ARMA 09-185

Borehole stability simulations of an HPHT field using anisotropic shale

modeling
Søreide, O. K.
STATOILHYDRO, Trondheim, Norway
Bostrøm, B. and Horsrud, P.
STATOILHYDRO, Trondheim, Norway
Copyright 2009 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Asheville 2009, the 43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in Asheville, NC June 28th – July 1,
2009.
This This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical
reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be
copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT:
Most borehole stability problems occur during drilling in the overburden shale and mudstone. Typically borehole instabilities are
associated with high pore pressures just above the hydrocarbon reservoir. Worldwide there is a tendency going towards deeper
HPHT reservoirs with increased pressure and temperature. Consequently the drilling window margins are reduced and more
emphasis is put on the borehole stability predictions. In order to prevent water influx the mud weight is kept above pore pressure
and the collapse pressure. Further to avoid fracturing and tensile cracks the mud weight is kept below the fracture gradient. In
order to predict the upper and lower limits for mud weight densities a proper description of the formation is needed. It is well
known that the shale exhibits anisotropic behaviour due to sedimentation processes. The anisotropy is apparent both with respect
to deformation and strength.

This paper presents the borehole stability simulations carried out for an HPHT field offshore Norway. An anisotropic shale model
is implemented and calibrated against laboratory test results. Both drained and partially undrained stress paths are compared. In
total three triaxial tests with different sample orientations are required to fully describe the anisotropic properties. The borehole
stability calculations are carried out in the finite element code Abaqus, where the anisotropic model is implemented as a user
routine. The simulation results are presented for different borehole inclinations, where emphasis is put on predicting the allowable
underpressure.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
A borehole stability study is carried out for a planned
HPHT (High Pressure High Temperature) field
development offshore Norway. The field is planned with
several production and injection wells. Some wells are
drilled prior to production, while others are planned to
be drilled after production startup. Due to the potential
problems related to drilling in a depleted reservoir, the
plan is to start with the deepest hydrocarbon layers.
Top reservoir is situated at about 4000m TVD MSL and
consists of sandstone from Late Jurassic age. Typical
downhole reservoir pressure and temperature is 785 bar
and 137 degrees Celsius. The overburden consists of
shale formations from the Shetland group and Viking
group, where the shale just above the reservoir has high
organic content.
A narrow borehole stability window is predicted just
above the reservoir. This is because of a high
overpressure at top reservoir. In addition the collapse
pressure is limited by the predicted fracture gradient.
The mud weight should be designed to lie between these
lower and upper boundaries. However, there are some
uncertainties regarding the overpressure in the shale
section. To be conservative the maximum pressure at top
reservoir in the sandstone section is used.
In order to predict the allowable underpressure in the
shale section both analytical and numerical borehole
stability analyses were carried out. A one meter shale
core was recovered and a comprehensive test program
performed. From the test results a proper material design
basis was then established.
1.2. Borehole stability
The definition of borehole stability is often related to
“stuck pipe” or “tight hole” problems during drilling
operations [2]. Most often these incidents occur in shale
or shale-like materials as mudstones. Borehole
instability often occurs due to a mechanical collapse
situation during drillout and subsequent pore pressure
development in the surrounding formations. The
instability can occur both due to shear failure or tensile Figure 1:Dry and wet specimen. Parallel beddings are
failure in the surrounding formations. observed. The spacing grid in left hand picture is one
centimeter. A 2mm scale is provided on the right hand picture.
During drilling a typical undrained response is observed
at the borehole wall. This is due to the stress relaxation
from drilling in the shale. With time these excess pore Figure 1 shows the tested plugs from one dry and one
pressures will dissipate out and equilibrate with the wet specimen. A clear bedding lamination is shown on
surrounding pressures. A redistribution of stresses might both. Results from petrophysical testing are provided in
give time-delayed failure in the formation. Table 1.
The borehole collapse is strongly dependant on wellbore
orientation, especially in areas where the formation is Table 1:Petrophysical properties. Porosity φ is the volumetric
strongly bedded and the stress field is non-isotropic. percentage of lost water and TOC (Total organic carbon) is
given as weight percentage.
Sample Quartz Clay ρdry φ TOC
(%)1 content (g/cm3) (%) (%)
2. LABORATORY TESTING
(%)
A comprehensive test program was initialized for the 1 19.6 47.4 2.48 5.1 7.16
shale cores. The shale formation is a source rock with 2 18.7 64.2 2.51 6.3 3.57
high organic content. It was difficult to get intact
samples due to splitting along the bedding planes
As seen from the petrophysical testing the organic
probably from the coring process. After removal from
content is relatively high, in the range 3.5–7%. The clay
the liner the cores were stored in laboratory grade oil.
content comes mainly from Mica/Illite and Kaolonite.
Undrained compression tests (CIU) were performed with
The geomechanical testing gave an overview of the
angles 0, 60 and 90 degrees between sample axis and
material anisotropy both with respect to stiffness and
bedding normal. Also one drained compression test
strength. For the triaxial testing radial strains were
(CID) was performed to obtain effective stress
measured using a circumferential extensometer.
parameters. In addition one uniaxial compression test
However, it is recommended to use two independent
was carried out at downhole temperature (140 °C), at
radial measurements to fully describe the anisotropic
drained conditions. Four transient permeability tests on
properties.
thin shale discs were run with flow both normal to and
parallel with the bedding plane. The petrographical Elastic stiffness anisotropy was confirmed by acoustic
index testing included porosity, bulk and solid density logging of cores with different bedding orientations. In
measurements. general this shale material is strongly anisotropic,
especially for the elastic range. See Table 2 for a list of
For triaxial testing all samples were consolidated up to
interpreted elastic properties.
30 MPa pore pressure. The confining pressure was
ramped to 35, 40 and 50 MPa respectively to simulate a
range of downhole effective stress conditions. The
samples were left to consolidate for 18 hours overnight.

1
The mineral weight percentages are from whole rock.
 νtp: Out of plane Poisson’s ratio. Found from testing
Table 2: Effective stress based Young’s modulus (E’) and normal to bedding = (Δε3/Δε1). Can be found
Poisson’s ratio (ν) from testing. Isotropic behavior is assumed. “exactly” from triaxial test.
Orientation is the angle between normal to bedding and Gtp: Found from testing on inclined sample
sample axis.
Orientation Confining stress E’ ν
[MPa] [GPa] During undrained testing of shale the confining stress is
90 10 16.1 0.17 usually kept constant on a total stress basis. However the
90 20 14.1 0.14 effective confining stress is affected by the pore pressure
0 5 8.1 0.2 response. Consequently the anisotropic effective stress
0 10 6.1 0.15 parameters are difficult to obtain as the radial effective
0 102 5.2 0.2 stress changes. In [8] the relationships between drained
0 20 7.6 0.23 and undrained moduli in poroelasticity are discussed.
60 5 12.3 0.55
Testing showed that the shale behavior was strongly
anisotropic both with respect to strength and stiffness. In
The elastic properties given in Table 2 are based on the addition the temperature affected these parameters. This
assumption of isotropic behavior. There is no special was confirmed by comparing tests run at room
consideration with respect to bedding orientation relative temperature (20 °C) and downhole temperature (140 °C).
to loading direction. Values are found at 50% of peak In Table 3 below the interpreted UCS values are shown.
stress.

Table 3: Interpreted UCS strength values from laboratory

testing
θ=0 θ=90 Direction Orientation Temperature UCS
θ [°C ] [MPa]
Normal to bedding 0 20 75
Normal to bedding 0 140 55
Weak plane 60 20 35
1
2

2 1 3. MATERIAL MODELING
3 3 3.1. Constitutive formulation
In order to predict allowable underpressure during
Figure 2:Triaxial testing of samples with different loading to drilling it was decided to use numerical simulations. A
bedding plane orientations. Loading normal to bedding is constitutive model [1] was implemented in the Finite
shown left and parallel bedding right. Element Program Abaqus [5].The model is able to
capture the anisotropy both in strength and stiffness. The
To fully describe anisotropic behavior the material well defined concept of CamClay is used as a
parameters need to be redefined. By adding a reference framework. By incorporating an anisotropic tensor the
bedding plane we get a transversal isotropic behavior. basic CamClay equations are modified. In the elastic
This implies that two more Poisson’s ratios and one domain a transversal isotropic (TI) formulation is
additional Young’s modulus are required. Figure 2 implemented requiring five independent parameters to
shows loading directions normal to and parallel to be defined.
bedding plane. In [4] is a procedure for determining the
anisotropic properties from triaxial tests is given.
The yield function is given as:
Et: Transversal Young’s modulus. Found from
⎛ g (θ )q orth ⎞
2
1
testing with loading normal to bedding (θ=0) ⎟ + 2 (p orth σ − p t + a ) − a 2 = 0 (1)
2
F (σ , ε p ) = ⎜
Ep: Parallel Young’s modulus. Found from testing ⎝ 2 M ⎠ b
with loading parallel to bedding (θ=90)
νpp: Bedding plane Poisson’s ratio. Found from where
testing parallel to bedding. =(-Δε3/Δε2).
1 T
2
CID test at downhole temperature qorth = σ Pσ (2)
2
 dε =
(λ − κ ) dpc'
p
v '
v pc (3)
v ⎛ ∂F ⎞
qorth : Transformed deviatoric stress i +1 i dλtr ⎜
(λ −κ ) ⎝ ∂σ ⎠
⎟
p c' = p c' e
P : Anisotropy matrix
M : Critical state line Here α and κ are non-dimensional soil constants
pt : Tensile strength describing the virgin loading and unloading-reloading
curves.
p orth σ : Transformed mean effective stress For numerical solution the model is written in Fortran
code and implemented in Abaqus as a user model. At
b : Shape parameter
material point level the implicit Backward Euler return
a : Preconsolidation parameter mapping algorithm is used [6]. The Backward Euler
method is favorable for large loading steps and in case of
curved yield surfaces.
P is an anisotropy matrix, see the Appendix for
more information. The other model parameters are
shown in Figure 3.

p’
Figure 4: Illustration of the Backward Euler for an elastic trial
stress σe.

A Newton-Raphson iteration scheme is used to solve the

a β equations. Three sets of residual are introduced. Y1 are
the stress equations, Y2 is the yield function while Y3
pt pc describes the hardening law.

t + Δt
∂F
Figure 3: Yield surface for anisotropic model [1]. Y1 = σ t + Δt − σ e + ΔλD
∂σ
2
⎛ g (θ )qorth t + Δt ⎞
In the deviatoric plane the model incorporates the Y2 = ⎜⎜
2M
1
( ) 2
⎟ + 2 p orth t + Δt σ − pt + a − a 2
⎟ b
(4)

intermediate principal strain by using a Lode angle ⎝ ⎠

v ∂f
dependency. A smooth surface is defined, which −
λ −κ
Δλ
∂p
Y3 = pc − pc0e
improves the numerical efficiency.
Hardening of the model is controlled through the
preconsolidation stress. A traditional hardening law is
used relating the preconsolidation stress change to the
development of volumetric strain, dε vp .
3.2. Calibration In Figure 5 the results from triaxial tests at different
The material model was calibrated against drained and inclination angles are shown. Also the interpreted yield
partially undrained triaxial tests at different confining curves for the anisotropic model are shown. The weak
pressures and inclinations. Main emphasize was put on plane curve (blue dashed) is calibrated against test
stiffness and strength representation. results for 60 degrees inclination.
Based on the laboratory testing the stiffnesses were
found both at room and downhole temperatures. The Table 5: Anisotropic matrix parameters
downhole undrained transversal stiffness (Et) is found to Parameter Value
be 57% of the stiffness at room temperature. The UCS α4 0.19
value is reduced by 26%. In Table 4 and Table 5 the α5 0.34
model parameters are given. The stiffness values are α6 0.34
corrected for downhole conditions. α7 0.58
α8 4.84
α9 4.84
Table 4: Interpreted model parameters at downhole
temperature
Parameter Value In Figure 6 to Figure 10 numerical simulations in
Et (room/downhole) 9000/5200 MPa Abaqus are compared with laboratory test results. All
Ep (room) 18900/10920 MPa tests are run at room temperature (20°C) expect for the
νp 0.17 drained test which has downhole temperature
νtp 0.14 (140°C).From the true stress paths are seen that the
Initial void ratio, e0 0.063 effective mean stress increases in the near elastic range.
M 0.6 Also the volumetric strain is non-zero. This could
B 0.3 indicate that fully undrained conditions are not satisfied.
Pt -20 MPa Consequently, in the simulations the water bulk modulus
Pc 280 MPa
is reduced from 2.1 GPa to 0.5 GPa to simulate partially
undrained behaviour.
The strength anisotropy is introduced by using an The plots show that the numerical model is fully able to
anisotropy matrix P. In order to calibrate the matrix the capture the true shale behaviour. Loading normal to
UCS values in Table 3 are used. bedding is well simulated both for drained and undrained
case. For the drained case (Figure 7) the stress-strain
curves compares well and the volumetric strain is also
150 well captured. For partially undrained conditions the
140
130 θ=90°
stiffness is higher, and the volumetric strain is reduced
(Figure 6). As expected, loading parallel to bedding
Deviatoric stress q [MPa]

120
110 θ =0°
100 (Figure 8) gives increased stiffness compared with the
90
80 normal to bedding simulation. However the simulated
70
60 volumetric strain is underpredicted, due to lower radial
θ =60°
50
40
strains compared to true behavior.
30
20 The summary plot of all three directions (θ=0º,60º and
10
0 90º) clearly show the transversal isotropic behavior both
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15
0 0 0 0 0 0 in stiffness and strength. All three tests give a softening
Effective mean stress p' [MPa] response post peak. This is due to the associated flow
Isotropic Camclay line 0 degrees fit rule and that the peak stress is reached at effective mean
90 degrees fit 60 degrees fit
0 degrees 90 degrees stress levels well below pc/2. The consolidation stress
60 degrees
level is lower for θ=60°.
Figure 5: Calibrated failure surfaces. Curves are calibrated
against lab test and UCS values. The UCS values are corrected
for downhole temperatures.
 -120
-100

Model
-90
-100
-80

Axial effective stress [MPa]

Axial effective stress [MPa]

-70 -80 Model

-60

-60
-50
Lab test

-40
-40
Lab test
-30

-20 -20

-10
Radial Axial
Radial Axial 0
0
3% 2% 1% 0% -1 % -2 % -3 %
2% 1% 0% -1 % -2 %
Strains
Strains

Deviatoric strain Deviatoric strain

0.0 % -0.5 % -1.0 % -1.5 % -2.0 % 0.0 % -0.5 % -1.0 % -1.5 % -2.0 % -2.5 % -3.0 %
0.0 % 0.0 %

-0.1 % -0.2 %
Model
Lab test
-0.2 %
Volumetric strain
Volumetric strain

-0.4 % Model

-0.3 %
-0.6 %
-0.4 %

-0.8 %
-0.5 %
Lab test
-1.0 %
-0.6 %

-0.7 % -1.2 %

Figure 6: Undrained triaxial test loading perpendicular to Figure 7: Drained triaxial test perpendicular to bedding
bedding (θ=0˚). Room temperature conditions (20°C). (θ=0°). Downhole temperature conditions (140°C).
Consolidation stress 20 MPa. Axial stress versus axial/radial Consolidation stress 10 MPa. Axial stress vs. axial/radial
strain (top) and deviatoric strain versus volumetric strain strain (top) and volumetric strain vs. deviatoric strain
(bottom). (bottom).
 -140 -60

-120 Model -50

Axial effective stress [MPa]

Axial effective stress [MPa]

-100 Model
-40

-80

-30
Lab test
-60
Lab test
-20
-40

-10
-20

Radial Axial Radial Axial

0 0
2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.0 % -0.5 % -1.0 % -1.5 % -2.0 % 3% 2% 1% 0% -1 % -2 % -3 %
Strains Strains

Deviatoric strain Deviatoric strain

-0.1 % -0.3 % -0.5 % -0.7 % -0.9 % -1.1 % -1.3 % -1.5 % 0.0 % -0.2 % -0.4 % -0.6 %
0.2 %
-0.01 %
0.1 %

0.0 % -0.03 % Lab test

-0.1 %
Volumetric strain

Volumetric strain

-0.05 %
Model
-0.2 %
-0.07 %
-0.3 %
Lab test
-0.4 % -0.09 % Model

-0.5 %
-0.11 %
-0.6 %
-0.13 %
-0.7 %

-0.8 % -0.15 %

Figure 8: Undrained triaxial test parallel to bedding (θ=90°). Figure 9: Undrained triaxial test inclined to bedding. Angle
Room temperature conditions (20°C). Consolidation stress 20 between loading axis and normal to bedding plane is θ=60º.
MPa. Axial stress vs. axial/radial strain (top) and volumetric Room temperature conditions (20°C). Consolidation stress 5
strain vs. deviatoric strain (bottom). MPa. Axial stress vs. axial/radial strain (top) and volumetric
strain vs. deviatoric strain (bottom).
 -140
q
-120

θ=90° D=0
Axial effective stress [MPa]

-100

θ=0°
-80

-60
D<0 D>0
-40
θ=60°

-20
0
2% 1% 0%
Strains
Figure 10: Plot of undrained triaxial tests with bedding angles
(θ) 0º, 60º and 90º.
3.3. Undrained response of transverse isotropic
material
The laboratory tests showed that during assumed
undrained conditions the effective mean stress was
changing also in the elastic domain. This could be an
indication of dilatancy, i.e. a pore pressure development
due to undrained shear loading. However for this lab
testing program the reason is probably partially drained
conditions during testing. This could be due to low shear
rates or that the valves were not fully closed.
p’
-1 % -2 % Figure 11: Change in mean effective stress (p’) from
undrained shear loading (q).
For TI materials it is observed an implicit dilatancy
behavior through the Poisson’s ratios and Young’s
modulus. In other words the effective mean stress
change during undrained shear loading depends on the
relative Poisson’s ratios and Young’s modulus.
In order to explain the undrained Poisson’s effect, the
loading perpendicular to bedding (θ=0) was studied in
detail. For undrained loading we have the requirement of
zero volume change.
Δε v = 0 (6)

As the peak strength is stress path dependent, this

implies that the dilatancy will have an important role for By using the general relationship of an elastic TI
fully undrained numerical capacity analyses using peak medium we get following relationship between changes
strength. in deviatoric stress q and mean effective stress p′ for
undrained conditions.
From a theoretical point of view the traditional elastic
theory gives no coupling between the volumetric and
shear components. 2ν tp 2ν pν tp
− + 1 − 4ν tp
A simple approach [7] is given by: Δq ν pt ν pt
=3 (7)
Δu = Δp − DΔq (5) Δp ' 2ν tp 2ν pν tp
− + 2ν tp − 2
ν pt ν pt
Where u is the pore pressure, p total means stress and q
deviatoric stress. D is the elastic dilatancy parameter. The range of Poisson’s values is limited by the positive
definite of the compatibility matrix, meaning that we
might have negative Poissons values.
The same relationship has been studied by Wood [9],
showing that the relative Young’s modulus mainly
determines the effective stress path. This can also been
seen in Eq. (7) as the Poisson ratios vtp and vpt are given
by:
ν tp ν pt
= ( 8)
Ep Eo

If the soil is stiffer vertically (Et>Ep) we obtain D>0,

while for a larger horizontal stiffness (Et<Ep) the stress
path is D<0.
For a traditional layered shale the latter is often the case
(Et<Ep), meaning that we numerically will have a
contractant behavior in the elastic domain for a fully
undrained behavior. This could underestimate the
strength significantly. And care should be taken when
choosing the appropriate stiffness values. Figure 12: Horizontal borehole parallel to bedding. Isotropic
horizontal stress condition. Shear failure zones shown.

4. BOREHOLE STABILITY SIMULATIONS

As part of the geomechanical study on this HPHT field it
was decided to perform borehole stability calculations.
Both a numerical model with the anisotropic properties
and an analytical approach was implemented. One of the
main issues was to investigate underbalanced drilling.
This includes estimation of allowable borehole
underpressure as a function of borehole inclination and
direction.
For the analytical approach well failure was defined at
yield initiation for the most critical material point. Time
dependent effects were not evaluated.
The numerical study included time effects, where a 10 Figure 13: Horizontal borehole parallel to bedding. Isotropic
days period of consolidation was included after drilling. horizontal stress condition. Tensile failure zones shown.
Allowable underpressure was found by requiring
stability during this period. The critical underpressure was found by tracking the
An 8.5 inch hole was modeled with plane strain borehole deformations (Figure 14). For small
conditions. Pore pressure elements were used for the underpressure values the behavior is elastic and a
shale material. The drilling was simulated by removing straight line is observed. However as plasticity is
the hole elements in an undrained step. In the next step a mobilized the load-deformation line becomes non-linear,
consolidation time of 10 days was used to investigate the and the intersection point defined the critical
allowable underpressure after drilling. underpressure.

Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the local plastified shear

and tensile zones respectively. A horizontal borehole is
simulated with vertical effective stress of 7.26 MPa and
isotropic horizontal stress equal to 5.26 MPa.
Permeability was set to 3.26 nD with the same properties
in all directions.
 implemented. Such shear banding mechanisms are part
1.0E-03 of the future model development. For numerical
9.0E-04 undrained stress simulations it is important to take into
8.0E-04 consideration the effect of stiffness anisotropy. For
7.0E-04
highly anisotropic materials the elastic undrained stress
deformation [m]

6.0E-04
paths will be different from isotropic materials.
5.0E-04 Although the numbers from the analytical and numerical
4.0E-04 approach are slightly different, the study gives
3.0E-04 confidence in the conclusion that balanced drilling
2.0E-04 (drilling fluid pressure = pore pressure) is not limited by
1.0E-04 well inclination.
0.0E+00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Should underbalanced drilling of the shale be required, it
Underbalance pressure[MPa] is recommended to do a separate and more in-depth
study of the zones where this is planned.
A detailed data collection program is recommended for
Figure 14: Deformation at borehole wall as a function of the first production well.
underpressure (horizontal axis). Critical underpressure is
defined at the intersection point from linear to non-linear
curve.
WELLBORE STABILITY

-200

-180

-160
Critical underpressure [Bar]

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Well inclination [deg]

Figure 15: Critical underpressure as a function of well

inclination. Vertical well is 0º inclination.

In Figure 15 the critical underpressure as a function of

well inclination is found. For horizontal wells the critical
underpressure is 20 bar. However, no potential chemical
effects due to interaction between the drilling fluid and
the shale are evaluated here.

5. CONCLUSION
An extensive study is carried out to investigate the
borehole stability for this HPHT field. The effect of
anisotropy was tested by using analytical and numerical
modeling. The effect is most pronounced when drilling
at high inclination angles near parallel to the bedding. A
mixture of failure modes may then appear.
The numerical model is able to capture the effect of
anisotropy both in stiffness and strength. However the
softening is limited to certain stress path, and the local
strain effects at large deformation is yet to be
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to thank StatoilHydro for supporting
and giving permission to write this paper. Also the
extensive laboratory work carried out at SINTEF
Petroleum Research is appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Crook A.J.L., Jian Guo Yu, S.M. Wilson m
2002. Development of an Orthotropic 3D
Elastoplastic Material Model for Shale,
SPE/ISRM 78238
2. Fjær, E., P. Horsrud , R.M. Holt, A.M. Raaen,
R. Risnes, 2008. Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics 2nd edition. Elsevier B.V.
3. Schellekens J.C.J., R. De Borst, 1990. The use
of the Hoffmann yield criterion in finite element
analysis of anisotropic composites. Computers
and Structures vol 37 No 6.
4. Oka F., S. Kimoto, H. Kobayashi, T. Adachi
2003. An elasto-plastic consitutive model for
soft sedimentary rock. 16th ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conference July 16–18.
5. SIMULIA, ABAQUS v.6.7.EF1. 2007
6. Sluys L.J. Computational Methods in Non-linear
Solid Mechanics. 1999. Koiter Institute Delft.
Delft University of Technology.
7. Janbu N. Grunnlag i geoteknikk, 2nd edition
1989. Tapir forlag. Norwegian Institute of
Technology.
8. Loret B., R. Egidio, Z. Zohra, 2001. Relations
between drained and undrained moduli in
anisotropic poroelasticity. Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids 40, 2593–
2619.
9. Wood D.M. 1990. Soil Behaviour and critical
state soil mechanics. Cambridge University
Press.
APPENDIX

ANISOTROPY MATRIX
The anisotropy matrix is controlling the deviatoric
strength anisotropy at different inclinations.

⎛Ω 0 ⎞
P = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 0 Γ⎠

⎡2(α 4 + α 6 ) − 2α 4 − 2α 6 ⎤
⎢
Ω = ⎢ − 2α 4 2(α 4 + α 5 ) − 2α 5 ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ − 2α 6 − 2α 5 2(α 5 + α 6 )⎥⎦

⎡6α 7 0 0 ⎤
Γ = ⎢⎢ 0 6α 8 0 ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 6α 9 ⎥⎦