction, while MCC relates rupture to fault poro-plasticity. Our findings highlight that the selection of a failure criterion, being inherently subjective, can significantly alter the predicted fault behavior during CO<sub>2</sub> storage, thereby impacting the reliability of geomechanical risk assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12523,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Research Letters","volume":"52 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025GL115250","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hydromechanical Modeling of Fault Rupture in Geologic CO2 Sequestration: A Comparison of Two Failure Criteria\",\"authors\":\"M. Cao,&nbsp;Y. Guglielmi,&nbsp;J. Rutqvist,&nbsp;A. Cihan,&nbsp;S. Glubokovskikh,&nbsp;P. Jordan,&nbsp;M. Reagan,&nbsp;J. Birkholzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2025GL115250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The large-scale implementation of geological carbon sequestration has raised concerns about potential fault activation and induced seismicity, which could compromise storage integrity and pose seismic risks. We theoretically compared two failure criteria, Mohr-Coulomb (MC) and Modified Cam-Clay criteria (MCC), to assess fault rupture during CO<sub>2</sub> storage. Both criteria characterize fault behavior in a specific stress regime but differ in reducing the complexity of fault rupture to a few key mechanisms. Using a coupled hydromechanical model, we demonstrate that the choice of a failure criterion and the physics of fault weakening associated with these criteria strongly condition fault response to a given fluid injection. MC mainly relates rupture to friction, while MCC relates rupture to fault poro-plasticity. Our findings highlight that the selection of a failure criterion, being inherently subjective, can significantly alter the predicted fault behavior during CO<sub>2</sub> storage, thereby impacting the reliability of geomechanical risk assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geophysical Research Letters\",\"volume\":\"52 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025GL115250\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geophysical Research Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL115250\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geophysical Research Letters","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL115250","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

地质固碳的大规模实施引起了人们对潜在断层激活和诱发地震活动的担忧,这可能会损害储存的完整性并带来地震风险。我们从理论上比较了Mohr-Coulomb (MC)和修正Cam-Clay (MCC)两种失效准则,以评估CO2储存过程中的断层破裂。这两种准则都描述了特定应力状态下的断层行为,但在将断层破裂的复杂性简化为几个关键机制方面有所不同。利用耦合流体力学模型,我们证明了失效准则的选择以及与这些准则相关的断层弱化物理特性强烈地决定了断层对给定流体注入的响应。MCC主要将断裂与摩擦联系起来,而MCC将断裂与断层孔隙塑性联系起来。我们的研究结果强调,失效标准的选择本质上是主观的,可以显著改变CO2储存期间预测的断层行为,从而影响地质力学风险评估的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hydromechanical Modeling of Fault Rupture in Geologic CO2 Sequestration: A Comparison of Two Failure Criteria

The large-scale implementation of geological carbon sequestration has raised concerns about potential fault activation and induced seismicity, which could compromise storage integrity and pose seismic risks. We theoretically compared two failure criteria, Mohr-Coulomb (MC) and Modified Cam-Clay criteria (MCC), to assess fault rupture during CO2 storage. Both criteria characterize fault behavior in a specific stress regime but differ in reducing the complexity of fault rupture to a few key mechanisms. Using a coupled hydromechanical model, we demonstrate that the choice of a failure criterion and the physics of fault weakening associated with these criteria strongly condition fault response to a given fluid injection. MC mainly relates rupture to friction, while MCC relates rupture to fault poro-plasticity. Our findings highlight that the selection of a failure criterion, being inherently subjective, can significantly alter the predicted fault behavior during CO2 storage, thereby impacting the reliability of geomechanical risk assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geophysical Research Letters
Geophysical Research Letters 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
1588
审稿时长
2.2 months
期刊介绍: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) publishes high-impact, innovative, and timely research on major scientific advances in all the major geoscience disciplines. Papers are communications-length articles and should have broad and immediate implications in their discipline or across the geosciences. GRLmaintains the fastest turn-around of all high-impact publications in the geosciences and works closely with authors to ensure broad visibility of top papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信