Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “58-32 stress”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

14 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Utah FORGE: Stress Logging Data

This spreadsheet consist of data and graphs from deep well 58-32 stress testing from 6900 - 7500 ft depth. Measured stress data were used to correct logging predictions of in situ stress. Stress plots shows pore pressure (measured during the injection testing), the total vertical in situ stress (determined from the density logging) and the total maximum and minimum horizontal stresses. The horizontal stresses were determined from the DSI (Dipole Sonic Imager) and corrected to match the direct measurements.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Utah FORGE: Well 58-32 Core Analyses

This dataset contains final reports regarding stress measurements, permeability measurements, and mechanical properties from the core testing of well 58-32, in PDF format, and spreadsheets containing tables from the reports as part of Utah FORGE Phase 2B. Please refer to the reports for full information regarding the tables in the spreadsheets. There is also a ReadMe.text with well coordinates.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE 5-2615: Well 58-32 and 78-32 Poroelastic Properties

Lab data on permeability, grain bulk modulus, drained bulk modulus, Skempton's pore pressure coefficient, and Biot's effective stress coefficient for Utah Forge Well 58-32 and Well 78-32. Work done as part of project number 5-2615 by the University of Oklahoma.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Closing the Loop Between In Situ Stress Complexity and EGS Fracture Complexity: Quarterly Research Performance Progress Report

As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. To start, we have been working towards adjusting numerical parameters to reproduce DFIT tests with different fracture geometries. Then, we have focused modeling the DFIT conducted at well 58-32 (cycle 4 in zone 2). Specifically, we have carefully analyzed the influence of the aperture-contact stress relationship and investigated how two different laws affect model results.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Closing the Loop Between In Situ Stress Complexity and EGS Fracture Complexity (Quarterly Research Performance Progress Report: Q3Y3)

As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. To start, we have been working towards adjusting numerical parameters to reproduce DFIT tests with different fracture geometries. Then, we have focused modeling the DFIT conducted at well 58-32 (cycle 4 in zone 2). Specifically, we have carefully analyzed the influence of the aperture-contact stress relationship and investigated how two different laws affect model results. We have also introduced thermal effects in the model and rerun the simulations to estimate the effect of cooling on the DFIT response. Due to the small amount of fluid injected during a DFIT, thermal effects seem to be moderate.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

In-Situ Stress Measurements at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) Site

A scientific injection campaign was conducted at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) site in 2017 and 2019. The testing included pump-in/shut-in, pump-in/flowback, and step rate tests. Various methods have been employed to interpret the in-situ stress from the test dataset. This study focuses on methods to interpret the minimum in-situ stress from step rate, pump-in/extended shut-in tests data obtained during the stimulation of two zones in Well 58-32. This well was drilled in low-permeability granitoid. A temperature of 199 °C was recorded at the well’s total depth of 2297 m relative to the rotary Kelly bushing (RKB). The lower zone (Zone 1) consisted of 46 m of the openhole at the toe of the well. Fractures in the upper zone (Zone 2) were stimulated between 2123–2126 m measured depths (MD) behind the casing. The closure stress gradient variation depended on the depth and the injection chronology. The closure stress was found to increase with the pumping rate/volume. This stress variation could indicate that poroelastic effects (“back stress”) and the presence of adjacent natural fractures may play an important role in the interpretation of fracture closure stress. Further, progressively increasing local total stresses may, consequently, have practical applications when moderate volumes of fluid are injected in a naturally fractured or high-temperature reservoir. The alternative techniques that use pump-in/flowback tests and temperature signatures provide a valuable perspective view of the in-situ stress measurements.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Utah FORGE: Well 58-32 Stimulation Conference Paper and Data

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (U.S. DOE) Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) is a field laboratory that provides a unique opportunity to develop and test new technologies for characterizing, creating and sustaining Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) in a controlled environment. In 2018, the U.S. DOE selected a site in south-central Utah for the FORGE laboratory. Numerous geoscientific studies have been conducted in the region since the 1970s in support of geothermal development at Roosevelt Hot Springs. A vertical scientific well, 58-32, was drilled and tested to a depth of 2290 m (7515 ft) GL in 2017 on the FORGE site to provide additional characterization of the reservoir rocks. The well encountered a conductive thermal regime and a bottom hole temperature of 199degC (390degF). More than 2000 natural fractures were identified, but measured permeabilities are low, less than 30 micro-darcies. Induced fractures indicate that the maximum horizontal stress trends NNE-SSW, consistent with geologic and well observations from the surrounding area. Approximately 45 m (147 ft) at the base of the well was left uncased. A maximum wellhead pressure of 27.6 MPa (4000 psig) at an injection rate of ~1431 L/min (~9 bpm) was measured during stimulation testing in September 2017. Conventional diagnostic evaluations of the data suggest that hydraulic fracturing and shearing occurred. Estimates of the stress gradient for delta_h_min range from of 16.7 to 17.6 kPa/m (0.74 to 0.78 psi/ft). A gradient of 25.6 kPa/m (1.13psi/ft) was calculated for delta_V. In 2019, the 2017 open-hole stimulation in well 58-32 was repeated with injection rates up to 2385 L/min (15 bpm). Two additional stimulations were conducted in the cased portion of the well; one to stimulate critically stressed fractures and the second to test noncritically stressed fractures. Breakdown of the zone spanning critically-stressed fractures occurred at a surface pressure of approximately 29.0 MPa (4200 psig). Although stimulation of the noncritically stressed fractures was interrupted by failure of the bridge plug beneath the perforated interval, micro-seismic data suggests stimulation of the fractures may have been initiated at a surface pressure of 45.5 MPa (6600 psig). These stimulation results support the conclusion the Mineral Mountains granitoid is an appropriate host for EGS development. Micro-seismicity was monitored during the stimulations using surface and downhole instrumentation. Five seismometers and a nodal array of 150 seismic sensors were deployed on the surface. A Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) cable and a string of 12 geophones were deployed in well 78-32, drilled to a depth of 998 m (3274 ft) GL. A broadband sensor and a high-temperature geophone were deployed in well 68-32, drilled to a depth of 303 m (994 ft) GL. More than 420 micro-seismic events were detected by the geophone string. Other instruments detected fewer events.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Utah FORGE: Final Topical Report 2018

This is the final topical report for the Phase 2B Utah FORGE project, which is located near Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah. This PDF format report details results associated with the conceptual geologic model, deep well 58-32, rock geomechanics, reservoir temperatures, seismic surveys, seismic monitoring, certainty, and NEPA. The report also provides an overview of all of the deliverables which were used to produce the results and full appendices.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Prediction and Analysis of Utah FORGE Injection Activities using a Coupled Thermo-hydro-mechanical and Earthquake (THM+E) Modeling Workflow

A coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) numerical workflow that is capable of modeling seismic slip is critical for the successful development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). By integrating key physical processes, this workflow enables accurate simulation of temperature and pressure diffusions, stress changes, and induced seismicity. As a result, it serves as a vital tool for predicting induced seismicity and optimizing reservoir stimulation strategies. The Utah FORGE (Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy) project, located near Milford, Utah, is a U.S. Department of Energy initiative aimed at advancing EGS technology. In April 2024, eight new stimulation stages (Stages 3R-10) were conducted in well 16A (injection well) subsequent to the first series of stimulation (Stages 1-3) performed in April, 2022. To monitor the induced seismicity, geophones were deployed in wells 58-32, 56-32, and 78B-32, while fiber optic cables were also installed in wells 16B, 78-32, and 78B-32 to collect microseismic data and detect frac hits Preliminary analyses of microseismic catalogs and fiber optic data suggest that the stimulated fractures in Stages 3R–6 closely align with that generated during Stage 3, indicating that the new stimulations were likely reactivating the previously stimulated fracture. To better understand the underlying process, a comprehensive modeling approach that can accurately capture thermal, hydrological, mechanical, and seismic responses is essential. In this work, we propose and utilize a coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and earthquake (THM+E) simulation workflow to numerically investigate the stimulation activities on well 16A. The specific objective is to confirm whether the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) reactivated fractures previously stimulated during Stage 3. For this purpose, we perform THM+E simulations individually for Stages 3, 3R, 4, and 5, incorporating the discrete fracture networks (DFNs) created by the plane-fitting technique based on the microseismic catalogs. The simulation workflow consists of two separate models: a THM model and an earthquake model, coupled in a one-way manner. Detailed descriptions of the workflow are provided in Section 3. Simulation results are presented in terms of injection pressure, permeability evolution, and predicted seismic catalogs, which are then compared with field data for further analyses. This report is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present detailed analyses of the field data and propose the hypothesis that the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) were probably reactivating the previously stimulated fractures in Stage 3. In Section 3, we introduce the coupled THM+E workflow and the problem setup to validate our hypothesis, followed by the simulation results for each stage in Section 4. Meanwhile, discussions are included to analyze the model predictions and their comparison with field data. Lastly, we conclude the report and outline future plans in Section 5.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

High Fidelity Modeling of WELL58-32 DFITS

Between 2017 and 2019, a series of injection tests were performed at pilot vertical well 58-32 at the Utah FORGE site. These injection activities were conducted in three distinct zones, isolated with packers and bridge plugs during the tests. Zone 1 consists of an open-hole section at the toe of the well, whereas Zones 2 and 3 are three-meter long cased and perforated sections. Several injection cycles were conducted in each zone. A detailed description of the geology of the FORGE site, of well 58-32 and of all injection cycles can be found in (Xing et al., 2020). The injection cycles included Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs). DFITs comprise two primary stages: an injection (pump-in) phase, where controlled fluid injection is employed to create a small hydraulic fracture in the surrounding rock, followed by a shut-in phase, where injection ceases, allowing observation of the formation’s pressure response. Utilizing methodologies such as the G-function analysis, DFITs provide valuable insights, including fracture closure pressure and the Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure (ISIP) and can be employed to estimate the minimum horizontal stress.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quarterly Research Performance Progress Report (Q8)

As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. Once satisfied with the results we have started by targeting the modeling of the DFITs at conducted at well 58-32. We have a identified a specific test (cycle 4 in zone 2) as the most interesting to be model with GEOS hydraulic fracturing module. Thus, we have first produced results with an isothermal model and adjusted model parameters to get a satisfying match with field pressure data. The, we have added thermal effects and compared the modeling results with and without thermal effects to estimate how thermal effects may influence test interpretation. Models seem to suggest that, for small volumes of fluid, thermal effects are moderate. In Task 2, we have adapted GEOS phase-field formulation to be able to simulate near-wellbore hydraulic fracture nucleation and propagation. We have devised a novel formulation that, compared to other existing ones, incorporates rock strengths. We have submitted a journal publication about our work. We are currently employing this phase-field formulation to model the experiments taking place at U Pitt and help us understand the effect of various parameters. In Task 3, we have built a model of the region surround well 16A and have started modeling stage 3 stimulation because of its simpler planar geometry. After calibrating simulation parameters using known analytical solutions, we have simulated the stage 3 stimulation using our isothermal hydraulic fracturing module, varying the permeability field, the stress conditions including different physics to get a better understanding of the numerical challenges and of the effects of varying these parameters on the simulation results. In Task 4 laboratory experimentation, a set of specialized drilling and injection tools has been customized and constructed to accommodate an inclined well with an orientation of up to 30 degrees relative to material anisotropy or principal stress axes. These inclined samples have also undergone thermal stress and hydraulic fracturing at a temperature of 190 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, both vertical and deviated sampling testing setups enable an extended analysis of post-peak pressure behaviors, facilitating post-test pressure analyses such as the G-function, step rate, and fracture reopening measurements. Thus, the key components of in-situ stress estimation can be extracted and validated through our experiment, providing a solid foundation for validating existing in-situ stress estimation theories or proposing new ones. Simultaneously, we are integrating computer vision techniques with traditional experimental fracture observation methods such as multi-overcore/slicing and water-penetration fracture observation. This combination will prove beneficial in populating the hydraulic fracture patterns database, generated under challenging EGS conditions. This approach aims to deepen our understanding of the complexities in EGS reservoirs and pave the way for future data-driven investigations. Additionally, PITT has also equipped the ELE International compression machine, which is now prepared for conducting indirect tensile and fracture toughness tests. These tests will aid in characterizing how rock fabrics influence the resulting fracture patterns. Additionally, we have completed the required personnel training and gained access to Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) for conducting more detailed characterization and analysis of rock fabrics, as well as the examination of thermal and hydraulically induced fracture patterns. Thus, the PITT team has effectively demonstrated the capabilities of our experimental apparatuses in exploring the thermal effects, well deviation angles, material anisotropy, and operational choices (such as circulation rate, injection fluid viscosity, and injection rate) and their impact on pressure responses and fracture trajectories under the Utah FORGE conditions.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Utah FORGE: Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) Data

The FORGE team is making these fracture models available to researchers wanting a set of natural fractures in the FORGE reservoir for use in their own modeling work. They have been used to predict stimulation distances during hydraulic stimulation at the open toe section of well 16A(78)-32. These fracture sets are fully stochastic and do not contain the deterministic set that matches the pilot well 58-32 FMI data. Well 58-32 has been completed and 16A(78)-32 is to be drilled as part of Phase 3. The original .fab files are not included due to redundancy. The *.fabgz data for the 800m and 1200m depth areas are in the native FracMan format and have been compressed using Gzip. Filtered data for the 800m depth area includes .csv spreadsheets, native FracMan (.fab), and GOCAD (.ts) files that are in a compressed zip format. The file titled "SGW 2020 Finnila and Podgorney DFN fracture files on GDR.pdf" is a description of the data and should be reviewed prior to data use.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Phase 3 Native State Model: 2022 Update

This is the Phase 3 native state model update. The Phase 3 numerical model represents a significant subsurface volume below the FORGE site footprint. The model domain of 4.0 km x 4.0 km x 4.2 km is located approximately between depths of 4000 to 4200 meters below land surface. This data archive consists of 10 files, 4 of which are simulation input files and the remaining 6 are simulation output files. There is an included readme.txt file that contains details on each of the data files. The input files include meshes, FALCON code inputs, tabulated data of water properties, temperature values, and model boundaries. The output files include simulation outfiles and point data of modeled material properties.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗