Statistical Models to Predict Tensile Strength from Unconfined Compressive Strength: Case Study from Southern Iraq

H. Alkinani, A. T. Al-Hameedi, S. Dunn-Norman, M. A. Al-Alwani
{"title":"Statistical Models to Predict Tensile Strength from Unconfined Compressive Strength: Case Study from Southern Iraq","authors":"H. Alkinani, A. T. Al-Hameedi, S. Dunn-Norman, M. A. Al-Alwani","doi":"10.2118/205589-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Tensile strength (To) is an important parameter for creating geomechanical models, especially when tensile failure is the failure of interest. The most common way to estimate the tensile strength is by utilizing Brazilian tests. However, due to material limitation, cost, or time, To is sometimes assumed or estimated empirically. In this work, laboratory test data of To and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) conducted for three zones in southern Iraq (Zubair sandstone, Zubair shale, and Nahr Umr shale) were utilized to create three regression models to estimate To from UCS. The reason for selecting UCS as the independent parameter is that static UCS, in most cases, has to be estimated from laboratory tests to create robust geomechanical models. In other words, UCS will be given the preference over Towhen there is the material limitation, cost, or time involved. The data of each zone were divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) to ensure the models can generalize for new data and avoid overfitting. Multiple least squares fits were tested, and linear least squares regression was selected since it provided the highest R2 and the lowest error. The models yielded training R2 of 0.983, 0.988, and 0.965 while the testing R2 were 0.978, 0.990, and 0.993 for Zubair sandstone, Zubair shale, and Nahr Umr shale, respectively. The errors were assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE), and they both have shown an acceptable margin of error for all three models. In short, the created three models showed the ability to estimate To from UCS when material limitation, cost, or time factors are involved or when executing a Brazilian test is not applicable. The proposed models can contribute to robust geomechanical models as well as minimizing cost, time, and material usage.","PeriodicalId":10970,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Tue, October 12, 2021","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Tue, October 12, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/205589-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tensile strength (To) is an important parameter for creating geomechanical models, especially when tensile failure is the failure of interest. The most common way to estimate the tensile strength is by utilizing Brazilian tests. However, due to material limitation, cost, or time, To is sometimes assumed or estimated empirically. In this work, laboratory test data of To and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) conducted for three zones in southern Iraq (Zubair sandstone, Zubair shale, and Nahr Umr shale) were utilized to create three regression models to estimate To from UCS. The reason for selecting UCS as the independent parameter is that static UCS, in most cases, has to be estimated from laboratory tests to create robust geomechanical models. In other words, UCS will be given the preference over Towhen there is the material limitation, cost, or time involved. The data of each zone were divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) to ensure the models can generalize for new data and avoid overfitting. Multiple least squares fits were tested, and linear least squares regression was selected since it provided the highest R2 and the lowest error. The models yielded training R2 of 0.983, 0.988, and 0.965 while the testing R2 were 0.978, 0.990, and 0.993 for Zubair sandstone, Zubair shale, and Nahr Umr shale, respectively. The errors were assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE), and they both have shown an acceptable margin of error for all three models. In short, the created three models showed the ability to estimate To from UCS when material limitation, cost, or time factors are involved or when executing a Brazilian test is not applicable. The proposed models can contribute to robust geomechanical models as well as minimizing cost, time, and material usage.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从无侧限抗压强度预测抗拉强度的统计模型:来自伊拉克南部的案例研究
抗拉强度(To)是创建地质力学模型的重要参数,特别是当拉伸破坏是感兴趣的破坏时。估计抗拉强度最常用的方法是利用巴西试验。然而,由于材料、成本或时间的限制,有时只能凭经验假设或估计。在这项工作中,利用对伊拉克南部三个区域(Zubair砂岩、Zubair页岩和Nahr Umr页岩)进行的To和无侧限抗压强度(UCS)的实验室测试数据,建立了三个回归模型,从UCS中估计To。选择UCS作为独立参数的原因是,在大多数情况下,静态UCS必须通过实验室测试来估计,以创建稳健的地质力学模型。换句话说,当存在材料限制、成本或涉及时间时,UCS将优先于to。每个区域的数据被分为训练(80%)和测试(20%),以确保模型能够泛化新数据,避免过拟合。对多元最小二乘拟合进行检验,选择线性最小二乘回归,因为它提供了最高的R2和最低的误差。Zubair砂岩、Zubair页岩和Nahr Umr页岩模型的训练R2分别为0.983、0.988和0.965,检验R2分别为0.978、0.990和0.993。使用均方根误差(RMSE)和平均绝对误差(MAE)来评估误差,它们都显示了所有三种模型的可接受的误差范围。简而言之,创建的三个模型显示了当涉及材料限制、成本或时间因素或执行巴西测试不适用时,从UCS估计to的能力。所提出的模型有助于建立稳健的地质力学模型,并将成本、时间和材料使用降至最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Successful Application of Managed Pressure Drilling and Cementing in Naturally Fractured Carbonates Environment of Prohorovskoe Exploration Well The Use of Induction Heating in Assessing the Technical Condition and Operating Intervals in Producing Wells A 3-Step Reaction Model For Numerical Simulation of In-Situ Combustion An Example of Building a Petrophysical Model of Unconsolidated Gas-Saturated Laminated Sediments Using Advanced Wireline and Logging While Drilling Services New method for Handling of Infrastructural Constraints for Integrated Modeling in Steady Case
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1