ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using the

Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion
A.M. Al-Ajmia,b, R.W. Zimmermana,
a
Division of Engineering Geology and Geophysics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 10044, Sweden
b
Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Accepted 5 April 2006
Available online 8 June 2006

Abstract

A main aspect of wellbore stability analysis is the selection of an appropriate rock failure criterion. The most commonly used criterion
for brittle failure of rocks is the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. This criterion involves only the maximum and minimum principal stresses, s1
and s3, and therefore assumes that the intermediate stress s2 has no influence on rock strength. As the Mohr–Coulomb criterion ignores
the strengthening effect of the intermediate stress, it is expected to be too conservative in estimating the critical mud weight required to
maintain wellbore stability. Recently, Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [Relationship between the parameters of the Mogi and Coulomb failure
criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42(3):431–39.] developed the Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion, and showed that it is reasonably
accurate in modelling polyaxial failure data from a variety of rocks. We then develop a model for the stability of vertical boreholes, using
linear elasticity theory to calculate the stresses, and the fully-polyaxial Mogi–Coulomb criterion to predict failure. Our model leads to
easily computed expressions for the critical mud weight required to maintain wellbore stability.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Failure criteria; Mogi failure criterion; Drucker–Prager failure criterion; Polyaxial test data; Wellbore stability

1. Introduction The most frequently used failure criterion is the

During drilling, there are two main wellbore stability
problems, namely, borehole collapse and fracturing. These
stability problems can lead to the need for fishing, stuck
pipe, reaming operations, sidetracking, and cause lost
circulation. The precursor of such drilling problems can be
often eliminated by a proper determination of the critical
mud pressures. This is typically carried out using a
constitutive model to estimate the stresses around the
wellbore, coupled with a failure criterion. Among the
numerous proposed models in the literature, a linear elastic
and isotropic constitutive model, in conjunction with a
linear failure criterion, is perhaps the most common
approach.
Corresponding author. Division of Engineering Geology and Geo-
physics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tel.: +46 8790 7906; fax: +46 8790 6810.
E-mail address: robertzi@kth.se (R.W. Zimmerman).
Mohr–Coulomb criterion. This criterion implicitly assumes
that the intermediate principal stress has no influence on
rock strength. As the intermediate stress may supply
additional strengthening to the rock, the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion is expected to be too conservative in estimating
the critical mud pressure required to maintain a stable
wellbore. In contrast to the assumptions of the Mohr–
Coulomb criterion, much evidence has been accumulating
to suggest that s2 does indeed have a strengthening
effect [1–7].
Numerous researchers have found situations in which
the Mohr–Coulomb criterion was deficient. Vernik and
Zoback [8] found that using the Mohr–Coulomb criterion
to relate borehole breakout dimensions to the in situ
stresses in crystalline rocks did not provide realistic results.
Therefore, they recommended the use of a failure criterion
that accounts for the influence of s2 on rock strength. Song
and Haimson [9] conducted laboratory tests of borehole
breakouts in Westerly granite and Berea sandstone, and
compared the observed breakouts to different failure

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.04.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
criteria. They concluded that Mohr–Coulomb criterion is
not applicable to the analysis of breakout formation,
whereas criteria that include the strengthening effect of s2,
such as the Mogi criterion, were in better agreement with
the experimental observations. Ewy [10] concluded that for
the purpose of calculating the critical mud weight required
to maintain a stable wellbore, Mohr–Coulomb is too
conservative, due to ignoring the strengthening effect of s2.
Single and co-workers [11] pointed out that the effect of s2
is important in underground excavations, and so they also
suggested a modification to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
There are a number of numerical models that highlight
the impact of s2 on rock strength. Zhou [12] developed a
numerical model to determine the borehole breakout
dimensions based on various rock failure criteria. He
found that the Mohr–Coulomb criterion tends to predict
larger breakouts than are predicted by criteria that
incorporate the effect of s2. Recently, Fjaer and Ruistuen
[13] developed a numerical model to simulate rock failure
tests for a granular material. Their simulations showed that
s2 has an influence on rock strength that is in rough
agreement with several previously published sets of
experimental data.
In order to account for the impact of s2 on strength,
several 3D rock failure criteria have been developed.
Wiebols and Cook [14] derived a failure criterion by
calculating the shear strain energy associated with micro-
cracks in the material. This model predicts a strengthening
effect of s2, but it requires the knowledge of the coefficient
of sliding friction between crack surfaces—a parameter
that cannot be determined experimentally. Furthermore,
numerical methods are required for implementation of this
criterion. Desai and Salami [15] introduced a 3D failure
criterion that requires more than six input parameters, and
Michelis [16] proposed another criterion in which four
constants are involved [17,18, p. 112]. In general, 3D failure
criteria that contain numerous parameters, or which
require numerical evaluation, are difficult to apply in
practice, particularly for wellbore stability problems.
When it is intended to consider the influence of s2 on
rock strength in wellbore stability analyses, the Druck-
er–Prager failure criterion is often used. This criterion is
simple, in that it contains only two fitting parameters.
However, this failure criterion has been reported to
overestimate the intermediate principal stress effect, which
may result in nonsensical stability predictions [10,19].
Recently, Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [20] introduced a 3D
failure criterion called the Mogi–Coulomb criterion. This
failure criterion is a linear failure envelope in the Mogi
domain (toct-sm,2 space; explained further below), and the
two parameters that appear in were shown to be directly
and simply related to the two Coulomb strength para-
meters, the cohesion and the friction angle. The Mogi–
Coulomb criterion neither ignores the strengthening effect
of s2, as is done by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, nor does
it predict a strength as unrealistically high as does the
Drucker–Prager criterion.
1201
Although both the Drucker–Prager and the Mogi–
Coulomb failure criteria attempt to represent the failure
surface of a material, they do so in different mathematical
sub-spaces of the full three-dimensional space of principal
stresses. In this paper, we first elaborate the fundamental
difference between these two criteria. We then examine
published polyaxial test data for a variety of lithologies,
and assess the applicability of the Drucker–Prager criterion
in representing failure under polyaxial stress states. After
showing that the Mogi–Coulomb criterion is in general
preferable to the Drucker–Prager criterion, we then use it
to develop a new analytical model to estimate the mud
pressure required to avoid borehole collapse and fracturing
in vertical boreholes. This is achieved by using linear elastic
theory for the stresses, and the Mogi–Coulomb criterion to
predict failure. The model leads to easily computed
expressions for calculating the critical mud weight required
to maintain wellbore stability.
2. Stresses around a vertical wellbore
To assess the potential mechanical instability of a
borehole, a constitutive model is needed in order to
compute the stresses around the borehole. The literature
is rich with such constitutive models. Westergaard [21]
published one of the early works contributing to the
knowledge of stress distributions around a borehole, in
which an elasto-plastic model was developed. After that,
many elasto-plastic models have been published [22–25].
On the other hand, there were other efforts to develop a
linear elastic constitutive model [26–29]. Out of the
numerous published models, linear elastic analysis may
be the most common approach. This is in part due to its
requirement of fewer input parameters, as compared to
other, more complicated, models.
Drilling a borehole will alter the in situ principal stresses,
the vertical stress (sv) and the maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses (sH and sh), in a manner so as to
maintain the rock mass in a state of equilibrium. This leads
to a stress concentration around the well. In a linear elastic
material, the largest stress concentration occurs at the
borehole wall. Therefore, borehole failure is expected to
initiate there. For wellbore instability analysis, conse-
quently, stresses at the borehole wall are the ones that must
be compared against a failure criterion. According to the
Kirsch solution, the stresses at a vertical borehole wall are
given by [18]:
sr ¼ Pw ,
sy ¼ sH þ sh
2ðsH
sh Þ cos 2y
Pw ,
sz ¼ sv
2nðsH
sh Þ cos 2y, ð1Þ
where sr is the radial stress, sy is the tangential stress, sz is
the axial stress, Pw is the internal wellbore pressure, and n is
the Poisson ratio of the rock. The angle y is measured
clockwise from the sH direction (x-axis), as shown in
Fig. 1. Since there are no shear stresses, sr, sy and sz are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1202 A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
σv
y sz} that need to be investigated in order to determine the
σh
θ x
σH
z sr ¼ Pw ;
Fig. 1. Coordinate system for a vertical borehole.
principal stresses that can be directly introduced into a
failure criterion.
It is important to note that, as a result of applying the
drilling mud, a filter cake (‘‘mud cake’’) forms along the
borehole wall. This mud cake represents an impermeable
layer that prevents the mud from flowing into the
formation. Typically, the mud is chemically designed with
the consideration of forming an efficient mud cake that is
impermeable and does not react chemically with the rock
formation. Assuming that the mud has been properly
designed, although the fluid pressure acting along the
borehole wall will be equal to the mud pressure, Pw,
the fluid pressure inside the formation will still be equal to
the in situ pore pressure, P0. It is this latter pressure that
enters into the failure criterion when the effective stress law
is invoked (i.e., Eq. (15)).
According to Eq. (1), the tangential and axial stresses are
functions of the angle y. This angle indicates the orienta-
tion of the stresses around the wellbore circumference, and
varies from 0 to 3601. Consequently, the tangential and
axial stresses will vary sinusoidally. Inspection of Eq. (1)
reveals that both tangential and axial stresses reach a
maximum value at y ¼ p=2, and a minimum value at y ¼
0 or p. These critical positions remain the same for any
values of the in situ stresses (i.e., any values of sv, sH and
sh). Hence, we know a priori that failure can occur only at
these points.
The tangential and radial stresses in Eq. (1), sy and sr,
are functions of the mud pressure, Pw, but the vertical
stress sz is not. Hence, any change in the mud pressure will
only affect sy and sr. As was highlighted previously, at the
borehole wall there are two main stability problems during
drilling: shear failure in the form of borehole collapse or
breakout formation, and tensile failure represented by
hydraulic fracturing. Since we are concerned with
the changes in sy and sr with respect to Pw, there
consequently are two possible cases: either sy Xsr , or
sy psr , which are associated with collapse or fracturing,
respectively. When Pw increases (or equivalently, sr), sy
decreases towards the tensile strength. Therefore, the upper
limit of the mud pressure, Pwf, is associated with fracturing,
where sy should be less than sr. Considering this constraint
and the relative magnitude of the axial stress, there are
three permutations of the three principal stresses {sr, sy,
maximum allowable mud pressure: (1) sr Xsy Xsz , (2)
sr Xsz Xsy , and (3) sz Xsr Xsy . The tensile strength of the
rock will first be exceeded at y ¼ 0 or p, where the
tangential stress will have the smallest value. This means
that the hydraulic fracture will develop along the direction
of sH, and the corresponding three principal stresses at the
borehole wall are given by
sy ¼ D
Pw ; sz ¼ E, (2)
where D and E are given by
D ¼ 3sh
sH ; E ¼ sv
2nðsH
sh Þ. (3)
On the other hand, when Pw decreases, sy increases
towards the compressive strength. Thus, the lower limit of
the mud pressure, Pwb, is associated with borehole collapse,
in which sy should be greater than sr. Bearing in mind this
constraint, there are another three permutations of the
three principal stresses that need to be investigated in order
to determine the minimum allowable mud pressure: (1)
sz Xsy Xsr , (2) sy Xsz Xsr , and (3) sy Xsr Xsz . The
compressive strength of the rock will first be exceeded at
the position associated with the maximum value of sy or sz
(i.e., y ¼ p=2), and so the corresponding principal
stresses at the borehole wall become
sr ¼ Pw ; sy ¼ A
Pw ; sz ¼ B, (4)
where A and B are given by
A ¼ 3sH
sh ; B ¼ sv þ 2nðsH
sh Þ. (5)
3. Rock failure criteria
There are numerous failure criteria that have been
developed. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the simplest,
and the most used in practice. This failure criterion
proposes that shear failure takes place when the shear
stress on some plane, t, overcomes both the natural
cohesion of the rock plus the frictional force that opposes
motion along the failure plane. It predicts that the shear
strength linearly increases with the normal stress, sn, that
acts on the failure plane. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion can
be expressed in terms of the maximum and minimum
principal stresses, s1 and s3:
s1 ¼ C 0 þ qs3 , (6)
where C0, the uniaxial compressive strength, and q can be
related to the cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction
(f) by
q ¼ tan2 ðp=4 þ f=2Þ; C o ¼ 2c cos f=ð1
sin fÞ. (7)
The criterion can be also written in terms of the
maximum shear stress, tmax, and the ‘‘effective mean
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
stress’’, sm,2 [30, p. 98]:
tmax ¼ c cos f þ sin fsm;2 ,
where
tmax ¼ ðs1
s3 Þ=2; sm;2 ¼ ðs1 þ s3 Þ=2.
The Mohr–Coulomb criterion, as per Eq. (8), predicts that
the maximum shear strength linearly increases with the
mean normal stress that resists the creation of a fracture
plane, sm,2 [20].
The Drucker–Prager criterion was initially developed for
soil mechanics [31]. It is expressed in terms of principal
stresses as
toct ¼ k þ msoct ,
where toct is the octahedral shear stress and soct is the
octahedral normal stress, defined by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
toct ¼ 13 ðs1
s2 Þ2 þ ðs2
s3 Þ2 þ ðs3
s1 Þ2 ,
soct ¼ ðs1 þ s2 þ s3 Þ=3,
and k and m are material constants that can be estimated
from the intercept and slope of the failure envelope plotted
in (toct–soct) space.
For polyaxial stress states, Mogi [4] verified experi-
mentally that brittle fracture always occurs along a
plane striking in the s2 direction. He also found that
the intermediate principal stress indeed has a streng-
thening effect. Mogi concluded that the mean normal
stress that opposes the creation of the fracture plane
is sm,2, rather than the octahedral normal stress, soct,
as the fracture plane strikes in the s2 direction.
Subsequently, Mogi suggested a new failure criterion of
the form
toct ¼ f ðsm;2 Þ,
where f is some monotonically increasing function.
Furthermore, Mogi verified experimentally that rock yield,
which occurs throughout the entire volume prior to total
failure, is a function of soct. As per Mogi’s work, therefore,
we see that the Drucker–Prager criterion is a linear yield
criterion that should not be used as a fracture criterion.
The Mogi failure function f is usually taken to be a
nonlinear, power-law function. Such a failure function has
been criticized because its parameters cannot be easily
related to the Coulomb strength parameters, c and f [32].
In part to circumvent this problem, and also to simplify
subsequent wellbore stability analysis, Al-Ajmi and Zim-
merman [20] proposed taking f to be a linear function,
toct ¼ a þ bsm;2 .
For traditional triaxial stress states with s2 ¼ s3 , this linear
Mogi criterion reduces to the Coulomb criterion, as can be
seen from Eqs. (8) and (13). As expression (13) is an
extension of the linear Coulomb criterion into the Mogi
stress domain (toct, sm,2), they referred to it as the
‘‘Mogi–Coulomb’’ failure criterion. They then showed that
the parameters a and b can be related exactly to the
1203
Coulomb strength parameters, as follows:
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
(8) 2 2 2 2
a¼ c cos f; b ¼ sin f. (14)
3 3
(9) For triaxial stress states, in which either s2 ¼ s3 or s1 ¼ s2 ,
the Mogi–Coulomb criterion is equivalent to the Mohr–
Coulomb criterion. Consequently, the Mogi–Coulomb
criterion can be thought of a natural extension of the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion into the polyaxial stress domain.
4. Analysis of polyaxial failure data
In rock mechanics laboratories, conventional triaxial
(10) stress tests are frequently performed to study rock failure.
This procedure is based on the assumption that triaxial test
data can represent rock fracture under general stress states
ðs1 Xs2 Xs3 Þ. It is not a priori certain that this will be
possible, but the extent to which it can lead to reasonable
fits to polyaxial data will depend on the algebraic form of
ð11Þ the failure law that is chosen.
The Drucker–Prager failure criterion was developed
approximately 20 years before the construction of the first
apparatus that allowed polyaxial tests to be conducted on
rocks. It corresponds to a linear function in (toct, soct)
space, as shown by Eq. (10). We now examine the ability of
the Drucker–Prager criterion, with the parameters chosen
based on triaxial test data, to represent polyaxial test data,
using the data assembled in [20].
Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [20] tried to locate as many
data sets as possible in which rocks were loaded to failure
under polyaxial conditions. Seven such data sets were
found: Dunham dolomite [4], Solenhofen limestone [4,33],
Mizuho trachyte [4], coarse-grained dense marble [34,35],
Shirahama sandstone [5], KTB amphibolite [36], and
(12) Westerly granite [6]. The individual stress values can be
found in tabular form in [20]. The polyaxial test data of
these rocks are also available in tabular form in [32,37].
In Fig. 2, the triaxial test data (black circles), for which
s2 ¼ s3 , are plotted in toct–soct space. Also shown are
the best-fitting linear models (solid lines), along with
the Drucker–Prager strength parameters, k and m,
and the correlation coefficients, r2. For all seven rocks,
the Drucker–Prager failure parameters are determined with
very high r2 values. To check the ability of Drucker–Prager
to extend a triaxial failure law into the polyaxial regime, the
polyaxial test data are then superimposed (empty circles) on
the plots in (toct,soct) space. Although these Drucker–Prager
models were fit to the triaxial data with high r2 values, in
general they cannot represent failure in the polyaxial stress
(13)
regime, where they generally overestimate the strength. The
one exception was marble (Fig. 2f), for which the Drucker–
Prager criterion did provide a good fit for the polyaxial data.
These results are consistent with those from field case
studies, where the Drucker–Prager criterion has been
reported as a good model in some cases [38,39] and
unrealistic one in others [19,40]. Accordingly, a linear failure
criterion in (toct,soct) space (i.e., the Drucker–Prager
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1204 A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211

400 300
Dunham Dolomite Solenhofen Limestone
k = 72.679 MPa k = 118.83 MPa
m = 0.6737 m = 0.3979
300 2
r2 = 0.9853 200 r = 0.9776

τoct (MPa)

τoct (MPa)
200

100
100

0 0
0 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 500
(a) σoct (MPa) (b) σoct (MPa)

200 150
Mizuho Trachyte Shirahama Sandstone
k = 37.223 MPa k = 38.798 MPa
150 m = 0.5894 m = 0.4507
2 2
r = 0.9637 100 r = 0.9093
τoct (MPa)

τoct (MPa)
100

50
50

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 50 100 150 200

(c) σoct (MPa) (d) σoct (MPa)

800 150
KTB Amphibolite Marble
k = 35.094 MPa k = 12.336 MPa
600 m = 0.9185 m = 0.7264
2 100 2
r = 0.996 r = 0.9978
τoct (MPa)

τoct (MPa)

400

50
200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 50 100 150 200
(e) σoct (MPa) (f) σoct (MPa)

600
Westerly Granite
500 k = 32.434 MPa
m = 1.002
2
400 r = 0.9984
τoct (MPa)

300

200

100

0
0 200 400 600
(g) σoct (MPa)

Fig. 2. The Drucker–Prager failure criterion, fitted to triaxial data, and then compared to polyaxial test data: (a) Dunham dolomite; (b) Solenhofen
limestone; (c) Mizuho trachyte; (d) Shirahama sandstone; (e) KTB amphibolite; (f) marble; (g) Westerly granite.

criterion) based on triaxial test data, is not generally examples, for comparison with the Drucker–Prager results.
representative of the polyaxial stress regime, where it will If the triaxial data for Dunham dolomite and Solenhofen
usually overestimate the rock strength. limestone are fit to the Mogi–Coulomb failure law (Fig. 3),
In contrast, it was shown in [20] that if the Mogi– the polyaxial data (open circles) fall very close to the line
Coulomb criterion is fitted to triaxial data, this same that was fit to the triaxial data (solid circles).
function fits the polyaxial failure data quite well. We will It was actually found in [20] that the best-fitting failure
not repeat this analysis here in full, but show two typical model for the seven sets of published polyaxial data was a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211 1205

400 300
Dunham Dolomite Solenhofen Limestone
a = 58.32 a = 103.95
300 b = 0.5454 b = 0.3497
r2 = 0.9904 200 r2 = 0.9828
τoct (MPa)

τoct (MPa)
200

100
100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400
(a) σm,2 (MPa) (b) σm,2 (MPa)

Fig. 3. Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion, fitted to triaxial data (solid circles), and then compared to polyaxial test data (open circles); same data as in
Fig. 2. (a) Dunham dolomite. (b) Solenhofen limestone.

power law in the Mogi stress domain. However, the Table 1

Mohr–Coulomb criterion for collapse pressure in vertical wellbores
superiority of the power law over the linear model was very
slight: the mean value of r2 for the linear fits was 0.976, Case s1 Xs2 Xs3 Borehole failure will occur if Pw pPwb ,
whereas it was 0.982 for the power-law fits. Moreover, for where Pwb is given by
those data sets, deviations from linearity tended to occur at
1 sz Xsy Xsr Pwb1 ¼ ðB
CÞ=q
stresses above 200 MPa, which are generally not of interest 2 sy Xsz Xsr Pwb2 ¼ ðA
CÞ=ð1 þ qÞ
for wellbore stability analysis of conventional oil and gas 3 sy Xsr Xsz Pwb3 ¼ A
C
qB
wells. Colmenares and Zoback [32] also fitted several
models to many of these same data sets, and found the
power-law and linear failure envelopes had almost the
same goodness of fit, again with a slight preference
observed for the power-law model. this model in some detail.) If we consider the conventional
Our decision to use a linear failure envelope does not effective stress concept, the Mohr–Coulomb criterion
imply that non-linear failure envelopes are not useful in becomes
certain situations. The need for non-linear failure criteria, ðs1
P0 Þ ¼ C 0 þ qðs3
P0 Þ. (15)
particularly for weak rocks, is very well documented in the
literature. A linear failure criterion, however, is adequate in Rearranging Eq. (15), the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can be
wellbore stability analysis [10,41]. In particular, Song and expressed as
Haimson [9] verified experimentally that the linear Mogi s1 ¼ C þ qs3 , (16)
criterion, based on conventional triaxial test data, is
capable of modelling brittle failure at the borehole wall. where C is given by
Consequently, we can apply the Mogi–Coulomb criterion C ¼ C 0
P0 ðq
1Þ. (17)
to wellbore stability problems with some confidence that it
will be reasonably accurate for many rock types. Consider the first case of borehole collapse where
Moreover, the applicability of Mogi–Coulomb criterion sz Xsy Xsr , in the general case of s1 Xs2 Xs3 , where s1 ¼
even in the absence of true triaxial data does not mean that sz and s3 ¼ sr . Applying the Mohr–Coulomb failure
polyaxial tests are of no use. True-triaxial tests are indeed criterion as expressed by Eq. (16), and introducing Eq.
essential to gain a further understanding of failure behavior (4), the lower limit of the mud pressure corresponding to
and rock deformation in 3D. case 1, Pwb1, is given by
Pwb1 ¼ ðB
CÞ=q. (18)
5. Mohr–Coulomb borehole failure criterion If the well pressure falls below Pwb1 (i.e., Pw pPwb1 ), and
the relative magnitude of the principal stresses are as per
A ‘‘borehole failure criterion’’ refers to specifying the case 1, borehole collapse will take place. Following the
stress conditions under which borehole collapse (compres- same procedure, the minimum allowable mud pressure
sive failure) or fracturing (tensile failure) occur. In this corresponding to the other two cases are determined and
section, a borehole failure criterion will be developed using recorded in Table 1.
the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, Eq. (6). (Although Mohr– As has been stated, there are three situations in which
Coulomb has of course been used frequently for borehole borehole fracturing may occur. The upper limit of the mud
stability analysis, the results are usually not expressed in pressure should be calculated for each case. Regarding the
explicit algebraic form; hence, it is worthwhile to develop first case where sr Xsy Xsz , we will have s1 ¼ sr , and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1206 A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
Table 2
Mohr–Coulomb criterion for fracture pressure in vertical wellbores
Case s1 Xs2 Xs3 Borehole failure will occur if Pw XPwf ,
where Pwf is given by
1 sr Xsy Xsz Pwf1 ¼ C þ qE
2 sr Xsz Xsy Pwf2 ¼ ðC þ qDÞ=ð1 þ qÞ
3 sz Xsr Xsy Pwf3 ¼ ðC
EÞ=q þ D
s3 ¼ sz . Applying the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion,
Eq. (16), and introducing Eq. (2), the upper limit of the
mud pressure corresponding to case 1, Pwf1, becomes
Pwf1 ¼ C þ qE.
Borehole fracturing will occur if the well pressure rises
above Pwf1 (i.e., Pw XPwf1 ), and the relative magnitudes of
the principal stresses are as per case 1. Likewise, the
maximum allowable mud pressure corresponding to the
other cases are estimated and given in Table 2.
As the mud pressure decreases, the principal stresses will
alternate from one case to another. Borehole collapse will
only occur at the case that fulfills the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion. Therefore, the collapse pressures Pwb1, Pwb2,
Pwb3, as given in Table 1, should be used to recalculate the
principal stresses (sr, sy, sz) by applying Eq. (4), where
Pw ¼ Pwb . For each case, the principal stresses are then
substituted into Eq. (16). The lower limit of the mud
pressure is associated with the case in which the principal
stresses have satisfied the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
Similarly, for a given field conditions, one should
determine which fracture pressure (Table 2) will fulfill the
failure criterion.
In the field, generally, borehole collapse corresponds to
cases 1 and 2, where the radial stress is the minimum
principal stress. It would be advantageous if the mud
pressure related to these two common cases could be
determined from one single equation. The stress state in
these cases could be expressed as s1 Xs2 Xsr , where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
s1 ¼ ðsy þ sz Þ þ ðsy
sz Þ2 ,
2 4
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
s2 ¼ ðsy þ sz Þ
ðsy
sz Þ2 . ð20Þ
2 4
By introducing Eqs. (20) and (4) into Eq. (16), the lower
limit of the mud pressure corresponding to these cases
becomes
pffiffiffiffi
Sþ R
Pwb ¼ , (21)
2ðq þ q2 Þ
where S and R are constants given by
S ¼ Aq
Cð1 þ 2qÞ þ Bð1 þ qÞ,
R ¼ B2 ð1 þ 2q þ q2 Þ
2ABðq þ q2 Þ

2BCð1 þ qÞ þ ðAq þ CÞ2 .
Furthermore, it is well known that the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion overestimates the tensile strength. In order to
study tensile failure, therefore, the Mohr–Coulomb criter-
ion should be used with a tensile cut-off. The tensile cut-off
is given by
s3
P0 ¼ T 0 , (23)
where T0 is the uniaxial tensile strength, and tensile
stresses are considered negative. In vertical boreholes,
we have assumed that the tangential principal stress
is the only tensile stress at the borehole wall. Therefore,
introducing Eq. (2) into Eq. (23) and rearranging, the
upper limit of the mud pressure as per the tensile cut-off is
given by
(19) Pwcutoff ¼ D
P0
T 0 . (24)
This mud pressure should be then compared with the value
of Pwf calculated from the equations given in Table 2, and
the lesser of these two values gives the maximum allowable
mud pressure.
6. Mogi–Coulomb borehole failure criterion
The strengthening effect of the intermediate principal
stress can be considered by applying the Mogi–Coulomb
law. In terms of the first and second stress invariants, I1
and I2, defined by
I 1 ¼ s 1 þ s2 þ s3 ; I 2 ¼ s1 s2 þ s2 s3 þ s3 s1 , (25)
and utilizing the effective stress concept, the Mogi–
Coulomb criterion can be expressed as
ðI 21
3I 2 Þ1=2 ¼ a0 þ b0 ðI 1
s2
2P0 Þ, (26)
where
a0 ¼ 2c cos f; b0 ¼ sin f. (27)
We have previously pointed out that there are six
permutations of the three principal stresses (sr,sy,sz) that
needed to be investigated. Since the first and second stress
invariants have the same form in all the cases, only the
intermediate principal stress will vary from one case to
another, as per Eq. (26). Consequently, the six permuta-
tions of the principal stresses can be represented by three
scenarios in which s2 could be sy, sz or sr. In each scenario
there will be two roots of the mud pressure, corresponding
to borehole collapse or fracturing.
The principal stresses at the borehole wall given by
Eq. (4) represent the highest stress concentration that may
result in compressive failure. By introducing Eq. (4) into
Eq. (25), the first and second stress invariants are then
defined by
I 1 ¼ A þ B; I 2 ¼ AB þ APw
P2w (28)
Consider the first scenario of borehole collapse, where s2 ¼
sy ¼ A
Pw and Pw ¼ Pwb1 . Implementing the Mogi–
Coulomb failure criterion as formulated by Eq. (26), and
ð22Þ introducing Eq. (28), gives
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðA þ BÞ2
3ðAB þ APwb1
P2wb1 Þ
bPwb1 ¼ K, (29)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211 1207

where At the borehole wall, the highest stress concentration

0 0
K ¼ a þ b ðB
2P0 Þ.
Solving this equation for Pwb1 will give two roots. Since we
are concerned with borehole collapse, the smaller root is
the lower limit of the mud pressure related to the first
scenario, that is,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3A þ 2b0 K
H þ 12ðK 2 þ b0 AKÞ
Pwb1 ¼
6
2b02
where
H ¼ A2 ð4b02
3Þ þ ðB2
ABÞð4b02
12Þ.
Similarly, the minimum allowable mud pressures corre-
sponding to the other stress states, and the related
constants, can be determined (Table 3).
that may result in tensile failure is consequent to the
(30)
principal stresses defined by Eq. (2). By inspection of this
equation and Eq. (4), the constants A and B in Eq. (4) have
been replaced by D and E, respectively, in Eq. (2).
Therefore, the upper limit of the mud pressure, Pwf, is
the larger root in the three scenarios of borehole collapse,
with the use of D and E as constants instead of A and B.
, (31) The maximum allowable mud pressure at different stress
states, and the corresponding constants, are given in
Table 4.
For each pair of collapse and fracture pressures, it is
(32)
essential to recalculate the principal stresses, using Eqs. (2)
and (4), and then substitute the stresses into Eq. (26). This
will allow us to know which stress state has occurred and,
at the same time, fulfill the failure criterion. The critical

Table 3
Mogi–Coulomb criterion for collapse pressure in vertical wellbores

Case s1 Xs2 Xs3 Borehole failure will occur if Pw pPwb , where Pwb is given by
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 sz Xsy Xsr 1 0
Pwb1 ¼ ð3A þ 2b KÞ
H þ 12ðK 2 þ b0 AKÞ
6
2b02
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 sy Xsz Xsr 1 1
Pwb2 ¼ A
12½a0 þ b0 ðA
2P0 Þ2
3ðA
2BÞ2
2 6
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 sy Xsr Xsz 1
Pwb3 ¼ 02
ð3A
2b0 GÞ
H þ 12ðG2
b0 AGÞ
6
2b

where
A ¼ 3sH
sh
B ¼ sv þ 2nðsH
sh Þ
H ¼ A2 ð4b02
3Þ þ ðB2
ABÞð4b02
12Þ
K ¼ a0 þ b0 ðB
2P0 Þ
G ¼ K þ b0 A

Table 4
Mogi–Coulomb criterion for fracture pressure in vertical wellbores

Case s1 Xs2 Xs3 Borehole failure will occur if Pw XPwf , where Pwf is given by
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 sr Xsy Xsz 1
Pwf1 ¼ 02
ð3D þ 2b0 NÞ þ J þ 12ðN 2 þ b0 DNÞ
6
2b
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 sr Xsz Xsy 1 1
Pwf2 ¼ D þ 12½a0 þ b0 ðD
2P0 Þ2
3ðD2EÞ2
2 6
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 sz Xsr Xsy 1
Pwf3 ¼ 02
ð3D
2b0 MÞ þ J þ 12ðM 2
b0 DMÞ
6
2b

where
D ¼ 3sh
sH
E ¼ sv
2nðsH
sh Þ
J ¼ D2 ð4b02
3Þ þ ðE 2
DEÞð4b02
12Þ
N ¼ a0 þ b0 ðE
2P0 Þ
M ¼ N þ b0 D
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1208 A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
mud pressures are then those for which the Mogi–Coulomb
criterion has been satisfied.
However, borehole collapse will usually be related to
cases 1 and 2, as highlighted in the previous section. For
case 1 to occur, we must have
sz
sy X0. (33)
Introducing Eq. (4) into Eq. (33) gives
sv XsH ð3
2nÞ þ sh ð2n
1Þ
Pw . (34)
Considering the practical range of Poisson’s ratio
(0–0.5), and the facts that the ratio of maximum horizontal
stress to minimum horizontal stress (sH/sh) ranges from 1
to 2, and that the collapse pressure will not exceed the
minimum in situ stress in Eq. (34), we see that the vertical
stress must be greater than the maximum horizontal stress
for case 1 to develop. Therefore, case 1 is only associated
with the normal faulting stress regime (i.e., sv XsH Xsh ).
Moreover, case 2 may develop in any stress regime. In the
field, consequently, case 2 (i.e., sy Xsz Xsr ) will be the most
commonly encountered stress state corresponding to bore-
hole collapse for all in situ stress regimes.
Furthermore, the uniaxial tensile strength estimated by
the Mogi–Coulomb criterion is exactly the same as that
estimated by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, since both
criteria are equivalent for a state of uniaxial tension.
Therefore, a tensile cut-off should also be introduced into the
Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion. We have assumed that the
same tensile cut-off which is conventionally used with
Mohr–Coulomb criterion can be applied in the Mogi
domain, in (toct-sm,2) space. Consequently, the upper limit
of the mud pressure defined by Eq. (24) should be introduced
into the Mogi–Coulomb borehole failure criterion.
7. Collapse pressure evaluations in typical field conditions
The key process in wellbore stability analysis is the
selection of a rock failure criterion. We have shown above
that the Mogi–Coulomb provides a realistic extension of
the two-dimensional Mohr–Coulomb criterion into the
polyaxial stress regime. By applying these two failure
criteria, we generate two different analytical models to
estimate the critical mud pressure. In this section, we will
highlight the difference in the predictions arising from use
of the Mohr–Coulomb and the Mogi–Coulomb borehole
failure criteria.
Consider a vertical wellbore drilled in a sandstone
formation from the Cyrus reservoir in the UK continental
shelf, at a depth of around 2600 m [19]. The sandstone has
a cohesion of 6 MPa and a friction angle of 43.81. The
vertical stress and the formation pore pressure gradients
are taken to be sv ¼ 22:6 kPa=m and P0 ¼ 10:2 kPa=m. In
this reservoir, the in situ horizontal stresses were not
measured. Therefore, McLean and Addis [19] arbitrarily
assumed both horizontal stress gradients to be equal to
17 kPa/m. Since the horizontal stresses are equal, Poisson’s
ratio (n) disappears from both borehole failure criteria. At
the depth of interest, using the Mohr–Coulomb borehole
failure criterion, Table 1 or Eq. (21), gives Pwb ¼ Pwb2 ¼
27; 632 kPa. Hence, the minimum overbalance pressure
(well pressure–pore pressure) is 1112 kPa. At the same
depth, the Mogi–Coulomb borehole failure criterion
(Table 3) gives Pwb ¼ Pwb2 ¼ 27; 015 kPa, and the mini-
mum overbalance pressure becomes 495 kPa. The two
borehole failure criteria, therefore, result in quite different
values for the collapse pressure. This is mainly due to the
existence of an intermediate principal stress that is not
equal to the minimum or maximum principal stress at the
wellbore wall.
At the same field conditions, if we assume a higher
horizontal stress gradient, say, 19 kPa/m, using the
Mohr–Coulomb and the Mogi–Coulomb criteria would
predict minimum overbalance pressures of 2713 and
229 kPa, respectively. In this case, Mohr–Coulomb criter-
ion predicted a very high overbalance pressure, compared
to the Mogi–Coulomb criterion. Hence, we see that the
analysis is very sensitive to the in situ stress values, as a
slight change in the horizontal stress gradient has
significantly influenced the predicted collapse pressure.
Consequently, a proper determination or prediction of the
in situ stresses is essential. In the examples presented, the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion is significantly conservative. This
is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the minimum overbalance
pressure versus depth is plotted for both of these failure
criteria. Fig. 4 also shows that the collapse pressure
increases with depth.
As another actual field example, the borehole failure
criteria have been applied to the Wanaea field in the
Northwest Shelf of Australia [42]. In this field, a vertical
borehole drilled through a shale formation at a depth of
about 2142 m where pore pressure is equal to 11.1 kPa/m.
The shale has cohesion of 3 MPa and a friction angle of
311. The stress regime in Wanaea field is on the boundary
between normal faulting and strike-slip [43], and the in situ
stresses could be taken as follows: sv ¼ sH ¼ 20:8 kPa=m,
sh ¼ 16:3 kPa=m [42]. The shale formation was drilled with
a mud density of 1.42 g/cm3, which resulted in significant
breakouts. Assuming that the shale has a Poisson’s ratio of
0.25, the minimum overbalance pressure versus depth is
plotted for both of these failure criteria in Fig. 5. It is
apparent that the actually-used mud pressure was not
appropriate, regardless of the applied failure criterion.
Applying the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in this field will
give significantly conservative collapse pressures. Although
both failure criteria are equivalent in triaxial stress states,
there is a significant difference in the evaluation of
borehole instability. In the Wanaea oilfield, the intermedi-
ate principal stress plays a major role in stabilizing the
vertical wells, as can be seen by employing the Mogi–
Coulomb criterion.
We showed above that the Drucker–Prager failure
envelope developed using conventional triaxial test data
may not accurately represent rock failure under polyaxial
stresses. Furthermore, this failure criterion gives higher
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211 1209

Overbalance (kPa) rock strength than does the Mogi–Coulomb criterion.

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Accordingly, if the Drucker–Prager criterion is used in
2500
Mohr-Coulomb wellbore stability analysis, it will provide a lower collapse
Mogi-Coulomb pressure than does the Mogi–Coulomb borehole failure
criterion. For example, assume that a vertical wellbore is
2550
drilled in poorly cemented sand with a cohesion of
1.38 MPa and a friction angle of 351. At a depth of
Depth (m)

1219 m, the in situ stresses and pore pressure, as suggested

2600 by Ewy [10], are as follows: sv ¼ 20:15 kPa=m, sH ¼
sh ¼ 14:48 kPa=m, and P0 ¼ 9:61 kPa=m. Based on the
Drucker–Prager failure criterion, Ewy calculated the
2650 collapse pressure to be about 10,294 kPa, which is below
the formation pressure. Applying the Mohr–Coulomb and
Mogi–Coulomb criteria, the minimum overbalance pres-
(a) 2700 sures are 2048 and 1413 kPa, respectively. As expected, the
Drucker–Prager criterion underestimates the collapse
Overbalance (kPa) pressure, while the Mohr–Coulomb criterion predicts a
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
2500
conservative collapse pressure.
Mohr-Coulomb
Mogi-Coulomb
8. Fracture pressure evaluations in typical field conditions
2550

Assume that a vertical wellbore is drilled in a rock such

as limestone, with rock properties and stresses as follows:
Depth (m)

2600 c ¼ 9:65 MPa, f ¼ 351, sv ¼ 21:5 kPa=m, sH ¼ sh ¼

18:1 kPa=m, and P0 ¼ 10:18 kPa=m. Since there are usually
pre-existing cracks or fractures in the wellbore wall, the
2650 uniaxial tensile strength of the rock is assumed equal to
zero. At a depth of 3000 m, using the Mohr–Coulomb
borehole failure criterion gives Pwf ¼ Pwf2 ¼ 75:83 MPa.
(b) 2700
Applying the Mogi–Coulomb criterion gives Pwf ¼ Pwf2 ¼
78:46 MPa. If we consider a tensile cut-off, the fracture
Fig. 4. Minimum overbalance pressure as a function of depth for a pressure becomes Pwcutoff ¼ 78:06 MPa. As per the Mohr–
sandstone formation in Cyrus reservoir with an isotropic horizontal stress Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb borehole criteria, therefore,
gradient of (a) 17 kPa/m, (b) 19 kPa/m.
the maximum allowable mud pressures are 75.83 and
78.06 MPa, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the fracture pressure
as a function of depth and failure criterion. In general,
the Mogi–Coulomb criterion predicts a higher fracture

Overbalance (kPa)
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Fracture pressure (MPa)
1950 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
Mohr-Coulomb 3000
Mogi-Coulomb
Actual used Mohr-Coulomb
3100 Mogi-Coulomb
2000
Depth (m)

3200
Depth (m)

2050

3300

2100
3400

2150 3500

Fig. 5. Minimum overbalance pressure as a function of depth for a shale Fig. 6. Fracture pressure as a function of depth, using the two borehole
formation in the Wanaea field. failure criteria, for a rock with c ¼ 9:65 MPa, and f ¼ 351.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1210 A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
pressure than does the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. This is
mainly due to the strengthening effect of the intermediate
principal stress. Furthermore, the predicted fracture
pressure increases with depth.
The fracture pressure estimated by both borehole failure
criteria is about 40% more than sh, which is far from what
is usually assumed in practice. When the well pressure is
greater than the minimum in situ principal stress, there is a
possibility of lost circulation [10,44]. Therefore, the
fracture pressure is typically set equal to the minimum
principal stress. This problem of predicting high fracture
pressures in both models is not related to the applied
failure criteria; rather, it is mainly due to the sensitivity of
fracture pressure to the magnitude of pore pressure. For
instance, assume that the wellbore wall is permeable, so
that at the wall P0 ¼ Pw , and that there is no contribution
of fluid flow to the stresses. For the same rock properties
and stresses, applying the tensile failure criterion, Eq. (23),
the fracture pressure is then equal to sh. Thus, considera-
tion of the pore pressure alteration has significantly
changed the estimation of the fracture pressure.
9. Conclusions
We have shown that the Drucker–Prager criterion
generally overestimates rock strength under polyaxial stress
conditions. This criterion, therefore, should not be used to
model brittle fracture of rocks. On the other hand, the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion underestimates rock strength by
ignoring the effect of s2. In contrast, the Mogi–Coulomb
criterion seems to give a proper accounting of the
strengthening effect of the intermediate stress.
The Mohr–Coulomb criterion only considers the relative
magnitudes of the minimum and maximum principal stress
at failure. As a result, the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is
significantly conservative in estimating the collapse pres-
sure. Incorporating the Mogi–Coulomb law into our
wellbore stability model has minimised the conservative
nature of the mud pressure predictions.
We have pointed out that using linear elasticity theory,
where the contribution of fluid flow to the stresses is
ignored, in conjunction with any failure criterion, will
always overestimate the fracture pressure. In order to avoid
the possibility of lost circulation and map the region of
mechanical stability in a vertical wellbore, the upper limit
of the well pressure should be set equal to the minimum
principal stress, which is usually sh.
References
[1] Murrell SAF. A criterion for brittle fracture of rocks and concrete
under triaxial stress, and the effect of pore pressure on the criterion.
In: Proceedings of the fifth symposium on rock mechanics, University
of Minnesota; 1963. p. 563–77.
[2] Handin J, Heard HC, Magouirk JN. Effect of the intermediate
principal stress on the failure of limestone, dolomite, and glass at
different temperature and strain rate. J Geophys Res 1967;72:611–40.
[3] Hoskins ER. The failure of thick-walled hollow cylinders of
isotropic rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1969;
6(1):99–116.
[4] Mogi K. Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression.
J Geophys Res 1971;76(5):1255–69.
[5] Takahashi M, Koide H. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on
strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks at the depth
shallower than 2000 m. In: Maury V, Fourmaintraux D, editors.
Rock at great depth. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1989. p. 19–26.
[6] Haimson BC, Chang C. A new true triaxial cell for testing mechanical
properties of rock, and its use to determine rock strength and
deformability of Westerly granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:
285–96.
[7] Haimson BC, Chang C. True triaxial strength of the KTB
amphibolite under borehole wall conditions and its use to estimate
the maximum horizontal in situ stress. J Geophys Res-Sol Earth
2002;107(B10) art. no. 2257.
[8] Vernik L, Zoback MD. Estimation of maximum horizontal principal
stress magnitude from stress-induced well bore breakouts in the
Cajon Pass scientific research borehole. J Geophys Res 1992;
97(B4):5109–19.
[9] Song I, Haimson BC. Polyaxial strength criteria and their use in
estimating in situ stress magnitudes from borehole breakout
dimensions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(3–4):498.
[10] Ewy RT. Wellbore-stability predictions by use of a modified Lade
criterion. SPE Drill & Complet 1999;14(2):85–91.
[11] Single B, Goel RK, Mehrotra VK, Garg SK, Allu MR. Effect of
intermediate principal stress on strength of anisotropic rock mass.
Tunn Underground Space Technol 1998;13(1):71–9.
[12] Zhou S. A program to model the initial shape and extent of borehole
breakout. Comp & Geosci 1994;20(7–8):1143–60.
[13] Fjaer E, Ruistuen H. Impact of the intermediate principal stress on
the strength of heterogeneous rock. J Geophys Res-Sol Earth
2002;107(B2) art. no. 2032.
[14] Wiebols GA, Cook NGW. An energy criterion for the strength of
rock in polyaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech
Abstr 1968;5(6):529–49.
[15] Desai CS, Salami MR. A constitutive model and associated testing
for soft rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech Abstr
1987;24(5):299–307.
[16] Michelis P. True triaxial yielding and hardening of rock. J Geotech
Eng Div (ASCE) 1987;113(6):616–35.
[17] Pan XD, Hudson JA. A simplified three dimensional Hoek–Brown
yield criterion. In: Romana M, editor. Rock mechanics and power,
plants. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1988. p. 95–103.
[18] Hudson JA, Harrison JP. Engineering rock mechanics: an introduc-
tion to the principles. Oxford: Pergamon; 1997.
[19] McLean M, Addis M. Wellbore stability: the effect of strength
criteria on mud weight recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 65th
annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of petroleum
engineers, New Orleans, September 23–26, 1990. SPE 20405.
[20] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Relationship between the parameters
of the Mogi and Coulomb failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2005;42(3):431–9.
[21] Westergaard HM. Plastic state of stress around a deep well. J Boston
Soc Civil Eng 1940;27:1–5.
[22] Gnirk PP. The mechanical behaviour of uncased wellbores situated in
elastic/plastic media under hydrostatic stress. Soc Pet Eng J
1972:49–59 SPE 3224.
[23] Risnes R, Bratli RK. Sand stresses around a wellbore. In:
Proceedings of the Middle East oil technical conference, Society of
petroleum engineers, Bahrain, March 9–12, 1981. SPE 9650.
[24] Mitchell RF, Goodman MA, Wood ET. Borehole stresses: plasticity
and the drilled hole effect. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling
conference, New Orleans, March 15–18, 1987. SPE 16053.
[25] Anthony JL, Crook JY. Development of an orthotropic 3D
elastoplastic material model for shale. In: Proceedings of the SPE/
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R.W. Zimmerman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1200–1211
ISRM rock mechanics conference, Irving, Texas, October 20–23,
2002. SPE 78238.
[26] Paslay PR, Cheatham JB. Rock stresses induced by flow of fluids into
boreholes. Soc Pet Eng J 1963;3(1):85–94 SPE 482.
[27] Fairhurst C. On the determination of the state of stress in rock
masses. In: Proceedings of the Annual AIME meeting, Chicago,
February 14–18, 1965. SPE 1062.
[28] Bradley WB. Mathematical concept-stress cloud can predict borehole
failure. Oil & Gas J 1979;77(8):92–102.
[29] Aadnoy BS. Stresses around horizontal boreholes drilled in
sedimentary rocks. J Petrol Sci Eng 1989;2(4):349–60.
[30] Jaeger JC, Cook NGW. Fundamentals of rock mechanics. 3rd ed.
London: Chapman & Hall; 1979.
[31] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit
design. Quart Appl Math 1952;10:157–65.
[32] Colmenares LB, Zoback MD. A statistical evaluation of intact rock
failure criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for five different
rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39(6):695–729.
[33] Mogi K. Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite
and limestone. Tectonophysics 1971;11(11):111–27.
[34] Michelis P. Polyaxial yielding of granular rock. J Eng Mech (ASCE)
1985;111(8):1049–66.
[35] Michelis P. True triaxial cyclic behavior of concrete and rock in
compression. Int J Plast 1987;3(3):249–70.
[36] Chang C, Haimson B. True triaxial strength and deformability of the
German Continental deep drilling program (KTB) deep hole
amphibolite. J Geophys Res 2000;105:18,999–9,013.
1211
[37] Yu MH, Zan YW, Zhao J, Yoshimine M. A unified strength criterion
for rock material. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39(8):975–89.
[38] Fuh GF, Whitfill DL, Schuh PR. Use of borehole stability analysis
for successful drilling of high-angle hole. In: Proceedings of the
IADC/SPE drilling conference, Dallas, February 28–March 2, 1988.
SPE 17235.
[39] Fuh GF, Loose PK. Horizontal wellbore stability for openhole
completions. In: Proceedings of the 64th annual technical conference
and exhibition, Society of petroleum engineers, San Antonio, Texas,
October 8–11, 1989. SPE 19717.
[40] Aadnoy BS, Rogaland U, Chenevert ME. Stability of highly inclined
boreholes. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling conference, New
Orleans, March 15–18, 1987. SPE 16052.
[41] McLean M, Addis M. Wellbore stability analysis: a review of current
methods of analysis and their field application. In: Proceedings of the
IADC/SPE drilling conference, Houston, Texas, February 27–March
2, 1990. SPE 19941.
[42] Kingsborough RH, Williams AF, Hillis RR. Borehole instability on
the Northwest Shelf of Australia. In: Proceedings of the SPE Asia
Pacific conference, Perth, Western Australia, November 4–7 1991.
SPE 23015.
[43] Hillis RR, Williams AF. The stress field of the North West Shelf and
wellbore stability. Aust Pet Explor Assoc J 1993;33:373–85.
[44] Ewy RT, Ross GD, Gast MR, Steiger RP. North Sea case histories of
wellbore stability predictions for successful high-angle Nelson Field
wells. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling conference, Dallas,
February 15–18, 1994. SPE 27495.