SPE 90493
A Physical Model for Stress Cages
Mark W. Alberty and Michael R. McLean, BP Exploration
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Well designs are constrained by the variation of both the pore
pressure and fracture gradients throughout the depth of the
well. Each hole section is designed such that the pressure
profile within the hole at any time during drilling will not
exceed the fracture pressure profile at any point throughout
that section. The maximum pressures catered for in the design
are invariably dictated by permeable formations with the
highest pore pressure gradient. The casing depths are set to put
behind pipe formations with too weak a fracture gradient to
resist the planned pressure profile expected during drilling.
This prevents a weak formation from failing and cross flow
occurring between that failed zone and any high pressure
permeable formations within the same hole section. The
fracture gradient is typically determined by measuring the
pressure at which losses begin to occur in the hole section and
converting the downhole pressure into an equivalent mud
weight. Most operators and mud companies have observed
that the addition of some mud additives has influenced the
pressure at which these induced losses begin. However, the
use of those additives has been unreliable in many instances.
Recent work at BP has resulted in the development of a
physical model that describes the mechanism that allows the
fracture resistance to increase above conventional minimum
horizontal stress through the addition of mud additives. These
additives result in the formation of a “stress cage” which is a
near wellbore region of high stress induced by propping open
and sealing shallow fractures at the wellbore/formation
interface. With the development of the physical model it is
now possible to analyze the effects of different drilling
practices upon the reliability and stability of those induced
stress cages.
The development of stress cages is influenced by a number
of properties including the diameter of the borehole, the width
of fractures induced in a formation, the range of particle sizes
which can be used as proppant in the fracture, the sealing
properties of the mud, and the permeability of the formation.
The successful implementation of the stress cage mechanism
is dependent upon the use of appropriate constructive drilling
practices and avoidance of detrimental practices which may
destabilize the stress cages.
Introduction
Operators and mud companies have observed for many years
that the addition of certain products to the mud appeared to
reduce the frequency and severity of lost circulation events. It
has become common practice in many areas to simply include
additives such as sized calcium carbonate and graphite to the
mud system as a preventative and pre-emptive measure.
However, results from the use of these additives have not
appeared to be consistent. Hole sections drilled with a pilot bit
may not experience losses while the same hole section re-
drilled with an underreamer experiences severe looses even
though equivalent circulating density is the same. Holes that
withstand pressures in an apparent stable environment are not
able to withstand similar hydrostatic pressure once losses are
initiated.
The industry has lacked a physical model to explain why
the addition of mud additives, such as calcium carbonate and
graphite, has apparently increased the fracture resistance of
common rocks. A physical model has now been proposed to
describe what is occurring when these additives are used and a
numerical model developed to quantify the size of fractures,
the impact of those fractures upon concentric stresses to the
wellbore, and the concentration of particles necessary to plug
the fracture and capture the induced stresses as an increase in
apparent fracture resistance.
Physical Model Description
Typically, large fluid losses to a formation will be via a
fracture which has been induced through drilling operations or
was a pre-existing natural facture. If pre-existing, the fracture
may be permanently open, in which case losses to the
formation may occur at mud column pressures only nominally
in excess of the formation pressure.
This work and model is associated with induced fractures
resulting from excessive mud pressures. Many publications
make reference to the standard geomechanical approach to
determining a fracture gradient1,2. These centre on adopting
equations first published by Leeman and Hayes3 or Hubbert
and Willis4 if basing the fracturing process on the near
wellbore stress state, or using an Eaton5 and/or Daines6
approach if basing fracturing on the least principal earth stress.
2 SPE 90493
Fracturing based on looking at the near wellbore stress
state recognizes that, depending on stress state and well
trajectory, initiation of the fracture may require greater
pressure than propagation7. If we assume a vertical well
drilled in a passive stress environment (equal horizontal
stresses) the hoop stress around the wellbore is at a maximum.
At the point where the well pressure is equivalent to the far
field stress (Figure 1a) the hoop stress is still compressive and
also equivalent to the far field stress (assuming an effective
seal at the well-rock interface). In fact, the intergranular
stresses within the rock around the wellbore only become
tensile once the well pressure increases to a value given by
PW = 2 S h − PP …(1)
(see Figure 1b) which, for a normally pressured formation,
could be significantly greater than the minimum far field
stress, S h .
In a tectonic environment where the horizontal stresses are
notably different (or perhaps the well is highly deviated) then
the stress state around the wellbore does not protect it from
fracture initiation. For a case where the maximum horizontal
stress, S H , is given by
S H ≥ 2S h − PP …(2)
there is no stress barrier to overcome before propagating the
fracture (Figure 1c) and initiation of the fracture is no more
difficult than propagation, if we disregard formation tensile
strength.
Given a fracture initiation theory based on the above, we
would typically expect experiences of when fracture losses
occur to be sensitive to well inclination and/or azimuth.
However, there is little clear evidence from our experiences
that this is the case. Also, carefully conducted and monitored
extended leak-off tests8 often show that on repeat opening of
the fracture there is little difference between the pressure
required to restart the fracture and the pressure required to
continue propagating it (Figure 2).
Based on the above observations well planning is typically
based on a fracture gradient that is independent of well
trajectory and fixed to the inferred or measured minimum in
situ stress.
It is our belief that the reason reopening of a fracture and
its propagation are similar is because fluid is able to seep into
the previous fracture before the hoop stress goes into tension.
This being the case then the fracture will start to gain aperture
once the well pressure first exceeds the hoop stress, which
even in the most favourable stress states is no greater than the
minimum in situ stress. Thus, the presence of a conductive
fracture (or unfavorably oriented flaw) reduces initiation to the
point where a fracture will open and propagate when the
pressure matches the hoop stress.
Often it will be seen that standard leak-off occurs at a
pressure not dissimilar to the propagation pressure if the test is
continued to an extended leak-off test (Figure 3). Perhaps
shear fractures or irregularities in the wellbore wall are
conducting pressure into the formation such that fracture
growth occurs well before we would expect the effective hoop
stress at the wall to go into tension. The few times when we
get a linear plot all the way to failure (e.g Figure 4) with a
sudden and dramatic drop in pressure are probably associated
with the few times we have a perfectly continuous unfractured
exposed rock face with a perfectly formed wellbore wall.
Unless we can create conditions of a perfect wellbore wall
with no notches, cracks of fractures, then we cannot expect to
sustain a fracture gradient any greater than the minimum earth
stress at the depths concerned. In the case of tectonic
environments (or deviated wells) even these perfect conditions
may not provide any improvement, as the anisotropy in the
earth stresses will conspire to produce a low hoop stress
resulting in little or no margin between fracture initiation and
propagation.
However, if we can artificially increase the hoop stress
near the wellbore wall then we may be able to increase the
fracture gradient regardless of stress state. It is clear that on
numerous occasions we have achieved fracture gradients far in
excess of the minimum earth stress9-12. In the past these gains
in fracture gradient have all to often been achieved without
conscious effort. The mechanism and model discussed below
is aimed at capturing our understanding of “stress caging” and
allowing us to plan its use where success will rely on planning
and formal application rather than just good luck.
The principle of stress caging is to deposit solids at or
close to the mouth of a newly formed fracture which will act
both as a proppant and as a seal isolating the fluid pressure in
the wellbore from the majority of the fracture (Figure 5a).
Provided the formation is sufficiently permeable relative to the
sealing efficiency of the blockage the filtrate beyond the
blockage will dissipate. Therefore, the pressure in the isolated
part of the fracture will dissipate, ultimately to the formation
pore pressure, and the fracture will attempt to close (Figure
5b). The attempted closure of the fracture onto the blockage
creates compression at the blockage which increases the hoop
stress in excess of its original (pre stress caging) value.
The ability to form a blockage in the fracture will depend
on the fracture aperture and particle sizes within the mud. The
extent of the stress increase will depend on the location and
extent of the blockage, the formation stiffness and the extent
of the pressure drop in the isolated fracture. Thus, if the
formation pressure is low relative to the well pressure, there
will be a large drop in the pressure in the fracture resulting in a
large compressive build up of stress at the blockage as it
prevents total closure of the fracture faces. However, in a
highly pressured formation, where the margin between well
pressure and formation pressure is small, the build up of stress
at the blockage may be small.
Many of the above parameters, coupled with boundary
conditions of anisotropic stress, have been incorporated into a
model to help understand the process of developing a stress
cage associated with the formation and subsequent blockage
of a single (2 wing) fracture.
It was inappropriate to appeal to off-the-shelf fracture
stimulation models to simulate the desired behaviour. The
presence of the wellbore can be legitimately ignored in
fracture stimulation technology, but it is key to “stress
caging”. From a review of solutions associated with circular
openings from both Timoshenko and Goodier13 and Bray14
SPE 90493
there appeared to be no suitable analytical solution for this
problem. Hence, the finite element method (FEM) was
employed and coded into an Excel workbook to make it
accessible to users planning stress cage applications.
Ideally, fracture growth would be determined by the model
from considerations of fluid spurt into the fracture, loss rates
to the fracture faces and fracture toughness. However, for now
it is a user defined parameter. The user bases the fracture
length growth on the excess pressure and the particles used to
bridge the aperture. Thus, larger particles will require the
fracture grow longer before a sufficient aperture is achieved to
bridge the mouth.
The pressure along the fracture prior to bridging is
assumed constant and equal to the well pressure (Figure 6).
After bridging, the pressure before the bridge remains equal to
the well pressure and the pressure beyond the bridge is
allowed to dissipate to formation pressure (Figure 7). The
model allows the fracture faces to close and where the faces
come into contact displacement control is invoked (i.e. set to
zero normal displacement) and compressive stress is built up
in accordance with the rock’s elastic properties and
assumptions about the stiffness of the bridge.
As mentioned the model has had to be cast in the FEM. If
we have a vertical wellbore in a vertical and horizontally
oriented principal earth stress field then we can appeal to
symmetry conditions and model only a quarter of the
wellbore. Also, it’s assumed the fracture height (distance that
it is connected along the wellbore) is large relative to its length
such that plane strain conditions can be assumed. A FEM grid
used in the model is shown in Figure 6. The grid shown is
relatively coarse, but finer grids can be adopted. For now the
bridge is taken to occupy the length of one element, thus care
must be taken to be consistent with the mesh when conducting
parametric studies as the stress build up at the bridge will be
dependent on the grid definition.
Tractions are applied to the wellbore wall equivalent to the
difference between the in situ stress state and the well
pressure. On forming the fracture, tractions on the fracture
face are equivalent to the difference between the well pressure
and the minimum in situ stress. After bridging the tractions
before the bridge remain the same. The nodes at the bridge
become displacement controlled. Nodes beyond the bridge
have tractions equivalent to pore pressure less minimum in
situ stress at locations where the facture remains open. At
locations where the fracture closes the displacement normal to
the fracture is set to zero. The model iterates 2 or 3 times to
determine which condition applies to nodes beyond the bridge.
Model Output
Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the output currently supplied by
the model. Figure 8 gives the fracture shape computed before
bridging and compares it the closed form solution for a 2D
line crack as given by
4(1 − υ 2 )
w( x) = ( PW − S H ) ( L + R) 2 − x 2 …(3)
E 6 inches being an indicative fracture length.
Strictly speaking the line crack solution is for the case
where the wellbore radius, R, tends to zero and it should not
3
appear in the above equation. However, it is expressed in the
above form to compare with the FEM solution where the
wellbore radius is present and cannot be disregarded as being
very small relative to the fracture length.
In general, the line crack and FEM solutions are in close
agreement (Figure 8a). However, as presented in Figure 8b,
when the in situ stresses become markedly anisotropic the
FEM solution shows the fracture aperture at the mouth is
wider than the line crack solution (which does not account for
the influence of the wellbore). As explained in the next
section, this output is used to help determine appropriate
particle sizes and concentration.
The second output shows the fracture shape after bridging
and dissipation of the pressure behind the bridge to formation
pore pressure.
Finally, Figure 10 shows the new stress state after bridging
and dissipation of pressure in the isolated section of the
fracture. In this case the minimum in situ stress is 9,000 psi.
Therefore, on the assumption that flaws would be present in
the wellbore wall, we would expect fracturing to start at
around 9,000 psi. After bridging the stress state near the
bridge has risen to over 10,000 psi indicating that pressure in
the wellbore would need to reach this sort of value before the
same fracture would propagate again. [Further around the
wellbore the hoop stress is lower, which may mean a number
of fracs may be necessary to enhance the frac gradient
successfully.] This plot is used to assess the effectiveness of
stress caging in increasing fracture gradient and hence judge
the relative merits of when and how to plan a stress caging
application.
Model Application
The development of the model allows the description of
fracture width as a function of length. These two parameters
enable the user to determine concentration of size particles to
insure that a fracture will seal before its length exceeds the
desired target length.
Practical application of these results has lead to the
following procedures:
1) The Young’s modulus is estimated based upon
nearby offset log and/or core data.
2) Minimum horizontal stress is estimated from
overburden, pore pressure, and transforms calibrated
to local leak-off data.
3) Maximum horizontal stress is estimated from fault
plane analysis and/or wellbore stability analysis
studies.
4) Borehole hydrostatic pressure is based upon the
maximum equivalent circulating density to which the
formation is expected to be exposed. This will be the
strength target that the stress cage will be designed to
achieve.
5) This data is entered into the model and the expected
fracture width at the mouth of the fracture is
determined. Sensitivity to fracture length (depth) can
be tested in the model. Practical experience has led to
Once the target fracture width is known, the particle
concentration is estimated by calculating the volume of the
4 SPE 90493
fracture behind a particle the size of the aperture of the target
fracture. This can usually be done with sufficient accuracy by
assuming a triangular prism shaped fracture the height and
width of the target aperture. Thus,
1 the fracture is blocked before it grows beyond six inches is
VF = Lw 2 …(4)
2 ECD and further raise the wellbore pressure further enlarging
This establishes the expectation that for this given volume
in the mud a particle the size of the fracture aperture must be
present. Simple inversion allows the determination of particles
per barrel.
Each mud vendor has calcium carbonate product lines that
have relatively uniform target particle size distributions
(PSD). The PSD can be use to then calculate a pound per
barrel of each product necessary to deliver a target particle
size or larger before the carrier fluid exceeds the volume of the
target fracture volume. Particles larger than the target size will
lodge in the mouth of the fracture and are expected to be
driven into the mouth flush with the borehole wall when the
stabilizers rotate past them and are therefore considered useful
particles toward bridging the fracture. Particles smaller than
the target fracture width are expected to flow down the
fracture and not be useful toward bridging the fracture and
trapping stress.
Therefore, by finding the percent by weight of particles
equal to or greater than the target fracture width in the PSD for
any given product we can determine the concentration of that
product that is necessary to ensure the fracture is bridged
before it grows beyond the target fracture length and therefore
achieve our target fracture resistance in the formation.
Example Application
In the first example well a Gulf of Mexico sand at a depth
of 9250 feet true vertical depth (2027 meters) has been
depleted to 3553 psi. The sand is to be re-drilled with an 8.5
inch bit and an equivalent circulating density (ECD) of 13.5
pounds per gallon (PPG). The stress state and sand properties
are calculated from offset well log data as:
S h = 5953 psi
S H = 6053 psi
E = 1.09E+06 psi
υ = .225
The model calculates that for a fracture length of 6 inches,
the fracture width at the wellbore interface will be 450 micons.
See Figure 11a.
Figure 12 shows a particle size distribution (PSD) for the
calcium carbonate product planned for use in this well. This
product has a mean particle size (D50) of 500 microns. The
percentage of particles the width of the target fracture (450
microns) or larger is 52% so the concentration of this product
required to insure that the fracture is bridged before it grows
beyond six inches is 4 pounds per barrel (PPB).
The operations team wanted to consider re-drilling the
sand using a 6 inch bit. The ECD using this bit would increase
to 14.4 PPG. The model was re-run using the same inputs but
changing both the hole size and the wellbore pressure. Results
indicated that the fracture entry width would now be 750
microns. See Figure 11b. The PSD for the planned calcium
carbonate additive has a concrentration of only 10% particles
this size or larger so the total concentration required to insure
20.5 PPB. This high concentration would adversely impact the
the fracture. The results indicated that drilling the depleted
sand with an 8.5 inch bit is entirely feasible and would use
very manageable levels of added particles, but if the sand is
drilled with a six inch bit, the wellbore pressures may lead to
unmanageable losses due to the inability to establish the
required concentration of properly sized particles.
Conclusions
The finite element model does show that high concentric
stresses can be developed in the near well bore region by
inducing fractures and plugging and sealing them with
particles. The amount of stress trapped is a function of the
stiffness of the formation, the width of the fracture, the
position of the bridge within the fracture, the length of the
fracture, and the compressive strength of the bridging
material.
The results of the model can be used to determine
concentrations of particles in the mud to build fracture
resistance to a desired or targeted level. The concentrations
will be dependent upon the particle size distribution of the
additives relative to the desired width of the fracture.
Nomenclature
E Formation Young’s modulus.
L Length or designed length of target fracture measured
from wellbore wall to fracture tip.
PW Wellbore pressure.
PP Formation pore pressure.
R Wellbore radius.
S h Minimum horizontal in situ stress
S H Maximum horizontal in situ stress
VF Fluid volume per bridging particle.
w Width or aperture at the mouth of the fracture
w(x) Width or aperture of fracture at a distance x from the
centre of the wellbore
x Distance from centre of the wellbore
υ Formation Poisson’s ratio
References
1. Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E. (1987). Stability of highly
inclined boreholes. SPE/IADC 16052.
2. Bradley, WB. (1979). Mathematical concept stress cloud – can
predict borehole failure. Oil & Gas J., Vol.77, No.8. Feb., pp-92-
102.
3. Leeman, E.R and Hayes, D.J.A. (1966). A technique for
determiningthe complete state of stress in rock using a single
borehole. Proc. 1st Int. Cong.. on Rock Mechanics. Lisbon.
SPE 90493 5

4. Hubbert, M.K. and Willis, D.G. (1957). Mechanics of hydraulic Figures

fraturing. Trans. AIME, Vol 210, pp-153-166.
5. Eaton, B. A. (1969). “Fracture gradient prediction and its
application in oil field operations”. Journal of Petroleum Sh
Technology, Volume 21, 1353-1360.
6. D Daines, S. R. (1982). “Prediction of fracture pressures in
wildcat wells”. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 34, 4,
Sθ (= Sh) PP SH = Sh
863-872.
7. French, F.R. and McLean, M.R. (1992). Development drilling
problems in high-pressure reservoirs. SPE 22386. PW
8. Kunze, K.R. and Steiger, R.P. (1992). Accurate in-situ stress
measurements during drilling operations. SPE 245935 PW = Sh
9. Alberty, M. W. and McLean, M. R., (2001). “Fracture Gradients (a)
in Depleted Reservoirs - Drilling Wells in Late Reservoir Life”.
SPE/IADC 67740 Stress normal to fracture Sh
10. Aston, M. S., Alberty, M. W., McLean, M. R., de Jong, H. J., and propagation path
Armagost, K., (2004). “Drilling Fluids for Wellbore SH = Sh
Strengthening”. SPE/IADC 87130. Sθ (= PP) PP
11. Sanad, M., Butler, C. Waheed, A. Engleman, R. and Sweatman,
R. (2004). Numerical models help analyze lost-circulation/flow
events and frac gradient increase to control an HPHT well in the PW
East Mediterranean Sea. IADC/SPE 87094. PW = 2 Sh − Pp
12. Webb, S., Anderson, T., Sweatman, R. and Vargo, R. (2001).
New treatments substantially increase LOT/FIT pressures to (b)
solve deep HPHT drilling challenges. SPE 71390. Sh
13. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N. (1970). Theory of Elasticity.
McGraw Hill. SH = 2Sh − PP
14. Bray, J.W. (1987). Some examples of elastic theory. Analytical
and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics. Sθ ( = PP) PP
pp.32-94. E.T.Brown (Ed), Allen & Unwin, London.
PW
PW = Sh
(c)

Figure 1: Elastic stress states around wellbore

1200
Initial breakdown
1000
Surface Pressure (psi)

Repeat LOT
800

600

400

200

0
time/mins

Figure 2: Leak-off test from Arkoma (Aston et al10)

6 SPE 90493

1200

Standard Leak-Off
1000
Surface Pressure (psi)

800
Pressure immediately
after shut-in
600 Creating a bridge

400 (a)

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 Dissipation of fluid and
Time (min) pressure beyond bridge

Figure 3: GoM well (shoe at 3,400mSS in 1000m water).

Compression at bridge

Fracturation point
1600 (b)

Figure 5: Stress caging process.

1200
Surface Pressure (psi)

Zero shear traction and zero

normal displacement
XLOT - Still pumping

800
PW
PW
SH
400 F Extent of fracture
i
g

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Infinite
Time (min) Elements

Figure 4: Vietnam well (shoe at 3,300m).

Sh
Figure 6: Assumed loading for FEM model when creating fracture.
SPE 90493 7

PW PP Zero shear traction and zero

2.0
normal displacement Frac shape before bridging
1.5
Fracture shape after bridging

PW 1.0 Wellbore
wall

Half Aperture (mm)

Original extent 0.5
of fracture

0.0
Fracture shape 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
after closure on
bridge -0.5

Bridge location -1.0

Location of bridge
-1.5

Figure 7: Assumed loading for FEM model after bridging. -2.0

Distance from centre of wellbore (ft)
2.0
Line crack closed form solution
1.5 Figure 9: Computed fracture shape after bridging (PW=9,200psi
Fracture shape FEM
Wellbore PP=7000 psi, Sh=9000psi, SH=9200psi)
1.0
wall
Half Aperture (mm)

0.5

0.0 Location of bridge

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
End of open frac
after bridging Frac length before bridging
-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
Distance from centre of wellbore (ft)
(a) PW =9200 psi, Sh=9000 psi, SH=9200 psi.

2.0
Line crack closed form solution
1.5
Fracture shape FEM
Wellbore
1.0
wall
Half Aperture (mm)

0.5

0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5

-1.0

-1.5 Figure 10: Computed stress state after bridging (PW=9,200psi

PP=7000 psi, Sh=9000psi, SH=9200psi).
-2.0
Distance from centre of wellbore (ft)
(b) PW =9200 psi, Sh=9000 psi, SH=10000 psi.

Figure 8: Computed fracture shape before bridging.

8 SPE 90493

1.0
0.8
Line crack closed form solution Particle Size Distribution
Fracture shape FEM
0.6 100
0.4 90
Half Aperture (mm)

Cumulative Percentage
80
0.2
70
0.0 60
50
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
40
-0.4 30
-0.6 20
10
-0.8 0
Select bridge location
-1.0 1 10 100 1000 10000
Distance from centre of wellbore (ft) Size (microns)

Figure 11a. Model of a Fracture in an 8.5 inch borehole with a 13.5

PPG ECD. Figure 12. Particle size distribution for used calcium carbonate.

1.0
Line crack closed form solution
0.8
Fracture shape FEM
0.6
0.4
Half Aperture (mm)

0.2
0.0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Select bridge location
-1.0
Distance from centre of wellbore (ft)

Figure 11b. Model of a Fracture in a 6 inch borehole with a 14.4

PPG ECD.