BOREHOLE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Research Report
TD93-18
BOREHOLE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Research Report
Written by:
Wang Xiaojun Li Youngchi
Yu Jilin Guo Yong
Department of Modern Mechanics
University of Science and Technology of China
Hefei, Anhui, P.R. of China
July 30, 1993
CONTENT
NOMENCLATURE
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. THE PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN BOREHOLE STABILITY . . . . . .
2.1 Constitutive Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Failure Criteria . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Other Problems in Borehole Failure . . . . . . . . .
3. ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS IN THE STUDY OF BOREHOLE STABILITY
3.1 Linear Elastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Elastic Model with Stress Dependent Modulus . . . .
3.3 Elastic-plastic Models and Rigid-plastic Model . . .
4. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD APPLIED TO ELASTIC-PLASTIC MODEL
IN THE BOREHOLE STABILITY . . . . . . . . - - . . . . .
4.1 Requirements of Numerical Simulations . . . . . . .
4.2 Brief Description on Published Finite Element Method
of Elastoplastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Numerical Method in BSTAB 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . .
5. MODEL DESCRIPTIONS AND CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Coordinate System and Transposition of
In-situ Stress State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Failure Criteria for Elastic Models . . . . .
5.2.1.1 Tensile failure criterion . . . . . .
5.2.1.2 Compressive failure criteria . . . . .
5.2.2 Failure Criteria for Elastoplastic Model . . .
(I)
. (1)
. (4)
. (4)
. (7)
(11)
(12)
(12)
(15)
(16)
(20)
(20
(21)
(27)
(33)
(33)
(34)
(34)
(35)
(35)
(38)
5.3 Introduction
5.3.1 Linear
of the Models. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1.1 Linear elastic model
with pore fluid flow . . . . .
5.3.1.2 Linear elastic model
with impermeable mudcake . . .
5.3.2 Stress-Dependent Modulus Elastic Model
5.3.3 Elastoplastic Model . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Introduction of the Finite Element
Numerical Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 Description of the Finite Element
Method Simulation . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2 Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. REFERENCE . .. G G G . G G . G G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A. . . . G . G . G G . G G . G . G G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B. G . . G G G . . . . G G G . G G G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ..
G

G
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
(38)
(39)
(39)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(46)
(46)
(46)
(47)
(53)
(58)
(59)
(II)
NOMENCLATURE
(Compressive stress assumed positive throughout)
Vertical principal in-situ total stress
Maximum and minimum horizontal principal in-situ
total stress
Initial pore pressure/far field formation pressure
In-situ total stresses to the borehole Cartesian
coordinate system
Total stresses to the borehole Cartesian coordinate
system
Total stresses to the borehole Cylindrical
system
Pore pressure
Well pressure
Maximum, intermediate and minimum total stresses
Mean pressure
Effective mean pressure
Effective stresses
Effective maximum principal deviator stress
Strains to the borehole Cartesian coordinate system
Deviator strain
Deviator stress
Shear stress intensity
(III)
Shear strain intensity
Youngs modulus
Young's modulus for zero confining pressure
Poisson's ratio
Cohesive strength and friction angle of rocks
Ultimate plastic strain
Octahedral normal and shear stresses
Mohr-Coulomb criterion parameters
Drucker-Prager criterion parameters
Wu-Hudson criterion parameters
Hook-Brown criterion parameters
Biot's poroelastic parameter
Kronecker's note
(IV)
1. INTRODUCTION
The failure of vertical, horizontal or inclined boreholes is
a great and continuing problem which results in substantial and
remarkable yearly expenditure for the petroleum industry. For years
the petroleum engineers have had to give close and careful
attention to drilling fluid programs, casing programs and operating
methods in drilling wells to keep the borehole wall from failure
and to minimize the costs in drilling and production procedure.
The cause of borehole failure comes from the redistribution or
concentration of stresses around the borehole. Before drilling the
formations are under a certain state of compressive in-situ stress,
which usually, with the exception of structurally complex area, can
stresses,
horizontal principal stress).
When a well is drilled, the stresses
in the formation material around the borehole will be redistributed
because the support originally offered by the removed material is
replaced by the hydraulic pressure of the mud added into the
borehole. If the formation material around the borehole is not
strong enough, or if it is too much weakened by the interaction
with the drilling mud, the borehole failure (borehole instability)
will be initiated caused and developed.
On the whole stress induced borehole failure can be categor-
1
-- --
ized into the following three classes:
1) Hole size reduction caused from the too much ductile yield
flow of the wall rock into the borehole. This is one kind of
compressive failure which will result in stuck pipe, hole closure
or even full loss of the open
2) Hole size enlargement
hole section.
caused from the brittle failing and
falling of the wall rock into the borehole. This is another kind of
compressive failure which will result in poor directional control,
poor cementing and fill on trips.
3) Unintentional hydraulic fracturing or formation breakdown
of the wall rock caused from excessive bore mud pressure. This is
one kind of tensile failure which will result in severe loss of
drilling fluid into formation (lost circulation), and hence lost
time as
To
well as increased
understand and
costs .
solve the borehole failure problems,
petroleum engineers have to study in detail the following subjects:
1) To find out the stress redistribution in rocks around the
borehole under various conditions such
as different in-situ
stresses, different mud pressures, different borehole orientations
and so on. For this purpose, the most important thing is to have a
reasonable constitutive model for the formation materials no matter
2
-- --
they use analytical or numerical methods.
2) To have a proper failure criterion for the formation
materials.
As a summation of our work in the past year we have completed
this report which consists of 5 sections altogether, including the
introduction (section 1) . Section 2 outlines the principal problems
in borehole stability, particularly the constitutive models and
failure criteria for the formations widely used in references.
Section 3 presents a brief review about the analytical solutions in
the study of borehole stability published so far.
Section 4
discusses the application of elastoplastic finite element method to
the borehole stability analysis. Finally,
section 5 gives a
detailed description of the models used in BSTAB 1.0, and provides
several indicative case examples.
3
-- --
2. THE PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN BOREHOLE STABILITY
2.1 Constitutive Models
The mostly often used constitutive model for the formations is
the Homogeneous, Isotropic and Linear-Elastic model (HILE) . This is
mainly because with HILE constitutive model the
used to determine the stress field around the
simple and hence analytical solutions can be
many cases (C.Hsiao[2], C.H.Yew et.al. [3], B.
governing equations
borehole are fairly
easily obtained in
S.Aadnoy [4]), and
with analytical solutions
it is easy to reveal the effects of
various factors on the stress distribution. Another advantage of
the HILE model is of much less material parameters with it. The
disadvantage of using HILE model is that it usually underpredicts
the hole stability (i.e., it is too conservative), especially when
it is used together with the category B or D criteria (see 2.2).
Besides, for better description of the real formation properties
some researchers used the Anisotropic Linear-Elastic Model
(B. S. Aadnoy[5]) .
With the knowledge that the use of HILE model underpredicts
hole stability and that the onset of plastic yield flow does not
indicate the complete failure of a borehole researchers begin to
try the use of Elastoplastic Model
(EP) . Most of the works
(R. T. Ewy[6], C. A. M. Veeken et. al. [7], E.Detournay[8]) use perfect-
plasticity with Mohr-Coulomb (MC) yield criterion or Drucker-Prager
4
-- --
(DP) yield criterion:
(Me) (1.1)
(2.3)
the octahedral shear stress and octahedral normal stress respect-
ively. Associated or nonassociated flow rule can be used. The
advantage of the former is the symmetry of the plastic stiffness
matrix, but it usually produces too much dilation. The later can
avoid the production
of dilation but increase the calculation
difficulty. Some works incorporated hardening and softening
behaviors
in the EP model (C.A.M.Veeken et.al. [9], N.Morita
et.al. [10]).
The main problem with EP model is the difficulty for
the resolution because the governing equations are relatively
complex and the elastic-plastic interface is usually unknown in
advance. The second problem is the lack of proper failure criteria.
A simpler failure criterion is the ultimate threshold of
plastic strain (see Eq. (2.17)). However, it is somewhat
equivalent
arbitrary.
Rigid-Plastic constitutive model (RP) has also been developed
5
-- --
in the bifurcation analysis for borehole failure (J.Vardoulakis
et.a. .[ll], J.Sulem et.al. [12]). The RP model neglects the elastic
strain and assumes a form of deformation theory with dilatancy:
(2.5)
where e
ij
and S
ij
are the deviator strain and deviator stress respect-
shear stress intensity and shear strain intensity respectively. The
in (2.5) can be determined by only uniaxial tests for any formation
materials. The second advantage is that by the combination of RP
model and the requirement that the internal and external stress
tensor across a shear band boundary
bifurcation criterion (instability)
solution for the governing equations
should be in equilibrium a
can be obtained, and the
gives accurate prediction of
hollow cylinder failure. So it seems to be a promising model.
However, further study should be done about whether model (2.5) can
represent the formation behaviour in general stress state and
whether it can give good prediction of borehole failure in various
conditions.
A new kind of constitutive model is the Stress Dependent
Moduli Elastic model (SDM) (F.J.Santarelli et.al. [13], M.E,D,Fama
[14]). SDM model takes the form of HILE constitutive equations,
however, the elastic moduli are not constant but functions of
6
-- --
stress state. A commonly used model is to assume the Youngs
modulus,
given by
(2.6)
2.2 Failure Criteria
Tensile failure criterion has the form
minimum principal stress. The existing compressive failure
criteria, as summarized by M.R.McLean et.al. [1], can be classified
into the following 4 categories:
Category A: linear and with intermediate principal stress
effect;
Category B: linear and with no intermediate principal stress
effect;
Category C: nonlinear and with intermediate principal stress
effect;
Category D: nonlinear and with no intermediate principal
stress effect.
Some of the most commonly used criteria are listed as follows
(M.R.McLean et.al[l], [15], J.R.Marsden et.al. [16]):
Drucker-Prager criterion (D-P criterion, category A) ,
r
Ott
Mohr-Coulomb criterion (M-C criterion, category B) ,
(2.8)
(2.9)
Wu-Hudson criterion (W-H criterion, category C)
(2.10)
( 2 . 1 1 )
After the triaxial failure
pressures are completed one
any equations of (2.8)-(2.11
experiments with different confining
can fit the experimental points with
) in corresponding planes, and obtain
the respective material parameters in them.
According to M.R.McLean et.al. [1] the following conclusions
are widely accepted:
(1) Failure criteria with no consideration of the influence of
the intermediate principal stress (Category B or D) are usually
conservative in the prediction of the borehole stability, particu-
larly when they are used in association with HILE models. Although
the true triaxial experiments show the intermediate principal
stress effects, the failure criteria incorporating the intermediate
principal stress (Category A or C) trend to overpredict the
formation strength and the borehole stability. A possible better
and (2.10) as
where the value of n is around 1. However, we would like to give a
9
-- --
conjectural idea about this problem:
The reason for the predictive
deviation of Eqs. (2.8)
and (2.10) might be because they were
If failure criteria
triaxial experiments
with 0
2
effects were obtained by the true
the results might be fairly better.
(2) In most cases the linear failure criteria are adequate for
application. However, for very weak formations or for confining
pressures greater than 14MPa,
the nonlinear failure criteria are
necessary.
The above failure criteria are all for the use in association
with elastic constitutive models. For plastic constitutive models
it seems to lack satisfactory failure criteria so far. A relatively
simple criterion is the ultimate plastic strain cri-
terion (B.G.D.Smart et.al. [17]):
(2.15)
As pointed out above, however,
the threshold parameter
difficult to determine and somewhat arbitrary. To seek proper
failure criteria for the plastic constitutive models is an
important research work which should be done.
--10--
2.3 Other Problems in Borehole Failure
The following problems are also important in the borehole
stability:
(1) Wellbore stresses produced by moisture adsorption. C.H.Yew
et.al. [18] gave a comprehensive
study for the problem by assuming
the following deformation laws
from moisture adsorption:
(2.16)
&v-
(2.17)
are the moisture induced strains along the horizon-
anisotropic ratio, K
1
and K
2
the expansion coefficients, W the water
content in the formations.
They show that the moisture-adsorption
process is governed by a diffusion equation and that the governing
equations for the moisture-induced stresses around the hole are
similar to those used in thermoelasticity.
(2) Wellbore stresses produced by temperature difference
between the hole and formations.
For this problem K.Hojka et.al.
[19] and A.L.Siu et.al. [20] gave preliminary analysis, which we
would like to leave out here.
--11--
3. ANALYTICAL
STABILITY
SOLUTIONS IN THE STUDY OF BOREHOLE
A number of analytical solutions
literature. Most of them can be put into
linear elastic models, elastic models with
and elastic-plastic models.
are available in the
three categories, namely
stress dependent modulus
3.1 Linear Elastic Models
The simplest model for borehole stability study is the linear
elastic and isotropic model. Normally a plane stress condition is
assumed and proper failure criterion is adopted. The equations for
stress around a vertical or inclined borehole can be found in
W.B.Bradley[21] where the effect of borehole angle and borehole
direction on the stability of wellbores was discussed. An extended
von Mises yield criterion is applied for predicting wellbore
collapse while the maximum effective stress criterion is applied
for predicting bore fracture. B.S.Aadnoy and M.E.Chenevert [4]
studied the influence of different in-situ stress states (normal or
tectonic) and different criteria (a modified von Mises criterion or
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion) on the stability of borehole with
various inclination.
A three-dimensional linear elastic analysis of a deviated well
--12--
was presented by C. H. Yew and Y. LI [3]. Only tensile fracture is
discussed using the strain-energy density criterion. It was found
that the off-plane shear-stress components have significant effects
on the wellbore breakdown pressure.
An anisotropic stress model was used by B.S.Aadnoy[5] to take
the directional properties of real rocks into account. In this
model, rock property was described by a transversely isotropic
linear constitutive relation. Directional shear and directional
tensile strengths were also considered. The results showed that the
anisotropy in the tensile strength and shear strength is more
important than the anisotropy in elastic properties. Assuming
isotropic rock properties instead of the real anisotropic elastic
constants introduced only a small error in the failure-pressure
prediction except for highly anisotropic rocks.
Linear elastic theory predicts that failure always occurs at
the borehole wall. So one only need to check the stress distribu-
tion at the wall if only permissible borehole pressure is of
interest. This makes numerical calculation very easy and fast.
Although linear elastic models for borehole stability analysis have
been well established, however, the results are sensitive to the
failure criterion used, as discussed by many authors (M.R.McLean
and M.A.Addis[15]; R.T.Ewy[6]). Hence the reliability of these
models is limited.
--13--
Most of rock media in petroleum operations contain pore fluid.
The presence of pore fluid in porous
or fissured rock masses can
substantially alter the stress distribution around a borehole. This
phenomena was first investigated by Paslay and J.B.Cheatham [22]
thirty years ago. A fracture analysis for a borehole in a non-
hydrostatic stress field with one of. the principal stresses
parallel to the wellbore axis was given by B.Haimson and C.Fairhu-
rst[23]. It was assumed that the fluid flow through the porous
elastic rock obeys Darcys law. In their analysis only an
additional stress field arising from the radial fluid flow was
considered and deformation and diffusion processes were uncoupled.
Due to the linearity of the problem, the model can be easily
extended to more complicated situations. A theoretical model of
horizontal-wellbore failure has been developed by C.Hsiao[2] based
on maximum-normal-stress theory (for tensile fracture) and Drucker-
Prager failure theory (for compressive failure) . Both normal in-
situ stress condition and tectonic in-situ stress condition were
considered. It was demonstrated that the flow induced stresses is
a significant part to the total stress distribution around the hole
and the permissible borehole operating-pressure range is signifi-
cantly affected by the in-situ stresses, borehole orientation and
rock properties.
A few analytical models of wellbore stability in permeable
rock formation which account
for coupled hydraulic-mechanical
processes have been developed. E.Detournay and A.H-D.Cheng[24]
--14--
presented a model for vertical wellbores under non-hydrostatic in-
situ stresses. The Biot theory of poroelasticity was employed. The
Laplace transform technique and an approximate numerical inversion
technique were used to deal with the transient progress assuming a
borehole was instantaneously drilled. An asymptotic solution for
small time was also given. Their analysis suggested that shear
failure could be initiated at a small distance inside the rock,
rather than at the borehole wall. More recently, C.Y.Yew and Gefei
Liu[25] presented a method for estimating the permissible borehole
pressure of a
employed and a
criterion for
deviated wellbore. The same poroelastic theory was
steady state solution was given. The Drucker-Prager
shear collapse and the maximum effective tensile
stress criterion for fracture were used for failure analysis. The
results showed that the plastic failure of borehole is very
sensitive to the pore pressure.
3.2 Elastic Model with Stress Dependent Modulus
Porous or elastic rocks often have elastic moduli which are
not constant but increase with increasing minor principal stress.
To illustrate this behaviour, F.J.Santarelli et al.[26] developed
an elastic model with stress dependent modulus in which the Youngs
modulus varies with the minor principal stress. The results showed
that the tangential stress near the borehole wall are much lower
than those predicted by linear elastic theory and the maximum
tangential stress occurs some distance inside the surrounding rock.
--15--
This is in agreement with experimental observations. Unfortunate-
ly, due to the nonlinearity introduced in the model, analytical
solutions are only available for axisymmetric cases with a few
the primitive of its invert must be
easily expressible. A complete closed form solution for a power
et al. [27]. Its use is restricted to deep wellbore problems. Two
other forms, and were treated by
E.T.Brown et al. [28]. In these cases numerical integration is
3.3 Elastic-plastic Models and Rigid-plastic Model
Normally numerical simulation is required if a plastic
constitutive relation is used. In the simplest cases, e.g. when a
wellbore is in a hydrostatic stress field and the rock is assumed
to be elastic-perfectly plastic,
however, closed form solutions for
the stress and strain distribution exist.
One of the early works
contributing to this problem is the study by H.M.Westergaard[29].
During the last decade, more analytical results were published
which incorporated either
post-yield behaviors.
A three-dimensional
the permeability of the rock or different
axisymmetric elastic-perfectly plastic
analysis with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion was presented
et al. [30]. The associated flow rule of the theory of
--16--
by R.Risnes
plasticity,
commonly used for metals, was adopted. However, experiments showed
that the dilatancy of rocks is far less than that predicted by the
associated flow rule with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion and rocks are
rarely able to maintain the strength after shear failure occurs.
To account for this behaviour, E.M.Airey[31] presented a solution
for a roadway in a hydrostatic in-situ stress field, assuming the
rock is elastic-plastic with strain softening. E.Hock and
E.T.Brown[32] suggest an empirical peak strength criterion for rock
masses that the initial strength of the rock mass is described by
(3.1)
while the residual strength of the broken rock mass is described by
m, s, m
r
, s, are material constants. Using this
(3.2)
of the intact rock,
criterion, E.T.Brown
et al.[33] presented a closed form solution for an elastic-brittle-
plastic material behaviour model and a step-wise calculation
procedure for an elastic-strain softening plastic model. A
solution of the stress and strain distribution near a deep tunnel
in a hydrostatic in-situ stress field for a rock obeying the Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion with variable dilatancy was obtained by
E.Detournay[3 4].
Besides these results, it is worth to pay special attention to
the following two models published recently. One is by E.Detournay
--17--
and C.Fairhurst[8] and the other is by I.Vardoulakis et al. [11].
Detournay and Fairhurst[8] presented a two-dimensional
elastoplastic analysis of a long, cylindrical cavity under non-
hydrostatic in-situ stress. It was assumed that the axis of the
cavity is parallel to one of the far-field principal stresses and
the rock is assumed to be linear elastic, perfectly plastic. Non-
associated flow rule was used and the yield function and the
potential were described by linear Mohr-Coulomb functions. A
solution for the later stage, when the cavity is completely
surrounded by a yield zone, was obtained by self-similar analysis.
Explicit formulation of the stress field in elastic and plastic
regions and of the displacement field in the elastic field is
provided while the displacement field in the plastic region can be
obtained numerically by the method of characteristics.
The model
is, however, subject to several restrictions. Only a limited range
of deviation from hydrostatic loading can be considered.
Since no
explicit solution for the early stage exists, an a priori assump-
tion was introduced that at the end of the early stage the elastic-
plastic interface coincides with the prediction of this solution.
Nevertheless, this is the only model which can deal with non-
hydrostatic in-situ stress. It seems possible to apply these
results approximately to the stability analysis of inclined
wellbores if neglect the influence of the off-plane shear stress,
as assumed in most two-dimensional elastic models.
--18--
Vardoulakis et al[ll] proposed a bifurcation analysis for
borehole stability. A wellbore in an axisymmetric far-field stress
under plane strain state was analyzed. The rock is assumed to be
a rigid-plastic pressure
sensitive material with dilatancy. The
failure of the rock is considered as shear band formation and
predicted by the situation when a non-trivial and an axisymmetric
solution exists. The application of the model to real cases showed
that this bifurcation analysis is in good agreement with experimen-
tal and field observations. The model, although somewhat complex,
has the advantage of only requiring uniaxial test data for defining
the constitutive behaviour. However, it is not sure whether this
model can be extended to the case of non-hydrostatic in-situ stress
field.
In comparison with methods of numerical simulation such as
finite element method and finite difference method, analytical
models can give a clear picture of the parameter. dependence of the
problem and require less calculation time and memory storage.
Besides the above three types of models, an attempt was made
by J.Sulem and 1.Vardoulakis[12] who tried to analysis the scale
effect found in many laboratory tests on failure of rock masses.
A Cosserat continuum model was used and coupled by a bifurcation
analysis. However, the scale effect obtained was rather small.
This is not unexpected since the grain size was used as the
intrinsic length of the model which is too small in comparison with
the characteristic length of the problem.
--19--
4.
4.1
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD APPLIED TO ELASTOPLASTIC
MODEL IN THE BOREHOLE STABILITY
Requirements of Numerical Simulations
The analytical solutions described in section 3 are reasonable
and useful in the study of wellbore stability but the assumptions
imposed on the solutions often do not hold both in field applica-
tions and hollow cylinder tests. For example, the mechanical
behaviour of rocks tested in uniaxial or triaxial compression show
that the material response to loading is far from simple
neither linear elastic nor elastic-perfectly plastic.
The
stress field we met in engineering usually is anisotropic
a horizontal plane and hence the axial symmetric condition
one but
in-situ
even in
can not
be applied even for a vertical wellbore. In fact, many factors may
influence the wellbore instability such as wellbore axis relative
to the in-situ stress field,
material strength and behaviour,
viscous and thermal effects, wellbore pressure and mud cake etc. In
principle, an ideal numerical model could take account,
both
qualitatively and quantitatively,
of all the imposed boundary
conditions and the relevant material behaviour. Nevertheless,
some
numerical analyses would be extremely complex and consequently some
assumptions are still imposed on the numerical simulations such as
stress-strain relationships, other material properties, failure
criterion, and so on. The accuracy of the numerical model is
--20--
limited usually by the model choice
and the reliability of the
input parameters, for instance, the in-situ stresses and the
material parameters which may be extremely uncertain in some cases.
It is no doubt that the numerical simulations will give much better
and reasonable results than those of analytical solutions, provided
the input parameters can be determined in an appropriate way.
Therefore a number of petroleum engineers are devoted to developing
the finite element or finite difference method. It should be
pointed out that both the hollow cylinder tests in the laboratory
and the field drilling observations are very important to assess
the correctness and the accuracy of the numerical results. For this
reason, in the study of wellbore stability three aspects, namely
numerical simulations, experimental research and the field
applications, should be noticed simultaneously.
4.2 Brief Description on Published Finite Element Method of
Elastoplastic Models
The finite element method has now been recognized as a general
method of wide applicability to engineering and physical science
problems. As a result, the method has gained wide acceptance by
civil engineers for designing and studying the wellbore stability
in the petroleum industry.
The main element required in a wellbore stability model is the
constitutive model. Even for permeable, isotropic, homogeneous rock
--21--
formations the materials
response to loading are far from .
simple linear elastic. Typical
curves for sandstones tested at
confining pressures are shown in
Figure 4.1. It can be seen that
before the peak strength is
reached the material deforms with
strain hardening and upon reach-
ing the peak strength the sample
loses strength and undergoes a
portion of strain softening. In
Figure 4.1 Triaxial Test Data
for a Carboniferous Sandstone
order to evaluate the potential for wellbore stability a realistic
constitutive model must be used to compute the stress distributions
around the wellbore.
A lot of nonlinear constitutive equations were developed in
the past to
K.E.Gray[lO]
are composed
fit the stress-strain
proposed a equation in
curves of rocks. N.Morita and
which they assumed the strains
of four parts, that is an initial nonlinear part, an
elastic part, a plastic part, and the volume change of the rock
matrix due to fluid pressure. Each part was carefully examined and
expressed by mathematically consistent equation and then applied to
a finite element simulator. Two dimensional parabolic isoparametric
element with eight nodes was used to study the vertical fracture
initiation during drilling. The breakdown
--22--
pressures obtained in the
simulations provide an upper bound of actual pressure. It is
meaningful to estimate the tensile failure of brittle rocks but
since the compressive failure occurring in the form of spalling or
hole closure was not considered in their work the applications to
the borehole instability analysis are obviously limited.
C.A.M.Veeken et al[9] presented an elastoplastic finite
element approach incorporating strain hardening and softening for
the prediction of stability of vertical and horizontal borehole. A
non-associated flow rule with zero dilatancy is used in their
numerical simulations. The hollow cylinder collapse experiments on
sandstone samples were performed and both the axisymmetric and
plane strain finite element simulations were carried out. The
purpose of their work is limited to verify the tests of hollow
cylinder collapse and consequently only boundary loading is
considered. The distinctive feature of the paper is in the
successful numerical simulation of localised failure patterns,
which is in good agreement with experimental observations.
The plane strain analysis mentioned above is confined to in-
neglected. Such neglect is appropriate to hollow cylinder tests but
is improper to the real wellbore. Therefore, the 3D effects (i.e.
effects) on the plane strain wellbore failure model must be
estimated in advance and it was completed by R.T.Ewy[6] with a
finite element program. The rocks was modeled as elasto-perfectly
--23--
plastic, with zero volume change during plastic flow. It can be
shown theoretically, and was verified with numerical models, that
the size of plastic zone is independent of the amount of dilation
occurring in the yield material. The amount of dilation does affect
the size of hole closure following yielding. Excavation unloading
simulating the hole drilling is achieved by reducing the support
pressure P
W
in the hole from its pre-existing values (in-situ
stresses) . Both the hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic cases are
studied and it is concluded that if a 2D yield criterion adequately
describes the rocks, then for special, limited cases a 2D stress
analysis may be sufficient, but for most cases other than hydro-
static the 3D stress analysis is required. Although the constitut-
ive models they used are fairly simple, their method is still valid
as one incorporates more realistic and complex material behaviour
models into stability predictions. These findings also provide
guidance for the important development of fully 3D numerical models
to analyze the stability of deviated and extended-reach wells.
Recently the sand production near the wellbore unsolidated
sand are studied by an elastoplastic finite element formulation.
The model presented by A.F.Polillo[35] is completely based on the
analysis of elastic/plastic deformations. The area around a
wellbore under plastic deformations is assumed to be a relative
movement area of sand grains and therefore instability occurs. The
stability is considered to be elastic behaviour and the plastic
deformation is assumed to indicate failure. The model can provide
--24--
information on whether a wellbore will exhibit sand production
problem.
As we make a summary of the elasto-plastic models in the
finite element study of wellbore stability we have to mention the
work of M.R.McLean[36]. The conception that the plane strain should
be subdivided into simple plane strain and complete plane strain is
proposed by McLean in his thesis. For simple plane strain the
displacement parallel to well axis (z) is restricted to constant
and hence only in-plane strains are nonzero. Such
restriction is suitable only for the well where the axial direction
of excavation is parallel to a principal in-situ stress direction,
namely for vertical or horizontal wellbores. However, the condition
of constant axial displacement is an unreasonable restriction on
plane strain, or in other words,
Actually, the plane strain
requirements are met when displacements are independent of the
axial coordinate, without any further restrictions. Thus, a more
popular definition named as complete plane strain is introduced in
which the axial displacement is independent of
z but a function of x and y. Using the general
ment relationships we will know that all the
the axial coordinate
3D strain-displace-
strains are nonzero
be used to study the directional or deviated wellbore instability.
McLean developed the plane strain finite element method suggested
by D.R.J.Owen and E.Hinton[37) with the aim of simulating the
--25--
stress distributions around an inclined borehole. Both the
associated and non-associated flow rule are considered and
different boundary conditions (boundary loading and excavation
unloading) are included in his work. His research can be considered
as a contribution to the further work of borehole stability
analysis.
Most of the papers up to now on the elasto-plastic model of
finite element analysis are limited to the study of
tests and only a few of them are applied to the
Theoretically, the elasto-plastic model should be
hollow cylinder
field borehole.
much reasonable
and reliable than the linear elastic model and usually it will
predict a more reasonable and economic mud pressure that will be a
great benefit for drilling and completing wells. The reasons why
the elasto-plastic model was not often applied to field analysis
can be summarized as: (1) The input material parameters defined in
the elasto-plastic relations are hard to be obtained, especially
for deep formations. Although we can get the material constants
from the rock sample tests the behaviour of formation rock are
often quite different from that of small rock samples. (2) Another
problem in the application of elasto-plastic model is due to the
fact that the failed
stability of wellbore
plastic deformation,
researchers suggested
material still has strength and hence the
is always depending on the chosen allowable
which is often arbitrary in nature. Many
to
the wellbore instability
use an ultimate strain as a threshold in
analysis. If the ultimate strain is not
--26--
exceeded the hole is stable. It sounds a good idea to determine the
collapse of an opening hole but the value of this ultimate strain
is hard to be obtained. Field application of borehole stability
prediction, therefore, is influenced by input data uncertainty.
Since the absence of laboratory and field validation, the current
numerical prediction are mainly of qualitative use. In order to
improve the quality of a sophisticated theoretical model, field
observations, laboratory experiments and numerical modelling should
be combined as far as possible and then a realistic and consistent
approach to wellbore instability prediction may be obtained.
4.3 Numerical Method in BSTAB 1.0
The finite element method used in BSTAB 1.0 are based on the
work presented by Owen and Hinton. Generally speaking, the yield
function F of elasto-plastic material can be written in a form,
(4.1)
denotes the stress tensor,
connected with the plastic work W
P
.
The stress-strain relations during plastic loading usually are
expressed in an incremental form,
--27--
(4.2)
the elasto-plastic matrix D
e p
in the above equation can be
derived from plasticity theory,
where I is the identity matrix, D is the linear elastic matrix, a
is a vector determined by derivative of the yield function F with
which can be written in polar coordinates
and
(4.4)
(4.5)
the yield criterion.
It is convenient to rewrite the yield function in terms of
I
stress invariants for numerical computations. The main advantage of
1
this formulation is that it permits the computing code of the yield
function and the flow rule in a general form. For example, Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion can be written in the form,
(4.6)
the rocks respectively, J, is the first stress invariant, J2 the
second deviatoric stress invariant,
stress invariant J
3
and J
2
as,
(4.7)
similarly, the Drucker-Prager yield criterion can be expressed as,
(4.8)
where a,
Therefore; the flow vector a can be conveniently expressed in a
form that is suitable for numerical computations,
(4.9)
Applying the virtual work principle to the equilibrium equations,
we have,
where N are shape functions, the gradient matrix B are defined
by derivatives of
vector of boundary traction,
computational domain, T is the part of the boundary on which the
--29--
boundary traction are prescribed.
It is well know that in the
wellbore the initial body force do not participate as equivalent
forces in the equilibrium equations and thus equation (4.10)
becomes,
(4.13)
The displacement increment vector
be given by the initial stiffness method,
(4.14)
--30--
Several restrictions are imposed on the constitutive relations
in BSTAB 1.0. (1) The material behaviour is assumed to be elasto-
perfectly plastic and thus both the strain hardening and strain
softening are omitted. (2) Only associated flow rule is considered
and so that the dilation of plastic strain may be bigger than that
observed in experiments. The main advantage of this assumption is
that it will ensure a
by the frontal solver
The condition of
isoparametric element
symmetric stiffness matrix which is required
listed in Owen and Hintons book.
plane strain is imposed on the quadrilateral
with eight nodes. The computational domain is
subdivided into 400 elements with the external boundary set at 11
times radius from the center of the hole. Figure 4.2 shows the
inner part of computational meshes. Displacements of the nodes at
the external boundary are cons-
trained and 2*2 Gauss integrating
rule is used.
In order to simulate the
inclined wellbore stability with
the plane strain element the
effects of the antiplane shear
must be ignored.
It is our experience that the
the common in-situ stresses are
Figure 4.2 Inner Part of
Element Mesh
--31--
Therefore, a small error may be accompanied by BSTAB 1.0 and a more
accurate computational code can be expected in the new version.
At the beginning to run the program, the in-situ stresses
should be placed on each Gauss point of the elements. Boundary
loading which can simulate the hollow cylinder tests is not
considered. Excavation unloading is simulated by applying a
sequence of negative pressure increments at the inner boundary. At
first, large pressure increments are chosen to simulate the elastic
unloading. Then the magnitude of the pressure increment is selected
carefully so that each increment would induce a small increase of
the size of the plastic zone.
Both the Mohr-Coulomb criterion and the Drucker-Prager
criterion are inserted in BSTAB 1.0. The stress distributions and
the plastic zone around the borehole will be simulated. It is
necessary to assign an ultimate strain as a threshold to study the
borehole stability. If the ultimate strain is not exceeded the hole
is stable.
--32--
5. MODEL DESCRIPTIONS AND CASE STUDIES
Generally, the two main elements in a borehole stability
models are the constitutive behavior model to determine the
redistribution of the stress state around the borehole and the
failure criterion to decide whether the borehole is stable. The
models used in our software are two linear-elastic analysis models
and two finite element method analysis models using stress-
dependent modulus elastic model and elastoplastic model.
5.1 Coordinate System and Transposition of In-situ Stress State
The coordinate system in our analysis is set up as shown in
Figure 5.1. The z-axis is parallel to the borehole axis and the x-
axis lies in a horizontal plane.
the azimuthal angle.
Before determining the stress distributions around an inclined
borehole, it is necessary to transpose the in-situ stress tensor
relative to our borehole coordinate system. The transposed stress
state is given as
--33--
(5.ld)
(5.le)
(5.lf)
Figure 5.1 Coordinate System and Transposition of
In-situ
Stresses
5.2 Failure Criteria
5.2.1 Failure Criteria for Elastic Models
For both the linear elastic models and the stress-dependent
modulus elastic model, the peak-strength criteria are used to
predict the rock failure. At the point where the stress state
exceed the formation strength (either in tension or compression)
failure is considered to have initiated.
--34--
5.2.1.1 Tensile failure criterion
The criterion for tensile failure initiation is simply
determined by whether the minimum effective stress is less than the
tensile strength of the formation. Thus, failure occurs when
(5.2)
5.2.1.2 Compressive failure criteria
In the compressive failure analysis, two most commonly used
criteria, namely the Mohr-Coulomb and the Drucker-Prager, are
incorporated in our program.
(1) Mohr-Coulomb criterion
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion can be expressed in terms of
principal effective stresses as
(5.3)
where k
p
, C
o
. are Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters, which can be
derived from two material constants, the cohesive strength c and
--35--
(5.4a)
(5.4b)
(2) Drucker-Prager criterion
The Drucker-Prager criterion is expressed in terms of
octahedral stresses as
three choices to determine the Drucker-Prager There are
parameters. These choices have come about through comparing the
Drucker-Prager criterion with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The
projection of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion and one of the Drucker-
--36--
Mohr-Coulomb
Outer circle
criterion are given by:
(5.7)
--37--
Middle circle
Inner circle
(5.8)
(5.9)
5.2.2 Failure Criteria for Elastoplastic Model
For the elastoplastic model,
the failure of a borehole is con-
sidered to occur when the maximum equivalent plastic strain of the
.
whole region exceeds the ultimate plastic strain, that is
(5.10)
the
ultimate plastic strain.
5.3 Introduction of the Models
To determine the distribution of the stresses around a bore-
hole, certain governing equations must be incorporated.
These
equations include equilibrium equations,
compatibility equations
and constitutive relations.
For linear elastic models,
exact
analytic solutions can be obtained based on these equations. But
for stress dependent modulus elastic model and elastoplastic model,
--38--
it is difficult to derive analytic solutions, especially under
tectonic in-situ stresses or in an inclined borehole, thus, the
numerical simulations with the finite element method are used to
determine the stress distributions.
5.3.1 Linear Elastic Models
For the brittle, homogeneous, isotropic and porous rocks, the
analytic linear elastic models can be used to predict
stability. There are many versions of linear elastic
divers considerations for different situations and
the borehole
models, with
some special
treatments. In our program, we use two linear elastic models
described respectively in C. Hsiao[2] and M.R. McLean & M.A.Addis
[15].
5.3.1.1 Linear elastic model with pore fluid flow
Assuming that
obeys Darcys law,
situ stresses, the
The stresses
the fluid flow through the pore is steady and
the stress redistribution is induced by the in-
well pressure and the pore fluid flow.
around a borehole, induced by the in-situ
stresses, as a function of radial distance away from the wellbore
can be found in W.B.Bradley [21] and can also be seen in Appendix
A at the end of this paper. The total stress components at the
borehole wall are given as (C.Hsiao[2])
--39--
(5.lla)
(5.llb)
(5.llC)
(5.lld)
=0
(5.lle)
(5.llf)
The stresses at the borehole wall due to the steady pore fluid
flow and the well pressure are given as following (the detailed
description can be seen in Appendix B):
(5.12a)
= well pressure;
= initial / far field pore pressure;
= Poissons ratio;
(5.12b)
(5.12c)
bulk modulus of the solid skeleton
bulk modulus of the interport material
--40--
is Biots poroelastic parameter.
Therefore, the total stress components at the borehole wall
are the sum of Eq. (5.11) and Eq. (5.12).
5.3.1.2 Linear elastic model with impermeable
For a borehole with a perfect mudcake,
mudcake
the model given by
M.R.McLean and M.A.Addis[15] describes the total stress components
and pore pressure at the wall as:
1 -v
pore fluid pressure at the borehole wall,
(5.13a)
(5.13b)
(5.13C)
(5.13d)
(5.13e)
(5.13f)
(5.14)
--41--
5.3.2 Stress-Dependent Modulus Elastic Model
For many porous or elastic rocks,
the elastic moduli deter-
mined from triaxial testing are not constant but increase with
increasing minor principal stress (F.J.Santarelli[26]), thus,
it is
better to use the stress-dependent modulus elastic model to predict
the borehole stability. E.T.Brown etc[28].
The stress-dependent modulus elastic model is an empirical
constitutive behavior model in which the variation of the secant
elastic modulus with the minor principal stress is obtained by
triaxial testing (see Figure 4.1).
The relations between the moduli
and the minor effective principal stresses can be written as (M.A.
McLean and M.A. Addis[l])
and
(5.15)
E=E
O
(5-.16)
There are many expressions for the function
The two
most commonly used relationships are power laws
(5.17)
and exponential laws
--42--
where E
O
,
and D
l
, D
2
and m are material constants derived from the triaxial
testing data.
The Poissons ratio v , though slightly varied with the minor
principal stress, can be considered a constant because the
variation of the Poissons ratio has only a little effect on the
stress distribution around a borehole.
Thereafter, the relationship of the strain components to the
stress components takes Hooks law:
where
5.3.3 Elastoplastic Model
For the elastoplastic
a linear elastic, perfect
i,j=l,2,3 (5.19)
(5.20)
model, the rock is assumed to behave as
plastic isotropic material, which is
characterized by a cohesive-frictional yield strength and dilatant
behaviour during yielding.
--43--
In the elastic state,
ensures that the constitutive equation can be expressed exclusively
in terms of the plane components of the stress and strain tensors.
The Cartesian components of the incremental elastic strain are
.
given by Hook's law:
(5.21a)
(5.21b)
(5.21C)
can be expressed as a
function of the normal effective stress increments in the x-y plane
by
where E, G and v are
modulus and Poissons
(5.22)
respectively elastic Young's modulus, shear
ratio of the rocks.
The yield function F is described by linear Mohr-Coulomb
function, which is independent of the intermediate principal
(5.23)
or is described by Drucker-Prager function in terms of the
octahedral stresses
--44--
(5.24)
In the plastic state,
the total strain can be decomposed into
two parts, the elastic strain and the plastic strain.
(5.25)
An associated flow rule is used in conjunction with Eq (5.23) or
(5.24), so that the incremental plastic strains can be obtained by
the following equations,
(5.26)
The constitutive relations can be written as follows,
(5.27a)
(5.27b)
(5.27c)
(5.27d)
--45--
(5.27e)
(5.27f)
5.4 Introduction of the Finite Element Numerical Simulation
The computational method used in our numerical simulations is
quoted from the book written by D.R.J.Owen and E.Hinton[36].
5.4.1 Description of the Finite Element Method Simulation
In our analysis, a real borehole is simulated by a thick
cylinder" with its outer boundary subjected to the far-field in-
situ stresses and the inner surface to well pressure.
The elements we use are
with eight nodes. The typical
external boundary set at
hole.
5.4.2 Boundary Condition
For stress dependent
is a force boundary, that
11
quadrilateral isoparametric elements
mesh is shown in Figure 4.2, with the
times radius from the center of the
modulus elastic model, the outer boundary
is, the stress states of the nodes at
external boundary are given as far field in-situ stresses.
.
--46--
the
The
loading path we use in our program is named as excavation unload-
ing, in which the problem domain is subjected to the in-situ
stresses and the boundary of the excavation is then unloaded
suddenly to the mud pressure. The boundary loads are unloaded at
only one step.
For elastoplastic model, the displacements of the nodes at the
external boundary are constrained, thus , it is a displacement
boundary. Only excavation unloading is simulated by applying a
sequence of negative pressure increments at the inner boundary.
Detailed discussion can be found in section 4.3.
5.5 Case Studies
The main purpose of this part is to highlight the difference
in the predicted values of safe mud weight with different consti-
tutive models and different compressive failure criteria for
elastic models. Two examples are given. Example 1 is to study the
relation between the safe mud weight and the inclined angle and
Example 2 is to show the relation of the safe mud weight to the
.
azimuthal angle for horizontal wellbores.
The rock formation in Example 1 is a sandstone in the Cyrus
reservoir in the UK Continental Shelf [M.R. McLean and M.A. Addis
(15)]. A Mohr-Coulomb criterion is fitted to the laboratory
strength data , giving a cohesion, C, of 6.OMpa (860psi) and an
--47--
The mean value of Poissons ratio
is 0.2. This formation is normally pressured (equivalent to
10.2 kPa/m, or 0.45 psi/ft) and at a depth of about 2,600 mTVD. The
vertical stress at this depth is assumed to be the weight of
overburden (taken at 22.6 KPa/m, or l psi/ft) . Both horizontal
stresses in the reservoir are assumed to be equal to 17.O KPa/m
(0.75 psi/ft) . A further assumption is that the tensile strength of
the rock is negligible. For stress dependent modulus elastic model
and elastoplastic model, the Young's modulus at
be 17.41 GPa.
The in-situ stresses in Example
total in-situ stress is 6,000 psi and
2 are tectonic. The vertical
the two horizontal principal
total stresses are 5,000 psi and 4,000 psi.
The formation pressure is
2,000 psi. The cohesive strength,
the rock are 790 psi and 21.6
0
, respectively. The Poisson's ratio
is equal to 0.30 and the Youngs modulus with zero confining
pressure is assumed to be 500,000 psi.
Figures 5.3-5.7 show the results of the examples. Figures 5.3-
5.5 show the safe mud weight range varied with the inclined angle
of Example 1 and Figure 5.6-5.7 are for Example 2.
Figure 5.3, in which the linear elastic model
cake [M.R. McLean and M.A. Addis(15)]
values of mud weight causing compressive
--48--
is used,
collapse
with perfect mud
shows that the
are dependent on
the collapse failure criteria used.
Figure 5.4 shows the results of the linear elastic model given
by C.Hsiao(2), using only the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. With a
perfect mud cake (impermeable,
shown in Figure 5.3,
weight range shrinks.
Figure 5.5 gives the results with the stress dependent modulus
(SDM) elastic model and the elastoplastic (EP) model. The power
relation [Eq. (5.17)] is used for SDM model and the two parameters
are D1=O.08 and m=O.403. The two lower mud weight bounds obtained
by SDM model and EP model are almost similar because the ultimate
plastic strain
But the safe mud weight range is wider than those predicted by
linear elastic models, especially for horizontal wellbore.
Figure 5.6 shows the relations of the well pressure causing
the borehole instability with the azimuthal angle (Example 2),
using the impermeable linear elastic model and Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion. The two models of M.R. McLean and M.A. Addis(l5) and of
C. Hsiao(2) (impermeable) give the same results. But
pressures exist.
with permeable
no safe well
Figure 5.7 gives the results of Example 2 with SDM model and
--49--
EP model. As in Example 1, the lower well pressure bound given by
EP model with
SDM model. the lower bound given by EP model
is much lower than that by SDM model.
Figure 5.8 shows a stress distribution of a vertical borehole
in Example 1 using SDM model and linear elastic model, in which the
well pressure is 26.52 MPa. Figure 5.9 gives a stress distribution
.
of a vertical borehole in Example 2 using EP model, in which the
well pressure is 500 psi. Figure 5.10 shows the plastic zone under
this condition.
--50--
3
INCLINED ANGLE (DEG)
Figure 5.5 Range of Safe Mud
Weight Using SDM and EP Models
and Mohr-Coulomb Criterion
1
AZIMUTHAL ANGLE (DEG)
Figure 5.6 Range of Safe Well
Pressure Using McLean and Ad-
diss Model
--51--
moo
AZIMUTHAL ANGLE (DEG)
Figure 5.7 Range of Safe Well
Pressure Using SDM and EP
Models
Figure 5.9 Stress Distribution
Figure 5.8 Stress Distribution
Figure 5.10 Plastic Zone
--52--
6. REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
M. R. McLean & M. A. Addis, Wellbore Stability Analysis: A Review
of Current Methods of Analysis and Their Field Application,
SPE 19941 (1990)
C. Hsiao,
"A Study of Horizontal-Wellbore Failure, SPE Produc-
tion Engineering, November 1988, PP.489-494
C.H. Yew & Y. Li, Fracturing of a Deviated Well, SPE Production
Engineering, November 1988, pp.429-437
B.S. Aadnoy & M.E. Chenevert, Stability of Highly Inclined
Boreholes, SPE 16052 (1987)
B.S. Aadnoy, Modelling of the Stability of Highly Inclined
Boreholes in Anisotropic Rock Formations, SPE Drilling
Engineering, September 1988, pp.259-268
R.T. Ewy, 3D Stress Effects in Elastoplastic Wellbore Failure
Models, 1991 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 906191 194X
R.F. Mitchell & M.A. Goodman,
Borehole Stresses: Plasticity and
the Drilled Hole Effect, SPE/IADC 16053 (1987)
E. Detournay & C. Fairhurst,
Two-dimensional Elastoplastic
Analysis of a Long, Cylindrical Cavity Under Non-hydrostatic
Loading, Int. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 24,
No.4, pp.197-211, 1987
C.A.M. Veeken, J.V. Walters,
C.J. Kenter & D.R. Davies, Use of
Plasticity Models for Predicting Borehole Stability, 1989
Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 9061919754
--53--
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Nobuo Morita & K. E. Gray, A Constitutive Equation for Nonlinear
Stress-Strain Curves in Rocks and its Application to Stress
Analysis Around a Borehole During Drilling, SPE 9328 (1980)
I. Vardoulakis, J. Sulem & A. Guenot, Borehole Instabilities as
Bifurcation Phenomena, Int. j. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. Vol. 25. No.3, pp.159-170, 1988
J. Sulem & I. Vardoulakis,
"Simplified Bifurcation Analysis of
Deep boreholes in Rocks with Microstructure, 1989 Balkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN 9061919754
F.J. Santarelli, E.T. Brown & V. Maury, Technical Note Analysis
of Borehole Stresses using Pressure-Dependent, Linear Elastic-
ity, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
No.6, pp.445-449, 1986
M.E. Duncan Fama,
on Plane Strain
Rotterdam, ISBN
Influence of Stress
Geomech. Abstr., Vol.23,
Dependent Elastic Models
Solution for Boreholes, 1989 Balkema,
9061919754
M.R. McLean & M.A. Addis, Wellbore Stability: The Effect of
Strength Criteria on Mud Weight Recommendations, SPE 20405
(1990)
J.R. Marsden, B. Wu, J.A. Hudson & J.S. Archer, Investigation Of
Peak Rock Strength Behaviour for Wellbore Stability Applica-
tion, 1989 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9061919754
B.G.D. Smart & J.M. Somerville, K.J. MacGregor, The Prediction of
Yield Zone Development Around a Borehole and its Effect on
Drilling and Production, 1991 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 906191
194X
C.H. Yew, M.E. Chenevert,
C.L. Wang & S.O. Osisanya, Wellbore
--54--
Stress Distribution Produced by Moisture Adsorption", SPE
Drilling Engineering, December 1990
19. K. Hojka, M.B. Dusseault & A. Bogobowicz, "An Analytical Solution
for Transient Temperature and Stress Field Around a Borehole
During Fluid Injection into Permeable Media", (1991) PAPER NO.
CIM/AOSTRA 91-59
20. A.L. Siu, B.J. Rozon, Y.K. Li, L.X. Nghiem, W.H. Acteson & M.E. McCo-
rmack, A Fully Implicit Thermal Wellbore Model for Multicompo-
nent Fluid Flows, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1991,
pp.303-310
21. W.B. Bradley,
"Failure of Inclined Boreholes,
(1979) an ASME
publication 78-Pet-44
22. P.R. Paslay & J.B. Cheathan, Rock Stresses Induced by Flow of
Fluids into Boreholes", Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
March 1963, pp.83-94
23. B. Haimson & C. Fairhurst, Initiation and Extension of Hydraulic
Fractures in Rocks (1967) Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal, PP.31O-318
24. E. Detournay & A.H-D. Cheng, Poroelastic Response of a Borehole
in a Non-hydrostatic Stress Field", Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.25, No.3, pp.171-182, 1988
25. C.H. Yew & Gefei Liu,
"Pore Fluid and Wellbore Stabilities,
SPE 22381, (1992)
26. F.J. Santarelli, E.R. Brown & V. Maury, Analysis of Borehole
Stresses Using Pressure-Dependent, Linear Elasticity",
Technical Note, 1986
--55--
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
F.J. Santarelli, Pau & France, "Performance of Wellbores in Rock
With a Confining Pressure-dependent Elastic Modulus", A.A. BALK-
EMA/ ROTTERDAM/1987
E.T. Brown, J.W. Bray & F.J. Santarelli, "Influence of Stress-
Dependent Elastic Moduli on Stresses and Strains Around
Axisymmetric Boreholes, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
22, 189-203 (1989)
H.M. Westergaard, Plastic State of Stress Around a Deep Well,
J. Boston Sot. of Civ. Engrs., 27 (1940), 1-5.
Rasmus Risnes, R.K. Bratli & P. Horsrud,
"Sand Stresses Around a
Wellbore", Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, December
1982, PP.883-898
E.M. Airey, A Study of Yield Zones Around Roadways, British
Coal final report on ECSC Research Project, 6220-AB/8/802
(1977)
E. Hook & E.T. Brown, Underground Excavation in Rock, The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England (1980)
33. E.T. Brown, M. ASCE, J.W. Bray, B. Ladanyi, F. ASCE & E.Hock,
"Ground Response Curves for Rock Tunnels, ASCE, ISSN 0733
-
9410/83/0001-0015/$01.00. Proc. No. 17604
34. E. Detournay, Elastoplastic Model of a Deep Tunnel for a Rock
with Variable Dilatancy, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
19, 99-108 (1986)
35. A.F. Polillo, Petrobras, G.D. Vassilellis & R.M. Graves, "Simula-
tion of Sand Arching Mechanics Using Elasto-Plastic Finite
Element Formulation, SPE 23728
--56--
36. M.R. Mclean, Analysis of Wellbore Stability, A Thesis
submmited to the University of London for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in the faculty of Engineering.
37. D.R.J. Owen and E. Hinton,
Finite Elements on Plasticity: Theory
and Practice, Pinerige Press Limited, Swansea, U.K. (1980)
--57--
APPENDIX A
The stresses around a borehole as a function of radial
distance away from the wellbore center are:
--58--
(B-1)
where
i i
K(bulk modulus of the solid skeleton)
K=(bulk modulus of the interpose material)
Equations of equilibrium are,
-o
From Eqs. (B-1), (B-2) and (B-3), we can obtained,
--59--
(B-2)
(B-3)
(B-4)
,
Plane strain assumption is used in our analysis. In the polar
coordinate, Eq. (B-4) can be written as:
where
u is the radial displacement component.
Integrate eq. (B-5), it yields,
(B-5)
(B-6)
Hence the stress components are
Rewrite Eq. (B-7)
--60--
From the assumption of plane strain
(B-8)
(B-9)
where
Finally, the stresses on the borehole wall can be expressed
as,
--61--
(B-1O)