4 views

Uploaded by Hafiz Asyraf

spe

- ASTM D1037-06a.PDF
- Nonlinear FE Analysis 2016
- ugrc
- API 570 Questions 19
- CODE DIV -2 Review of the ASME Code Section VIII Division 2 – 2007.pdf
- Introduction to Concrete Anchor Rods
- Strength of Materials - Wikipedia
- Mechanics of Materials
- String Book
- Hysteresis Model of Steel Material
- 25_1
- The Mechanics of Engineering Structures - David W A Rees.epub
- Tunneling Wire Mesh
- 2014-Numerical Modelling of Infilled Clay Brick Masonry Under Blast Loading
- Metal Matrix Composites
- UGM-PPT
- CAE-3_SY-B_Mechanics of Soild_BMEL206.xlsx
- Frame Tec Main Catalog
- 2014-28-0029
- Incipient Plasticity

You are on page 1of 9

By

R. P. Nordgren

Shell Development Company

Houston, Texas

ABSTRACT

The strength of completions in producing wells

is studied by means of the theories of poroelasticity

and poroplasticity. Solutions are obtained for an

open hole completion and for a perforated completion

modeled as a hemispherical cavity and as a long

cylindrical cavity. Drawdown pressures for initial

yield are given by simple formulas for the linear

and parabolic forms of the extended yon Hises yield

function. The theory presented here may lead to

a practical criterion for drawdown pressures to

avoid production problems.

INTRODUCTION

In many petroleum wells, the rate of production

is limited by the risk of formation failure in the

completion interval. A failure may halt production

either permanently or until an expensive workover

can be carried out. In order to minimize the risk

of failure, weak formations can be strengthened by

gravel packing or through one of several available

chemical treatments. However, such strengthening

measures are expensive and may restrict production

and complicate future recompletions to alternate in-

tervals. At the other extreme, very strong forma-

tions may permit open hole completions with liners

or screens. Such completions generally are more

productive than the usual perforated completions.

Knowledge of completion strength is essential

for selecting the optimum type of completion and

evaluating the need for a strengthening treatment.

The completion decision will be based largely on

the maximum allowable production rate for each

candidate completion type and strengthening

treatment. The completion strength depends on

the inherent strength of the treated or untreated

formation rock and the stresses imposed on the rock

during production. The stresses near the completion

depend on many factors including flow rate, well

pressure, reservoir pressure, and the original in-

situ state of stress.

The present investigation is intended to provide

a basic theoretical understanding of the mechanical

strength of completions in production wells. To

this end, an open hole completion and idealized

perforated completions are analyzed according to

the theories of poroelasticity and poroplasticity.

The perforated completion is modeled as a hemi-

spherical cavity and as a long cylindrical cavity.

The simple geometries of the open hole and the

hemispherical and cylindrical cavities permit

approximate analytic solutions to be obtained. Also,

the effect of reservoir depletion is investigated

using an approximate solution for a circular disk-

shaped reservoir.

An indication of the strength of each type

of completion is obtained by determination of the

onset of plastic behavior (initial yield) at the

completion. Initial yield is determined from a

solution of the poroelasticity equations for the

completion and a yield function for the forma-

tion rock. The yield functions chosen for the

present study are the linear and parabolic forms

of the axtended Hises yield function proposed by

Drucker and Prager (1952) and Murrell (1963).

These yield functions are partially supported by

the experimental data of Antheunis et al. (1976)

for a friable sandstone. For each type of

completion, a simple formula is obtained for

the critical well pressure at initial yield.

Yield pressures are displayed in dimensionless

form for the parabolic yield function. The

criterion of initial yield is expected to pro-

vide a conservative criterion against completion

failure.

In order to use one of the proposed yield

criteria, it is necessary to know the material

constants in the yield function. These con-

stants should be determined by strength tests

on core material whenever possible. As sugges-

ted by Stein and Hilchie (1972) and Tixier et

al. (1973), it may be possible to estimate the

material constants from well-log parameters

such as acoustic velocity. The details of

such estimates and further consideration of

strength experiments lie outside the scope of

the present investigation.

Our results should be applied to field pro-

blems with due caution. Further experimentation

and field testing are still required to validate

the theory or indicate when modifications may

be necessary. In particular, the erosive ef-

fects of flow rate have not been considered in

the present study.

Before presenting solutions for the comple-

tion problems, we will review briefly the

theories of poroelasticity and poroplasticity.

A nonmathematical discussion of the application

of our results is given in the last section of

the paper.

THEORY OF POROELASTICITY

The linear theory of elasticity is well

established and the basic equations are develop-

ed in several texts (e.g., Timoshenko and

Go0dier , 1951). Extension of the theory to

account for the effect of pore pressure in a

porous medium originates in the work of Blot

(1941, 1955). SubsequentIy, the equations of

poroelasticity have been derived and discussed

by many authors. The form of the poroelasticity

equations given by Geertsma (1966) is particu-

larly convenient and will be used here.

With reference to rectangular Cartesian

coordinates x i (i - 1, 2, 3), the equations of

equilibrium for any continuous medium, in the

absence of body force, read

oil,j = 0 (1)*

*Repeated indices imply smmaation and coaa de-

notes partial differentiation with respect to

coordinates.

4A3-1

vhere 044 is the syaetric (total) stress tensor.

For infatitestmal deforation of a continuous med-

ium, the strain-dispLaceent relations are

1

eij= (uid + uj ,i) (2)

where e i. is the strain tensor and u. is the dis-

placemen vector. He follov the standard sign con-

ventions of the theory of elasticity where Oll > 0

corresponds to tension and ell > 0 corresponas tb

extension.

The linear constitutive equations for an iso-

tropic poroelastic continuum may berritten in the

followin form (Geertsma, 1966):

Oij = 2C(eij + 1- e tij) - (1-5) p iJ (3)*

where

3 (1-2)

e = ekk , = /CB' CB = 2(l+)G

Here, is the ratio of rock matrix compressibility

C R to bulk compressibility C, p is the pore pres-

sure, G is the shear modulus nd V is ?oisson's

ratio for the bulk continuum. The last term in (3)

represents the effect of pore pressure which is ana-

logous to the effect of temperature in thermoelasti-

city as po/nted out by Lubinskt (1954). By (3),

see that a completely restrained body (ei = 0) un-

dergoes isotropic compressire stress as pore pres-

sure increases. On the other hand, an unrestrained

Jacketed body (Oi4 - 0 ) undergoes expansion on

increase of pore ressure.

A slightly different interpretation of (3) is

useful in applications such as ours when initial in-

situ stress is present. In this case, it and are

regarded as changes in stress and pore pressure

from their values in the initial state. Displace-

ments are measured from the initial state and conse-

quently e.. vanishes in the initial state. Then

initLal stress tsor to fom total stress ten-

sor Oi.. Since the initial state of stress is in

equilrium, (1) holds for change in stress

On substitution of (2) and (3) into (1), *e

have the displacement equations of equilibrium

1 (1-8) ,i = 0 (4)

ui,JJ + (1-2v-- uj,ji

For a given pressure field , the field equation (4)

is to be solved for the displacement vector u o

Boundary conditions are imposed on u i or on

stress vector

o i = oij (5)

Where . is the unit vector normal to the boundary

surface The pore pressure is obtained from solu-

tion of the equations for fluid flo in a porous med-

ium. In the simplest case of linear, single-phase

flor, satisfies the field equation (Geertsma, 1966)

0 'kk = CT + (1-8) e (6)

where

0

c T

ere, k is the formation permeability, the fluid

viscosity, C the fluid compressibility, and the

porosity. I addition, boundary conditions are

imposed on or on the flow rate

*p Ionecker delta i' is defined as =

J and

q=-i p' i (7)

Also, satisfies initial conditions at time zero.

The right-hand side of (6) is usually neglgible for

the flo problems of interest here. aen e is

negligible in (6), the flor problem is uncoupled

and can be solved independently of the elasticity

problem governed by equation

THEORY OF POROPLASTICITY

The constitutive equations of poroelasticity

(3) furnish a linear isotropic relation between

stress, strain, and pore pressure and there is no

peaanent strain after a cycle of loading and

unloading. Linear poroelasticity may be a good

idealization of the actual behavior of porous rocks

over a limited range of stress. However, at suffi-

ciently large values of stress, departures from

linearity occur and there are permanent or plastic

strains after a cycle of loading and unloading.

Generally, the rock fails at sufficiently large

plastic strains or after a number of plastic loading

cycles. In this section, we revtev the formulation

of the theory of poroplasticity in which a yield

function delineates the initiation of plastic

yielding. In some problems, hitial yield provides

a useful criterion against failure. Fuller discus-

sions of poroplasticity have been given by Jaeger

and Cook (1969), adai (1950), and many others.

Upon introduction of a yield function f (Ott),

the behavior of an elastic/plastic material can-e

separated into two regimes as follows:

0

Elastic if f < 0 or f = 0, f < 0

0 (8)

Plastic if f = 0 and f - 0

and f > 0 is not admitted. Tn the incremental

theory of plasticity, the strain is divided into

an elastic component e

e such that: iJ and a plastic component

m e ! e ! !

eij ij + ij (9)

The elastic strain component satisfies equation (3)

and the plastic strain component satisfies a flor

rule as discussed by Heilder and Paslay (1970). In

the present study, no use is made of the flow rule

for e and it r111 not be discussed further.

Ytetid functions used in this investigation are

extensions of the classical yon Hises yield function

to include the effect of mean stress. The extended

Hises yield function has the general form

f (,71 , J2 ) (10)

here the stress invariants J. and J_ are express-

able in terms of principal stresses 1' 2' 3 as

J--1 = - 1_ (1+02+05) _ P 3

1

+

The quantity J1 may be interpret2as the mean eff-

ective compresslye stress and J2 ' as the mean

square shear stress.

A sim? form of (10) is the linear relation

betveen J?'- and proposed by Drucker and

Prager (1952), namely

I 21/2 a 1) (11) = - (o +

4A3-2

The material constant T is a measure of shear stren-

gth at zero mean stressand measures the increase

in shear strength with mean compressire stress. Eq-

uation (11) can be readily generalized to a multi-

linear convex yield function which is useful in app-

lications as will be seen later.

Another simple am useful form of (10) is the

parabolic yield function proposed by Murrell (1963),

namely

F= 3 2- C J1 (12)

where C is a material constant which measures the

increase of shear strength with mean compressire

strength. Combinations of (11) aD (12) also are

possible.

Full consideration of the experimental problem

of selecting a yield function and determining the

associated material constants is beyond the scope of

the present investigation. Discussion of this dif-

ficult problem is given by Jaeger and Cook (1969)

and throughout the literature of rock mechanics. As

an illustration of the difficulties involved, we use

the Mises invariants (10) to interpret the experi-

mental data for a reservoir rock presented by

Antheunis et al (1976). The experiments consisted

of conventional triaxial compression and extension

tests as well as collapse tests on thick walled

cylinders under radial and axial pressures. Figure

1 shows an interpretation of this data* for Material

A which had a Brinell haess number of 9 to 11.

In calculating 3 and J2-'- the stress state in the

triaxial specimefis is assumed to be uniform. The

stress state in the thick walled cylinders at col-

lapse is assumed to be given by the Lam solution of

elasticity theory (Timoshenko and Goodlet, 1951).

This solution neglects any inelastic behavior prior

to collapse. The magnitude of inelastic effects in

the collapse test is not known. As seen from Figure

1, the experimental data can be fit reasonably well

by a bilinear form of (11) or by combination of (11)

and (12), except fo the triaxial extension data.

The extension fractures usually observed in the tri-

axial extension test (Jaeger and Cook, 1969) may

constitute a different type of failure mechanism

than the shearing failures usually observed in the

triaxial compression test and the collapse test and

expected in completion failure. The triaxiat exten-

sion test was the main basis for adoption by Anthen-

his et al. (1976) of the Mohr-Coulomb yield function

and a critical-strain failure criterion instead of

the extended Mises yield function. We believe that

both approaches merit serious consideration. Con-

siderable further research will be required to reach

a completely acceptable general failure criterion.

IN-SITU STRESS AND RESERVOIR PRESSURE

The state of stress in the earth has been the

subject of considerable research as discussed by

Jaeger and Cook (1969), Howard and Fast (1970), and

Macpherson amd Berry (1972). Here we give a brief

review of'the subject for depths of interest in

petroleum production.

On the basis of density measurements, it is

generally agreed that the vertical component of

total (compressire) in-situ stress S. increases with

depth at a gradient of approxtmatelyVl.0 psi/ft with

considerable variation at shallow depths. The mini-

mum horizontal component of total in-situ stress,

SH1 , has been estimated from measurements of frac-

ture extension and shut-in pressure. In tectonically

*Specifically, the data was taken from Table 1 and

Figures 1 and 3 of Antheunis et al (1976).

relaxed regions, Sm is generally between 0.6 to 1.0

times S V. The oth horizontal stress S. 2 is diffi-

cult to determine and it is often assume that

and S.. are equal, in which case they are denoteZby

S. tectonically active regions, the horizontal

sEresses may exceed S v. Around salt domes, geolo-

gical evidence indicates that the principal in-situ

stresses do not act in horizontal and vertical di-

rections and they may have widely different values.

Initial reservoir pressures p also may vary

considerably. Shallower reservoir generally follow

the hydrostatic pressure gradient of 0.45-0.48 psi/

ft. In the Gulf Coast region and some other re-

gions, the pressure gradient often departs from the

hydrostatic gradient at a particular depth and in-

creases abruptly with depth. In extremely deep

wells, p may approach S

Aftar production, te pressure in a depleted

reservoir may be reduced to as little as 1000 psi.

Reservoir depletion also changes the components of

total stress through the poroelastic effect discus-

sed in connection with equation (3). An example of

this change is considered in Appendix A for a deeply

buried circular disk-shaped reservoir. When the

radius of the reservoir is much greater than its

height and much less than its depth and the reser-

voir is at the depleted constant pressure p, we fiD

(Appendix A) that the new in-situ stresses S V' and

S H' near the well are approm-tely

s v' = Sv, s' = s- n(p i - p) (13)

where

n - (l-S) (1-2v) /

and SV, S H are the original in-situ compresslye

stresses.

Drilling and completion operations also may

cause changes in the stress state near the well.

The stresses near cemented and perforated comple-

tions are difficult to quantify even before produc-

tion begins. The expansion properties of cements

are subject to uncertainty amd even the basic mecha-

nisms involved in shaped-charge perforations are not

well understood. Further, time-dependent relaxation

phenomena may take place after the'well is complet-

ed. Thus, we assume that the stress state near the

well is the in-situ state or the state (13) for de-

pleted reservoirs.

HEMISPHERICAL PERFOBATION

We consider a perforated completion in the form

of a hemispherical cavity. This model seems most

applicable to relatively weak formations where a

long perforation tunnel could not remain open. Fur-

ther, the hemisphere has intrinsic appeal as the

"strongest" shape for a cavity or arch.

A poroelastic solution is readily obtained from

known solutions in elasticity and thermoelasticity

for a spherical cavity. For application to a hemi-

spherical cavity, this solution requires zero shear

stress and zero normal displacement on the diametri-

cal plane forming the hemisphere from the sphere.

We assume that such is the case for the completion,

thereby neglecting any cement-perforation bond which

may. have been disturbed by the perforation operation

anyway. The poroelastic solution is examined in

terms of the yield functions to determine well pres-

sure for initial yield.

First, we recall the solution for a spherical

cavity in an unlimited elastic medium under uniaxial

compresslye stress S at a large distance from the

cavity. With reference to cylindrical coordimates

4A3-3

^

(r, 8, z) with z in the direction of S, the solu-

tion for stresses at the intersection of the plane

z = 0 with the cavity reads (Timoshenko and Goodier,

1951)

^

O r = 0, O z -81S, 08 = -82S (14)

where

27-15v 15v-3

81 = 14-10 ' 82 = 14-1

By the poroelasticity-thermoelasticity analogy

(Lubinski, 1954) and a thermoelasticity solution

(Timoshenko and Goodlet, 1951), the solution for

this same spherical cavity under internal pressure

p with isotropic stress S at infinity and steady

redial flow at rate 2q (q into a hemisphere) gives

radial and tangential stresses at the cavity as

= i 3 npq (15)

Or -Pw' Ot = Pw - S + 2ka

where a is the cavity radius. For the case of a

spherical cavity under in-situ principal stresses

(S H , SH2, Sv) , on superposing (14) and (15), we

fin the following stresses at the intersection of

the principal stress axis for SH2 with the cavity:

1 1

Or = -Pw' 08 = Pw - S8' Oz = Pw-Sz (16)

where

3 nqU

S8 = SH2 + 82(Sv-SH2) + 81(SH1-SH2) - 2ka

3 nq

Sz = SH2 + 81(Sv-SH2) + 82(SHl-SH2) - 2ka

In forming (16), we think of SH2 as being the iso-

tropic stress, S v - Sw? as being uniaxial stress

in the vertical direcon, and S.1 - S'2 as being

uniaxial stress in the other horzonta direction.

When SH1 and S are different, two cases should be

considered in wat follows with SKi and SH2 values

interchanged in (16) to find the worst case. Note

that the principal stresses S , S.-, S._ need not be

vertical and horizontal for tee 1 z

hemispherical

perforation.

By (10), the Mises stress invariants associated

with (16) are

-- 1

J1 = (Sz + S8) - Pw

(17)

-- 1

J2 " J12 + (Sz - S8)2

In order to investigate initial yield, the linear

yield criterion (11) at the cavity can be written

using (17) as

f = A1 (Pw - Pl)(Pw

where

3 =

A1 = _ e2, B1 2eTo

Cl = (Sz_So)2 _ 2 o

- p2 )

(P] (B12-4Aic1)l/2]/2A1

1 --

p = (Sz+S 8) + [-B 1 +

The roots Pl and P2 are real if

(18)

(19)

3To2 >_ A 1 (S z - se) 2 (20)

If (20) holds, then the material is elastic (f < O)

at the cavity if

Pl < Pw < P2 for A 1 > 0, (e < /3/2) (21)

Pw < Pl or P2 < Pw for A 1 < 0

If A] < 0, then by (20) there will always be

two real ?oot8. In this case, the root P2 corres-

ponds to . < 0 in general and only the p. root

is of practical interest. The condition p < p. 1

does not place a lower limit on the yield pressure

Pw'

If A_ > 0 and there are no real roots, as

indicatedlby violation of (20), then f cannot.

change sign and by (18), f > 0. However, this

is not admissable and the perforation must already

have yielded.

If A. > 0 and there are real roots, then (21)

places a ower limit on Pw at which initial yield

occurs. The upper limit on p in (21) may not have

physical significance since filure by fracturing

could occur before this limit is reached. Fractur-

ing failure is not of interest in the present

study and no use will be made of the upper limit P2

in (21). Also, further investigation shows that

initial yield may not occur at the cavity face as

assumed above if the flow rate is sufficiently high.

Such flow rates are much higher than usually encoun-

tered in practice and will not be considered here.

The foregoing results for the linear yield

function (11) can be extended to the convex piece-

wise linear form. The linear segments are simply

considered individually and the greatest lower limit

p] (for A 1 > 0 cases) is the lower limit on Pw

fdr elastic behavior.

The parabolic yield function (12) also leads

to solution of a quadratic equation for yield pres-

sure. We find that the perforation is elastic if

Pl < Pw < P2 and C q' [Sz-SO] (22)

where

Plt 1 2 2 3 1/2

P = (Sz+S e) - c [c 2 - (Sz-Se)2]

If the restriction on C is not satisfied, then yield

has already occurred. Again, the upper limit on Pw

may not be physically significant.

The effect of the flow rate q on the yield

pressure is easily examined. By (16) and (18), A,

B., C. are independent of q. Then, by (16), (19)

ad (i2), the change in yield pressure with q for

both yield functions is given by

nvq (23)

Pl = - 3k

Thus, yield pressure decreases as q increases.

This somewhat surprising result reflects the fact

that compressire normal stresses decrease as pore

pressure decreases through the poroelastic effect

as discussed in connection with equation (3). This

decrease i/ompressive stress decreases the shear

measure J2-' more than 1 in (17), thereby de-

creasing he tendency to yield.

The preceding results for yield pressure can

be cast into a convenient dimensionless form for

4A3-4

graphical display. As seen from (16) and (22), the

dimensionless yield pressures pl/C and p2/C for the

parabolic yield function are functions of the dimen-

sionless variables

S V SH1 SH2 q

' S V ' S V 2kaC' (24)

Numerical results for the parabolic (Murrell) yield

function are shown in Figure 2 for q = 0, S = S -

= Hi H2

S., = 0.2, and various values of S./S V. These

results can be extended to include flow rate using

(23). The upper limits P2 are shown dashed in Figure

2 for mathematical completeness and they may not be

physically meaningful as already discussed. Results

similar to Figure 2 can be plotted for the linear

yield function by (16) and (19). Application of the

results of Figure 2 to completion problems is discus-

sed in the last section of the paper.

LONG CYLINDRICAL PERFORATION

We consider a long cylindrical perforation

lying in a horizontal plane. A state of plane

strain is assumed in planes normal to the perfora-

tion. This idealization neglects effects of the

cemented well bore and the end of the perforation.*

Also, we neglect the poroelastic effect of pressure

change accompanying fluid flow since this pressure

field is not readily idealized. As in the previous

section, we seek to determine the well pressure for

initial yield.

Using the Lam and Kirsch solutions in the

theory of elasticity (Timoshenko and GoodYet, 1951),

the components of stress in cylindrical coordinates

at the perforation face are

o r = -pw,O0 = Pw-S0 , o z -S z (25)

where

S O = 2S v - (Sv-SH1)(1-2cos 20)

S z = SH2 + 2 (Sv-SH1) cos 20

Here the in-situ stress S_ 2 is assumed to be aligned

with the perforation. The invariants of stress (10)

for (25) are

-- 1

J1 = (Sz + 2S8) - Pw (26)

= 1

J2 (Pw - S8 )2 + (Sz - S8 )2

and the linear yield function (11) becomes

f = A2 (Pw - Pl )(pw - P2 ) (27)

where

A 2 = 1- 2, B 2 =

i 2

c 2 = (Sz-So) -

- T + 1 (28)

o ' (Sz-So)

(p:] -

p = S O + [-B 2 + (B22 - 4A2c2)l/2]/2A2

*Results of a finite-element numerical analysis

indicate that the plane strain idealization is valid

away from the ends if the perforation length is at

least four times its diameter.

The roots Pl and pA are real if

2zz (1- 2) (Sz-Ss) 2 (29)

If (29) holds, then the material is elastic (f < 0)

if

Pl < Pw < P2 for A 2 > 0, ( < 1)

(30)

Pw < Pl or P2 < Pw for A 2 < 0

The discussion of (29) and (30) is identical with

the discussion following equation (21) and will not

be repeated. In checking for yield, S and S must

be evaluated at 0 = 0 and 0 - /2 in (25). z

For the parabolic yield function (12) by (26),

the perforation is elastic if

Pl < Pw < P2 and -C I 2(Sz-S 8) ! 3C (31)

where

P = S 8 - C; [C 2 - (Sz-S 8 - 21-C)211/2//3

If the second of (31) is not satisfied, then f > 0

which is not admissable and the perforation has

already yielded.

Dimensionless results for yield pressure (31)

under the parabolic (Murrell) yield function are

shown in Figure 3 for S -- S = S V = 0 2, and

H1 2 H '

various values of SH/S v. Again 2, the dashed lines

corresponding to the larger root p in (31) may

not be physically meaningful. AppIication of the

results is discussed in the last section of the

paper.

OPEN HOLE COMPLETION

We confine attention to an open circular bore-

hole in line with the vertical in-situ principal

stress S V and carry out an analysis similar to the

previous section. According to the Lam and Kirsch

solutions for plane strain in the theory of elasti-

city (Timoshenko and GoodYet, 1951), cylindrical

components of stress at the borehole are given by

r = -Pw' O0 = Pw-So ' Oz = -Sz (32)

S 0 = 2SH2 - (SH2 - SH1)(1 - 2cos 20)

S z = S v + 2 (SH2 - SH1) cos 28

The analysis procedure is exactly the same as

for the cylindrical perforation in the previous

section. Specifically, (32) evaluated at 8 = 0

and /2 is used in (28). Then (28) to (30) apply

for the linear yield function and (31) applies for

the parabolic yield function.

Dimensionless results for yield pressure under

the parabolic (Murrell) yield function are given in

Figure 4 which is discussed in the next section.

APPLICATIONS

Formulas for the well pressure at initiation

of yield have been developed in the preceding sec-

tions for a hemispherical perforation, a long cylin-

drical perforation and an open hole completion.

Specifically, the lower yield pressure p. for the

hemispherical perforation is given by equation (19)

4A3-5

for the linear yield function (11) and by (22) for

the parabolic yield function (12) where S and S 8

are defined by (16). For the long cylindrZical per-

foration, the lower yield pressure Pl is given by

(28) for the linear yield function aSd by (31) for

the parabolic yield function where S_ and Sa are

defined by (25). The same formulas 28) an (31)

apply to the open hole completion with S_ and

S defined by (32) instead of (25). Asnoted

bfore, the upper yield pressure P2 may not be

physically meaningful since failure by fracturing

could occur before this limit is reached. The lower

yield pressure Pl is expected to provide a limit on

well pressure to-avoid completion failure in each

case. However, this limit must be applied with cau-

tion since field verification is lacking.

The dimensionless plots of yield pressure for

the parabolic (Murrell) yield function in Figures 2

to 4 give considerable insight into the effects of

various parameters on the completion problem. Fur-

ther, relative strengths of the various completions

can be compared. For example, a hemispherical per-

foration in a normally pressured reservoir (p/S w

0.45) with Sw/Sr -- 0.8 would yield immediatel i

the strength"paameter C is such that C/S v < 0.45

according to Figure 2. If C/S v = 0.6, thn drawdown

to a pressure of p. /S,, = 0.21 is possible without

yielding, assumingWSSv remains at 0.8. However,

reservoir depletion ffctively decreases S as

seen from equation (13) for the case of a deply

buried thin circular reservoir. If Sw/S v changes

to 0.7, then yield is predicted at p..,7S'= 0.30 for

C/S v 0.6. Similar conclusions can"be-reached for

the'long cylindrical perforation from Figure 3.

Comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows that the yield

pressure for the hemispherical perforation is lower

than for the long cylindrical perforation. Thus,

the hemispherical perforation is stronger as might

be expected.

For the case considered above (p _/S.. = 0.45

and S/S V 0.8), the open hole compltign yields

immediately if C/S < 0.33 according to Figure 4.

If C/S.. = 0.6, the'yield pressure is p /S.. = 0.16

w

for .S..YS.. = 0.8 and p /S.. 0.05 for S./Sj. = 0.7.

v w v [.1 v

In ths case, the open hole completion is stronger

than the hemispherical perforation. However, this

will not always be the case as seen from Figures 2

and 4.

From Figures 2 to 4, we see that a high ratio

of horizontal to vertical in-situ stress (S./S V > 1)

has an adverse effect on yield pressures. Pot ex-

ample, if S../S.. 1.4 and p /S.. -- 0.45, then yield

occurs immediately if C/S 0v. 75 for the hemispher-

ical perforation and if CfS V < 1.17 for the open

hole completion. Open hole completion may not be

advisable in such cases.

The case of abnormally high reservoir pressure

also can be examined with the dimensionless plots of

Figures 2 to 4. For example, if p /S.. -- 0.8 and

S./S. -- 0.9, then yield occurs imWeditely if C/S V

<n 0.18 for the hemispherical perforation and C/S v

< 0.10 for the open hole completion. In general

less formation strength is needed for initial prod-

uction from abnormally pressured reservoirs than

from normally pressured reservoirs. However, deple-

tion may have a larger effect in abnormally pressured

reservoirs by decreasing S H as indicated by equa-

tion (13).

Finally, we note that dimensionless plots

such as Figures 2 to 4 provide a convenient method

of presenting field data on completion strength.

REFERENCES

ANTHEUNIS, D., GEERTSMA, J. AND VRIEZEN,

P. B., 1976, Mechanical Stability of

Perforation Tunnels in Friable Sand-

Stones, Paper Presented at the 31st

Annual Petroleum Mechanical Engr.

Conference of the ASME, Sept.

BIOT, M. A., 1941, General Theory of

Three-Dimensional Consolidation,

J. Appl. Phys., v. 12, pp. 155-164.

IOT, M. A., 1955, Theory 6f Elasticity

and Consolidation for a Porous Aniso-

tropic Solid, . Appl. Phys., v. 26,

pp. 182-185.

DRUCKER, D.C. and PRAGER, W, 1952,

Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis

or Limit Design, uart. Appl. Math.,

v. 10, pp. 157-165.

EASEN, G., NOBLE, B., and SNEDDON, I. N.,

1955, On Certain Integrals of Lipschitz-

Hankel Type Involving Products of Bessel

Functions, Phil Trans Royal Soc.,

London, A 247, pp. 529-551.

GEERTSMA, J., 1966, Problems of Rock

Mechanics in Petroleum Enlneering,

First Intl. Congress Intl. Soc.

Rock Mech., Lisbon, Portugal.

GEERTSMA, J., 1973, Land Subsidence

Above Compacting Oil and Gas Reservoirs,

J. Pert. Tech., pp. 734-744.

HOWARD, G. C. and FAST, C. R., 1970,

Hydraulic Fracturing, Soc. Pert.

Engrs. of AIME, New York.

JAEGER, J. C. and COOK, N. G. W., 1969,

Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Chapman

and Mall, Ltd., London.

LUBINSKI, A., 1954, The Theory of

Elasticity for Porous Bodies Displaying

a STrong Pore Structure, Proc. 2nd U.S.

Natl. Congress Appl. Mech., p. 247.

MACPHERSON, L. A. and BERRY, L. N.,1972,

Prediction of Fracture Gradients from Log

Derived Elastic Moduli, The Log Analyst,

Oct., v. 13, no. 13, pp. 12-19.

MURRELL, S. A. F., 1963, A Criterion

for Brittle Fracture of Rocks and

Concrete under Triaxial Stress and the

Effect of Pore Pressure on the Criterion,

Proc. Fifth Rock Mechanics Symp., Univ.

of Minn., C. Fairhurst (ed.), Oxford,

Pergamon, pp. 563-577.

NADAI, A., 1950, Theory of Flow and

Fracture of Solids, Second Edition,

v. 1, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

SNEDDON, I. N., 1951, Fourier Transforms,

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

STEIN, N. and HILCHIE, D. W., 1972,

Estimating the Maximum Producing Rate

Possible from Friable Sandstones without

using Sand Control, J. Petr. Tech.,

Sept., pp. 1157-1160.

TIMOSHENKO, S. and GOODIER, J. N., 1951,

Theory o_fElasticity (Second Edition),

McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

TIXIER, M.P., LOVELESS, G. W., and

ANDERSON, R. A., 1975, Estimation of

Formation Strength from the Mechanical

Properties Log, J. Petr. Tech., March,

pp. 283-293.

WEIDLER, J. B., Jr. and PASLAY, P. R.,

1970, Constitutive Relations for Inelastic

Granular Medium, . Engr. Mech., Div.

ASCE, v. 96, pp. 395-406.

4A3-6

APPENDIX A - CIRCULAR DISK AT CONSTANT PRESSURE IN

AN UNLIMITED ELASTIC MEDIUM

We consider a disk of radius R and thickness 2h

raised to a uniform pressure p. The disk is part of

an unlimited homogenous isotropic poroelastic med-

ium. We follow a method given by Timoshenko and

Goodier (1951) to obtain a solution near r = 0.

A particular solution of (4) for displacements

u. can be written as

u i = ,i (A-i)

where

V2 = CmP, C = /2G (A-2) m

We consider a uniform pressure field of the form

p = const., if 0 < r < R, I zl < h

p = 0, otherwise (A-3)

In the present problem, = (r,z) and by the method

of Hankel transfor!n_(Seddon, 1951), we find that

(r,z) = (z) Jo (r) d (A-4)

o

where

CR [-h

= 3 cosh z- 1] Ji(R), [z[ < h

Cm9 sinh h J1 (R), > h

The displacements can be obtained in integral form

from (A-4) using (A-i) and the stresses follow from

equation (3). The displacements u and u and the

stresses o and o are continuou at [z = h as

required. Zince t stresses and displacements

approach zero as r + and ]z[ + , the particular

solution is the complete solution for this problem.

The integrals in the solution can be expressed

in terms of elliptic integrals and numerical tabula-

tions are available (Eason et al., 1955). We do

not pursue this here since our main interest is the

neighborhood of r = 0 where the completion is

located. The stresses obtained can be considered

as corrections to the in-situ stresses in this

region. On expanding the Bessel functions about

r = 0 and evaluating known integrals, we obtain

the following approximate expressions for change in

stresses:

^

o = o e =-up [1- 1 r i f (z) ]

^ 1

= - - uP f (z)

z 2

where

h+z h-z

f (z) = 2 +

2[(h+z) + R2] 1/2 2[(h-z) 2 + R2] 1/2

with an error of the form

(: if h > R

(A-6)*

*The symbol g (x) means that g (x)/x - constant as

For a thin reservoir (h << R), (A-5) reduces to

r 2R

(A-7)

In this case, pressure depletion hs a significant

effect on the horizontal stresses _ and om^,but

a negligible effect on the %ertical'stressUo . This

z

is reasonable since expansion can readily occur

vertically, but not horizontally.

The limiting case of a thick disk also can be

considered and the plane strain solution is obtain-

ed. Also, it is possible to include the effect of "

a free surface without essential difficulty. The

effect of radially variable pressure can be consi-

dered by means of the Duhamel integral. Alter-

natively, the effect of variable pressure and a

free surface can be treated by the method of

Green's function as done by Geertsma (1973) for an

infinitesimally thin disk.

4A3-7

750 I

500

250

PARABOLIC

C :500

1/3

1/3 1/2

.1

3

LINEAR

To= 50, a= 1.0

To:100, a :0.8

TRIAXIAL TEST

X COMPRESSION

'1- EXTENSION

COLLAPSE TEST

AXIAL PRESS.

RADIAL PRESS.

o I I

o 500 lOOO

J"-I KG/CM2

Fig. 1 - Experimental data (Material A) of Antheunis et al. (1976) interpreted by elasticity theory

and the extended Mises yield function.

Pw

1.0

0.5 i

1.0 S./Sv

0.9

I

0.5

.5

C/Sv

Fig. 2 - Dimensionless yield pressure versus dimensionless strength for a hemispherical perforation

umder the parabolic (Murrell) yield functiom (q 0, - 0.2).

4A3-8

1.0

Pw

0.5

Sv

1.0 Sm/Sv

m

mmmm mmmm m mmm m m

m m m m mmm mmmm mmm m m m

m m

o

o 0.5 1.o 1.5

C/Sv

Fig. 3 - Dimensionless yield pressure versus dimensionless strength for a long cylindrical perforation

under the parabolic (Hurtell) yield function (q = O, = 0.2).

1.0

Pw

0.5

Sv

1.0: S./Sv _,4 I 1.6

mm m mm ,

0'70

0.$

o

o 0.5 1.o 1.5

C/Sv

Fig. 4 - Dimensionless yield pressure versus dimensionless strength for an open hole completion under

the parabolic (Murrell) yield function (q = O, v - 0.2).

4A3-g

- ASTM D1037-06a.PDFUploaded byheobukon
- Nonlinear FE Analysis 2016Uploaded bysran1986
- ugrcUploaded bywlasmir
- API 570 Questions 19Uploaded byRavindra S. Jivani
- CODE DIV -2 Review of the ASME Code Section VIII Division 2 – 2007.pdfUploaded byManish542
- Introduction to Concrete Anchor RodsUploaded bysaptadip
- Strength of Materials - WikipediaUploaded byVoke Benson Ejesaye
- Mechanics of MaterialsUploaded bylisan2053
- String BookUploaded byreliantaustralia
- Hysteresis Model of Steel MaterialUploaded byAlwin Setya
- 25_1Uploaded bypajadhav
- The Mechanics of Engineering Structures - David W A Rees.epubUploaded byAvramescu Irina
- Tunneling Wire MeshUploaded byparwanibuiilders
- 2014-Numerical Modelling of Infilled Clay Brick Masonry Under Blast LoadingUploaded byvenkatesanjs
- Metal Matrix CompositesUploaded byRoger Lara
- UGM-PPTUploaded byGaheza Rukundo
- CAE-3_SY-B_Mechanics of Soild_BMEL206.xlsxUploaded bySandeep Bhaskar
- Frame Tec Main CatalogUploaded bymorganflexer
- 2014-28-0029Uploaded bysrikanthrajaram18
- Incipient PlasticityUploaded bythuron
- Binici Oncrete ModelUploaded by301301
- Structural Design TalkUploaded byNathan MacIntire
- Two Roller MachineUploaded byVaira Vel
- EPM CLASE 2Uploaded byJORGE FREJA MACIAS
- Plasticity Flow Rule Isotropic Hardening PicsUploaded byabbasiftikhar1657
- 2013 Simulation Algorithm for Spiral Case Structure in Hydropower StationUploaded byJosé G. Ortiz Mesías
- 25-24-1-PBUploaded byBenjamin Tee
- 001 Earth Pressure_Part 1Uploaded bysarwarrosun
- Performance of Concrete-Encased CFST Box Stub Columns Under Axial Compression, 2015 (Yu-Feng an)Uploaded byPhan Đào Hoàng Hiệp
- CE 14 Solid Mechanics (Lecture 2).pdfUploaded byptdcaliguid

- Word 2010 for DissertationUploaded byAnuj Bisht
- CuritibaIntegratedPlanning_Uploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- Lecture 2.0 PolymerisationUploaded bykechikkrunch
- 02112015 Faretable CashlessUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- 02112015 Faretable Cash rapidkl 2015Uploaded bySafar Broly
- 07-meshUploaded byNagendra Baddam
- 2-Urban Rail Development Plan Urdp June2013Uploaded bySyǝd Khairi
- 7-Interchange Integration Plan Iip June2013Uploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- ChangLiu General CFDUploaded byprakash_vinayak4946
- WP2000-13Uploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- OTC-5402-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- IntelligentUploaded byCarlos Magno
- OTC-15179-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- OTC-23916-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- OTC-15177-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- OTC-5808-MSUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- ISOPE-I-95-115Uploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- API-36-054Uploaded byshaumeng9292
- API-55-103Uploaded byshaumeng9292
- SPE-58985-MS-Production Analysis of Commingled Gas Reservoirs - Case HistoriesUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- SPE 10035 MS Production LoggingUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- SPE-64425-MS-Considering the Reservoir in Determining a Perforation StrategyUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- SPE-160924-MS - To Develop the Optimum Field Development Plan for Condensate Well Using IPMUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- Heavy Duty Wireline Fishing in HPHT Sour WellUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- Water - Chemical Treatment and ManagementUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- Drilling & Completion of Horizontal WellsUploaded byHafiz Asyraf
- PerforationUploaded byHafiz Asyraf

- Fatigue on Engine PistonUploaded bySatheesh Sekar
- Finite Element Methods Question BankUploaded byGuru Mahesh
- ANSYS Modeling Solidification.pdfUploaded byvictoria
- Full Text 4Uploaded byDavid Bensoussan
- Behavior of materials at cold region temperaturesUploaded byradou99
- Modern Mechanics and Mathematics – An International Conference in Honour of Ray Ogden’s 60th BirthdayUploaded byArchmca
- vbUploaded byPuneet Sharma
- ASTM E2860Uploaded byRicardo Martins Silva
- Som Question BankUploaded byamns99
- Valve Terminology GlossaryUploaded byShiyas Alikunju
- ScrewStresses(2)Uploaded byMario Tirabassi
- Analysis of Clamping MechanismUploaded byjagas123455123
- Vorticity Project AppendixUploaded byjulian55555
- notes of F.MUploaded bynidhalsaada
- ACI_Dynamic Responses of Flat Plate Systems with shear rein.pdfUploaded byRalph Manuel
- Engineering20101100005_44076873Uploaded byAbdalla Mohamed Abdalla
- IRJET-Stress analysis of perforated plates under uniaxial compression using FEA and photoelasticityUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Creep ModelUploaded byRegina Miller
- Base Plate ThicknessUploaded byabhinav7373
- Tooth FailuresUploaded byfeni4ka
- PhD Research ProposalUploaded bymenken2002
- Chapter 13Uploaded byKim Carpio Palomino
- CFD-ACI-318-14Uploaded byDaudHussain
- coal bunker blockage1Uploaded byteobohm
- Dc 34631639Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- CSIR-NAL-AcSIR PhD Programme in Engineering and Sciences - ProspectusUploaded bypdmnbrao
- Rammed Earth ConstructionUploaded byraeggaeman
- LRFD Design of Double Composite Box Girder BridgesUploaded byRAIMUNDO SUHERDIN
- timber large span structuresUploaded byMarioJurić
- SolidWorks Simulation Student Guide-EnGUploaded bySam Low