ARMA 12-404

Building a Mechanical Earth Model: a Reservoir in Southwest Iran

Fattahpour, V.
The University of Tehran, Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Pirayehgar, A. and Dusseault, M.B.
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Mehrgini, B.
The University of Tehran, Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Copyright 2012 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 46 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, IL, USA, 24-27 June
2012.
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: Decreasing development costs and risks involves optimizing field development plans, refining drilling programs
and making good predictions of production rate. In achieving these goals, it is important to investigate the geomechanical
behavior of the reservoir. All data and information recorded during exploration, drilling and production are used for estimating the
mechanical properties and earth stresses in the stratigraphic section by constructing a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM). We focus
here on building a 1D MEM for one well in a reservoir in southwest Iran, and then we apply the model to well design and
construction for field development through generation of a drilling mud weight strategy based on the MEM. General lack of
calibration data, especially for stress measurements, means it is necessary to use different methods to determine the rock properties
and the stress state. Since there is limited knowledge about the stress state, different stress states are discussed and possible
principle stresses are determined based on the comparisons of drilling reports, image logs, and wellbore stability conditions. These
considerations and comparisons suggest that the ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses should be less than 0.7, which means that
the stress regime of the study area is one of normal faulting.
Keywords: Mechanical Earth Model, rock mechanics properties, stress state, oil wells, wellbore stability, breakouts, mud weight

important to the oil and gas industries [3]. Among major

1. INTRODUCTION
Understanding and managing risks associated with rock
deformation (borehole instability, changes in
productivity, hydraulic fracture treatment design…)
through analysis provides engineers with both technical
and economical means to effectively identify, predict,
and prevent costly events and to optimally manage
drilling and operation of oil wellbores [1].
A production development plan (drilling and
exploitation strategy) plays a prominent role in all
phases of exploration, drilling and production. In the oil
and gas industry, well-constrained predictions
undoubtedly increase economic benefits, whereas
unmanaged uncertainty leads to losses during drilling
and completion activities, and even reduced production
capacity during the exploitation phase [2]. As
challenging conditions are more frequently encountered
because of deeper drilling, exploitation of more difficult
reservoirs, more focus on heavy oil, and other factors
associated with the gradual depletion of easily recovered
conventional oil, geomechanics has become more
subjects addressed by petroleum geomechanics methods
are wellbore stability, solid particle influx during
production, and design and execution of hydraulic
fracturing stimulation activity. Advances have been
made in all these fields, and in other areas related to
petroleum geomechanics, reducing costs through
improving design and lowering the incidence of
unexpected events.
Herein we analyze wellbore stability and determine the
optimal mud weight window for infill drilling by
constructing a one-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model
(1D MEM) for a well in a fractured carbonate reservoir
located in the southwest of Iran. Because of uncertainties
about the stress state arising from a lack of direct
measurements, the effect of different horizontal to
vertical stress ratios on wellbore stability and on the safe
mud window was studied.
2. MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL
Geomechanics deals with rock mass characterization and
rock mass mechanics, and is applied to Petroleum
Engineering in various applications from exploration
(e.g. natural hydraulic fracturing) to drilling,
development, and waste disposal. Reservoir
geomechanics focuses on analysis, modeling and control
of rock deformation during drilling and production [2].
The first step in any petroleum geomechanics study is
constructing a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM).
The MEM data bank delineates mechanical properties,
flow properties (e.g. heat conductivity, permeability,
diffusivity), and in situ conditions (stresses, pressures,
temperatures) with depth, and is superposed on the
stratigraphic model, which is often referred to as the
static earth model [1].
To build a MEM, use of the following data is
recommended:
 Geological data (geological report, formation tops,
lithofacies classification, stratigraphic data, clay
mineralogy, porosity…)
 Well logs (conventional – γ log – γ-γ log – sonic
log – electrical resistivity logs – neutron porosity
log – spontaneous potential log – caliper log, as
well as newer logging approaches such as the
dipole shear wave imaging log, formation
microimager log, multiple receiver sonic log, and
so on). Logs may be taken at the end of drilling,
but measurements while drilling or while pulling
out of the hole are increasingly available, allowing
real-time updating of the 1D MEM for the hole
being drilled.
 Drilling data (daily drilling report identifying all
issues such as cavings surges, stuck pipe during
trips, sudden partial losses, penetration rates,
drilling exponent, mud logging data including any
strength or deformability tests on drill cuttings,
deviation surveys, LOT data, and so on).
 Core data acquired in a laboratory (unconfined
compressive strength, friction angle, Poisson’s
ratio and elastic modulus, porosity, density,
thermal properties, flow properties, as well as a
number of index tests that may include
penetrometer tests, resilience tests, scratch tests,
point load tests, and so on).
 Formation pressure measurements (multiple
formation pressure testing log, drill stem tests,
static and flowing tests of pressure and flow
potential for permeability, and so on).
The main steps (i.e. the work flow) for analyzing
wellbore stability are as follows, the first four steps can
also be construed as part of constructing the MEM:
(i) Use of all available data to estimate the relevant
geomechanical parameters with depth;
(ii) Correlation of depth-corrected test data with multi-
pole-array sonic logging and other high quality
digital logs to insure correspondence of log
properties and laboratory information with precise
depths;
(iii) Developing a 1D model of the rock mechanical
properties model along the axis of the well
through the use of correlative relationships among
– for example – log data and laboratory data;
(iv) Building a principal stresses (magnitudes and
orientations) and in situ pressure profile through
the studied well;
(v) Analyzing wellbore stability using a suitable stress
analysis model and appropriate failure criteria,
either from a testing program or from appropriate
information in the literature;
(vi) Comparing the proposed (calculated) safe mud
weight window to known (identified) events on
the daily drilling report (diagnostic evidence of
instability or lost circulation) and interpreted
image logs (e.g. known locations of breakouts) to
calibrate and test the stress analysis/failure
criterion model using real performance data.
Once this task is complete, and of course additional
wells can be used to refine the models and to generate a
3D MEM, the MEM and stress analysis model are used
to predict a safe drilling mud weight window and to help
calculate casing points.
3. GEOLOGY OF THE ASMARI FORMATION
RESERVOIR
The Asmari Formation is one of the hydrocarbon
horizons in the studied field, which has dimensions of 42
km length and 6 km width, trending in the northwest-
southeast direction. The oil-bearing structure is an
elongated asymmetric anticline with a gentle structure
with 0° to 10° degree bedding dip. In this field, oil
production from the Asmari Formation began in January
1974 [4].
Lithologically, the Asmari Formation consists mainly of
carbonates and sandstones. Based on lithology, porosity,
and evaluated well logs, the sequence comprising the
Asmari Formation is divided into eight zones, and
sandstone reservoirs in this sequence contain most of the
oil in place. The three upper-most zones are the major
oil-containing zones because the water-oil contact is
found below the third zone (from the top), so the
lowermost five zones are not oil reservoirs. Zone 1 is
predominantly made of dolomite, but most of the
production from the Asmari reservoir is from zones 2
and 3 which are dominated by sandstone with a few
interbeds of carbonate and shale [4]. The MEM for this
case has been assembled from data that were available
for the first three zones, the targets of economic interest.

4. PREPARING DATA FOR THE MEM

It is worth mentioning that among all drilled wells in this
field, only one well had the necessary data recommended
for building a high-quality MEM. This well was
therefore considered to be the “reference well” to be
used to guide drilling practices and other design issues,
and the model development for this well would then be
extrapolated to adjacent regions based on stratigraphic
correlations, log correlations, and seismic information.
The wireline logs available for the reference well
include neutron porosity (NPHI), density (RHOB), Fig. 1. Core values versus Log values for Young Modulus.
caliper (CAL), image logs (DSI, FMI), water saturation
logs, along with calculated volume percentages of A similar simple strategy was used for estimation of
lithologies based on the service company’s algorithms, a Poisson’s ratio (ν), and all dynamic values were
well completion report, and daily drilling reports. multiplied by a factor of 0.4. This is in keeping with a
Some experimental tests had been performed on cores of rock mechanics understanding of fractured carbonates,
the reference well in order to calibrate static rock moduli where experience has shown that simple acoustic logs
from the dynamically calculated values obtained from give values of ν far higher than static tests because of
the sonic transit time log. Experimental tests include a natural microcrack and macro-fissure behavior. Static
number of uniaxial compressive and triaxial tests which values are typically 0.10-0.20, whereas dynamic values
were used by comparison with mineralogical analysis to of 0.30-0.40 are most common (Figure 2).
develop a correlative profile for UCS, cohesion and Some other rock mechanics parameters were measured
internal friction angle. In an ideal case, this task should in the laboratory, including the Uniaxial Compressive
be performed over several appropriate intervals and also Strength (UCS) value, and the cohesion and friction
over several wells so that measures of statistical angle (c′, ϕ′) taken from a linear fit to triaxial strength
reliability are obtained and used for independent quality data on a Mohr-Coulomb plot (τf = c′ + σ′n·tan ϕ′).
control of log data. In practice, there were relatively few
data points that could be used to establish the Sufficient data were available to derive an equation
correlations with the geophysical logs, but because this correlating the UCS to lithological parameters that were
was a pilot study to develop and evaluate the also available and which could be estimated from
methodology, they were deemed acceptable. (A basic geophysical logs. Specifically, a reasonable correlative
recommendation to the client in this case was, in new relationship of an exponential form between UCS (test
wells, to implement appropriate coring and logging data) and the quartz volume of the rock (x – from
technology so that a high-quality 3D MEM could be mineralogical analysis or log estimates) was established.
developed to guide redevelopment of the field.)
UCS  Ae Bx (1)
As a first step, it is necessary to calibrate the log data
Generalizing “Eq. (1)” to the other depths of the well, a
with core test values to develop the relationship
continuous estimate of UCS can be made. This
permitting prediction of static moduli values from the
relationship is of course valid only for a limited range of
acoustically obtained dynamic ones. Figure 1 shows the
quartz contents and only for the rocks in the Asmari
dynamic (solid line) data and the punctual laboratory test
Formation in this field, but it is illustrative of the
data to give a visual comparison. In our experience, this
approach that can be taken to predicting rock mechanics
is a relatively poorly correlated case, but there were
properties in specific cases. We emphasize strongly that
constraints in terms of the test data available. Except for
this relationship and others such as sonic velocity
one group of points, an overall trend was found between
correlations to strength parameters, multiple parameter
the two sets of data, which were categorized into two
correlations (e.g. UCS = ƒ(GR, DT, RHOB, …)) and so
groups, based on lithology. There was not enough
on must be determined for specific cases and must not be
information available for a multi-parameter correlation
speciously extrapolated or applied to strata of different
equation, only a single parameter relationship, and for
geological histories without quantitative verification of
the dolomites, the static modulus was taken as one tenth
the proposed heuristic relationship.
of the dynamic measurement, whereas for the sandstones
it was taken as one fifth of the dynamic measurement. Using the following relationship, cohesion is calculated.
 1 sin  
c  UCS. (2)
2.cos  
…where ϕʹ represents the internal friction angle of a
linear Mohr-Coulomb assumption for the shape of the
rock yield criterion. Note that an average value for ϕʹ
was assumed for each lithology. The profile of the
different rock mechanical characteristics for the
reservoir interval is shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Values of different rock mechanical properties for the
reservoir.
5. STRESS STATE AND STABILITY
ANALYSIS
As a next step, suitable equations are used to calculate
the principal stresses. As mentioned before, no explicit
stress measurements were yet available for the study
area; therefore, a stress state estimate was determined
based on well-established theories and assumptions.
The lithostatic or overburden stress (σv – σv(z) - or
vertical total stress with depth) is the stress imposed on a
horizontal surface at depth by the weight of overlying
material. The overburden stress at a depth z is given by
z
 v  z    vo  g    z  dz (3)
zo
Here, ρ(z) is the density of the rock with depth from a
density log (RHOB) which gives the density below its
starting point zo, z is depth, and g is acceleration due to
gravity. The term σvo is the vertical stress at the point
(datum) where the density log data begin, and it is
understood that some other means of calculating the
value of σvo is available (other density logs, seismic
correlations of ρ(z) to vP and vS, drill chip density
analysis…). If density log data are available from the
surface (a rare occurrence), then σvo is 0, and zo is also 0.
The profile of the vertical stress – σv(z) in Figure 3 –
may also be determined based on the average density of
layers from laboratory analysis of rock specimens.
Finally, note that σv is assumed to be a principal stress, a
common assumption in regions of low relief and lateral
continuity of strata. These conditions are not precisely
met in this case, as the structure has gentle dip and was
in the past subject to some tectonic effects, but usually
the errors arising from such an assumption are small in
comparison to other uncertainties.
It is essential to understand the stress regime (and
therefore geological history) of the project region so that
appropriate relationships to estimate the stresses can be
developed and tested in practice. Preferably, detailed
data on stress magnitudes and orientations are available,
but such data are often limited or absent in old fields that
are being assessed for re-development (as in this case).
In this case, a gravity-dominated, non-tectonic stress
regime (σv = σ1) was considered most probable, and in
the absence of other constraints, the horizontal stress
was calculated based on the following equation (Figure
3).
 h  h  Pf
K   (4)
 v  v  Pf
v
 h  K  v   v (5)
1 v
Here, Kʹ is the ratio between horizontal and vertical
effective stresses, Pf is the pore pressure and ν is
Poisson’s ratio. Such relationships are only applicable in
gravity-dominated environments, as opposed to tectonic
cases where the crustal movements dominate the stress
regime, and even then they are considered to give a
rough estimate only of the lateral stresses.

Fig. 3. Principal far-field and near-wellbore stresses through
the depth of the well and related instability thresholds,
calculated based on the dynamic Poisson’s ratio.
As mentioned before, static values according to core data
show lower values in comparison to the dynamic
Poisson’s ratio calculated based on the logs. There are
always uncertainties for determination of the correct
Poisson’s ratio. Poisson’s ratios according to the core
data are not always a proper representative of the
reservoir, and log data are not always trustable. In the
current study, horizontal stress is calculated based on
both Poisson’s ratios; dynamic and static, illustrated in
Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
Fig. 4. Principal far-field and near-wellbore stresses through
the depth of the well and related instability thresholds,
calculated based on static Poisson’s ratio
In order to evaluate the estimated stress state, the
borehole instability threshold should be calculated and
the actual applied mud weight should be compared with
those thresholds, which is an approach to the co-
calibration of the chosen borehole stability model and
the stress state estimate.
Usually, four thresholds are defined for instability in
boreholes, and drilling program design is partly based on
trying to keep the mud weight within the safe mud
window. These thresholds are usually called: kick,
breakout, losses and break down. Those four thresholds,
using linear Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion assumptions;
can be seen in Figure 5.

Fig. 5. Safe mud window and different instability limits [6].
Breakout onset is related to shear failure around the
borehole, and a method for prediction of shear failure
onset around boreholes was outlined by Fjaer et al. 2008,
based on the work by Guenot, 1987 [4]. This method
proposes a set of criteria which delineate the “safe”
polygon in Figure 6, and this approach, with linear
relationships, was adopted for this work.
Here, σr, σθ and σz are radial, tangential and vertical
stresses and Pw is well pressure, which is assumed to be
same as the mud pressure.
Different orientations and values of principal stresses in
the borehole wall lead to various borehole failure
conditions, and it is desirable to delineate a mechanically
stable orientation of the borehole. All possibilities for
the relative magnitudes of the principal stresses σr, σθ
and σz should be considered (Table 1); however, in
practice, the first three conditions are considered to be
the most important, and the other three are thought to be
highly improbable in practice. In addition to the
conditions stipulated in Table 1, the different conditions
for realistic borehole failure are shown in Figure 6 [5].
Table 1. Conditions for shear failure in vertical boreholes with
isotropic far-field horizontal stresses and impermeable
borehole wall, where pf means formation pressure or pore
pressure and β is the failure angle which is related to φ as:

  [5].
4 2

Case 1   2   3 Failure condition


2  h Pf  UCS 
a    z   r Pw  Pf 
2
1  tan 

 v  Pf  UCS
b  z     r Pw  Pf 
2
tan 

   v  Pf  UCS
c  z   r   Pw  Pf  2  h Pf  
2
tan 

 
2  h Pf tan   UCS
2

d  r   z   Pw  Pf 
2
1  tan 
  2
e  r     z Pw  Pf   v Pf  tan   UCS
Fig. 6. Graphical representation of conditions for borehole
failure for a simplified condition. The Mohr–Coulomb failure     2
criterion with UCS = 0, pf = 0.4σv and tan2 β = 3 is assumed. f    r   z Pw  Pf  2  h Pf    v Pf  tan   UCS
The polygon will grow in all directions if UCS is nonzero [5].

Assuming a vertical borehole with constant pore
pressure and isotropic far-field horizontal stresses in a
linearly elastic formation, rock failure is most probably
happening at the point on the borehole wall where the
stress differences are the greatest, given the fact that near
the borehole wall the radial effective stress (σʹr = σʹ3) is
small and is related to the support efficiency of the
drilling mud weight. The following equations refer to the
principal total stresses at the borehole wall, assuming
that the two horizontal stresses are approximately equal
(Figure 3) [5].
Instability thresholds related to the three first states in
Table 1 (a, b and c) that could lead to breakout initiation
and the thresholds related to kick, losses and
breakdowns were calculated for the study well based on
the stress distribution hypotheses discussed above, with
the horizontal to vertical stress ratio estimated based on
two different Poisson’s ratios; static Poisson’s ratio
(Figure 4) and dynamic Poisson’s ratio (Figure 3). It is
clear that the three criteria for breakout initiation (a, b
and c) lead to a more limited polygon for a mud weight
window.

 r  Pw According to the drilling reports, the applied mud

(6)
density in the zone of interest was maintained at 1.11
   2 h  Pw (7) g/cm3. The limiting well pressure corresponding to the
depth for this mud weight is also shown in Figures 3 and
z v (8) 4. The mud weight is in the safe area in Figure 3, which
is in accordance with drilling reports and image logs, but
the pressure profile is very close to the breakout and kick
threshold. On the other hand, applied mud weight results
in breakouts (according to criterion “c” in Table 1) and it
is very close to the threshold of losses. According to the
drilling reports this was not the case in the study area.
The traces in Figure 4 are based on two assumptions;
first, there is a gravity-dominated and non-tectonic stress
regime and second, the Poisson’s ratio of reservoir is in
accordance with the core data. Existing differences
between the stability state according to the calculations
and drilling report raise uncertainties for both
assumptions.
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
Fig. 7. Different instability thresholds for different ratios of
effective horizontal to effective vertical stresses.
Applying the three failure criteria (a, b and c in Table 1)
for different ratios of horizontal to vertical stress of
course led to various results, but this single well study
shows that careful use of the drilling reports can be used
as a validation method for a proposed stress regime, in
the absence of actual measurements of σhmin. Notice that
in this paragraph, the use of the word “calibration” is
deliberately avoided because calibration implies a
quantitative metric. In many cases in the oil industry, for
various reasons, quantitative metrics are unavailable,
unreliable, or insufficient. In such cases, it is best to
avoid any implications of a quantitative model
calibration.
So, in order to further study the possibility of different
stress states, different failure thresholds were calculated
for a range of ratios of horizontal to vertical stresses, and
some of these results are shown in Figure 7, with
different σ'h/σ'v ratios. As can be seen in the figure, for
stress ratios greater than 0.7 with the mud weight that
was used, the probability of development of borehole
breakouts is quite high, but according to drilling reports
and image logs, there was no noticeable failures or
instabilities in the borehole, and certainly no consistently
oriented breakout evidence. It seems that a postulate of
high horizontal stresses does not match the available
evidence, and the assumptions used are validated. Stated
more directly, the assumptions that σv = σ1 and that a
Poisson’s ratio relationship can be used to estimate σh
are validated in this case, to the extent that the drilling
reports so permit. Also, the validation implies that there
is not a large difference between the two principal
horizontal stresses, and that vertical wells should be the
most stable. Nevertheless, for the case of field
redevelopment involving the possibility of horizontal
wells and hydraulic fracturing, the differences between
the horizontal stresses must be investigated, and the
orientation of σhmin in the project area measured.
6. CONCLUSIONS
A 1D MEM was developed for an oil well in a field in
the southwest of Iran. The model is called a 1D MEM
because it is based on the single vertical well for which
sufficient geophysical log data and core analysis data
were available. In principle, such a 1D MEM can be
extrapolated laterally using drilling, seismic and
stratigraphic data. As the first step, dynamic rock
mechanical data (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio)
from different lithologies were calibrated with static test
data from cores. For different lithologies, specific
correlative relationships were established between UCS
and the mineralogical (SiO2) content. Cohesion was
estimated based on the UCS and average friction angle,
which had been determined for different lithologies.
There were no stress measurements available for the
study area, so we focused on using any records of
instability or fluid losses in the borehole. Drilling reports 4.
and image logs show a stable well without failure or
instability problems.
5.
Vertical stress was calculated based on the density of
layers and the σ'h/σ'v ratio estimated using an elastic
assumption for a gravitating stress field and a widely 6.
used Poisson’s ratio equation. The stability condition in
the reservoir was developed based on comparison of
different safe mud windows and mud pressure. It should
be mentioned that the thresholds for instabilities which
established different mud windows were calculated SYMBOLS USED
based on the Mohr-Coulomb criterion and so the effects
of the intermediate principal stress are not considered.
ACRONYMS
Effects of three-dimensional criteria use can addressed
when better data become available during 1D, 3D
redevelopment. This comparison shows that for
horizontal to vertical stress ratios more than 0.7, shear MEM
failures should occur, which does not match with the
results from image logs and drilling reports. Assuming UCS
this to be a validation of the stress state assumptions, it
DT
can be concluded that the ratio of horizontal to vertical
stress should be less than 0.7, which means the stress
regime is most likely to be σv = σ1, and that the two RHOB
horizontal stresses are not very different. FMI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GR
The authors acknowledge the National Iranian South Oil
Company (NISOC) and the Petroleum Engineering and NPHI
Development Company (PEDEC) for their permission to
present the results of this study. We would like to CAL
express our sincere gratitude to the Petro Gostar
Permayon Company (PGP) for technical and financial DSI
support.
LOT
REFERENCES
1. Plumb, R., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., Lee, D., B.,
Stacey. 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept SYMBOLS
and Its Application to High-Risk Well Construction
Projects. In Proceedings of the 2000 IADC/SPE σ, σʹ
Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
23–25 February 2000. IADC/SPE 59128. σ1, σ2, σ3
2. Castillo, D.A., and D. Moos. 2000. Reservoir σv, σr, σ
Geomechanics Applied to Drilling and Completion
Programs in Challenging Formations: Northwest Shelf, σhmin
Timor Sea, North Sea and Colombia. APPEA Journal, Pw, Pf
February 16, pp. 509-521.
E, ν
3. Mody, F. K., Tare, U. and G. G., Wang. 2008.
Application of Geomechanics Technology in Borehole  g
Stability Reduces Well Construction Costs. In Cʹ, Kʹ
Proceedings of the San Francisco 2008, the 42nd US
Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd U.S.-Canada ʹ, 
Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in San Francisco,
June 29- July 2, 2008.
Geology report of the studied reservoir, National
Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC).
Fjear, E., Holt, R. M., P. Horsrud and A. M., Raaen.
2008. Petroleum related rock mechanics (2nd edition).
Elsevier publishing. 135-175.
Rasouli, V., Pallikathekathil, Z.J., and M. Elike. 2010.
Optimum well trajectory design in a planned well in
blacktip field, australia:a case study. APPEA Journal,
50th anniversary issue, pp. 535-548.
One-dimensional, three-dimensional
Mechanical Earth Model (Static model of rock
mechanics parameters)
Uniaxial (or Unconfined) Compressive Strength
Sonic log value (DT refers to the transit time for
the P-wave)
Density from the gamma-gamma density log
Formation micro-imager log, based on resistivity
measurements
Gamma Ray log (GR refers to the natural emission
of gamma rays by a formation)
Neutron Porosity Hydrogen Index (refers to the
liquid filled porosity of the formation)
Caliper log (CAL refers to the diameter of a
borehole along its depth)
Dipole Sonic Image log (refers to the shear and
compressional wave propagation in the formation)
Leak Off Test (a test to determine the fracture
pressure of the formation)
Stress, Primed means effective stress (σʹv)
Major, Intermediate and minor principle stress
Vertical, Radial and Tangential stress
Minimum horizontal stress
Well pressure and Fluid or pore pressure
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio
Density, Acceleration of gravity
Cohesion coefficient, Principal stress ratio
Angle of internal friction and failure