Spwla 1988 y

SPWLA Twenty-Ninth Annual Logging Symposium, June 5-8, 19
,...”
FIELD NORMALIZATION OF FORMATION
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
FOR USE IN SAND CONTROL MANAGEMENT
DAVID EDWARDS : DYNAMIC .Y PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATIONS Ltd., L( NDON, ENGLAND
HAVARD J@ RANSON : STATOIL A/S, STAVANGER, NORWAY
JAMES SPURLIN : SCIILUMBERGER LOG SERVICES B. V., STAVANGER, NORWAY
ABSTRACT
When an engineer confronts the problem of how and where to perforate in a friable
sand reservoir and whether to gravel pack, given the prescribed economic and pro-
duction requirements, he may have at his disposal a variety of information on which
to base his decision. The engineer’s task is how to assimilate this data on a field-
wide basis in order to successfully complete each production well, to establish safe
production rates and to assess the benefit of reservoir pressure maintenance.
In the method presented log-derived elastic properties are normalized to their “frame-
work only” or skeletal values, allowing consistency to be obtained across the field
despite variations in water saturation both in a vertical sense and between well lo-
cations. Rock mechanical test results and pressure data are used to calibrate the
normalized log-derived properties. Mini-fracs, mud losses while drilling and leak-off
tests provide limiting cases to help calibrate the in-situ stress model. An empirical
relationship between rock strength measured on the cores tested and log-assisted bulk
volume analysis enables the values of rock strength to be interpolated between sample
depths.
Finally, a perforation tunnel stability simulator in conjunction with results from step
rate tests, is used to set appropriate coefficients in a log-based failure prediction
program. The accuracy of this approach in estimating the critical drawdown pressure
for the other wells in the study is presented in this papc
,,
“.,,
1
.+

Prediction of the potential sanding zones and evaluation of the parameters needed
in sand control management is a complex problem involving a combination of rock
mechanics, fluid flow, pressure distribution and wellbore geometry. Where sanding
is inevitable, the solution is to gravel pack. In less severe cases the ability to pro-
duce without setting a gravel pack depends on the completion design and production
management.
Full coring of the producing sands and subsequent rock testing is an expensive propo-
sition for each well. Our object ive has been to use a perforation tunnel 3-dimensional
simulator, coupled to formation characteristics and in-situ stress measurements, to
evaluate elastic/plastic behaviour, and to compare the results to log-derived predic-
tions of critical pressure drawdown using empirical coefficients normalized to field
data.
Acquisition of data is from many sources. A summary of possible input data and the
preliminary analysis is given in Table 1, while Table 2 is a summary of the models used
and their outputs. The results are assessed in conjunction with evidence of sand-free
rate tests from six wells.
ROCK CHARACTERIZATION
Core Selection
Characterization of the formation commences with selection of core plugs at repre-
sentative depths. Matters for concern are:
. Whether testing of the core will give a representative failure envelope for the
weaker zones.
● That the plugs are chosen from different lithological beds within the logged
interval to provide a broad range of rock strengths.
. In the case of anisotropic formations that samples are taken perpendicular and
parallel to the formation dip.
Testing
In order to simulate the response of reservoir rock to the different stress situations that
are possible during field operations, we need to establish the constitutive equation (or
material model) for each different rock type. The constitutive equations relate the
stresses to present and past deformation.
,.
A method to extract constitutive equations for sandstones has been described.l It

requires measurement of the deformation of core plugs under uniaxial and triaxial

loadings. The objective is to obtain a material model that will match the measured
data as closely as possible, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Triaxial tests are performed on several plugs from the same core, Figure 3 to obtain a
plot of the axial stress at failure for increasing levels of confining pressure. This fail-
ure criterion is also represented by the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope, Figure J. The
best-fit curve drawn through points on the axial stress at failure (maximum stress)
versus confining pressure (minimum stress) extrapolated to zero confining pressure
gives a direct indication of the uniaxial compressive strength CO. Alternatively, CO
is obtained from the Mohr-Coulomb envelope by constructing a circle, to which the
envelope is a tangent, passing through the origin of the plot. Other strength param-
eters inferred by extrapolating the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope, are the cohesion
(or initial shear strength) and the uniaxial tensile strength.
ELASTIC PROPERTIES and STRESS DEPENDENCE
During the coring operation, the in-situ rock stresses are replaced by the hydrostatic
. . pressure of the mud column. Relaxation of the core takes place as the core is brought
to surface. Careful measurement of the differential relaxation of an oriented core is one
method of determining the magnitude and orientation of in-situ stress anisotropy2,s.
The stress/strain history of a core is quite different to that of the borehole wall and
near-wellbore region, which as the hole is being drilled, has to adjust itself to withstand
the surrounding in-situ stresses. It is therefore common practice to regard the core
as the better representation of the far-field region.
The extent of deformation of the borehole wall is a function of many parameters. The
outer boundary of the disturbed rock can be closer to the borehole in one orientation
than in another.4 Factors for consideration are borehole direction and deviation, the
magnitude and azimuths of in-situ stresses, and the mud pressure, pore pressure, and
rock strength.
As long as the disturbed region does not penetrate too deeply the dynamic elastic
properties computed from logs will be representative of those of the far-field region.
If the disturbed or “plastic” zone is deep (i.e. its annulus has a large radius) the sonic
lMorita and Gray
‘Blant
on
aTeufel
‘This gives rise in certain cams to a need to use devicee on logging tools to qook= in a preferred direction
e,-
and density measurements may be affected , causing the computed moduli to be less
than the far-field values. This trend is also true of the static moduli.5

To computedynamicelastic
properties,
thebulkdensity,
compressional
and shear
velocities
aremeasured.In theabsenceofa sheararrival,
a method toderive shear
velocity
indirectly
from Stoneley isused.6It is anticipated that the
wave analysis,
introduction of dipole sound sources will overcome the difficulty.
The measured bulk modulus, Young’s Modulus, and Poisson’s Ratio are normalized
to their ‘dry-frame” values i.e. the dynamic values corresponding to the framework
evacuated of its non-bound fluid using Gassman’s theory.’ Evaluation of fluid sat-
uration in the zone “seen” by the density and sonic, and a computation of fluid
compressibility, is a pre-requisite to the application of the Gassman theory, Figure z
‘LOG-DERIVEDS STRENGTH
We presently base the log-derived strength on an empirical relationship with the

strengths obtained from the triaxial tests on cores. The strength of a rock is primarily
a function of its grain shape, irregularity of the grain surfaces, its porosity, the presence
of intergranular cementing materials and its stress/strain history which may have
created fractures and microcracks. These same factors have an important influence
on logs and empirical relationships incorporating direct log measurements have been
attempted. 8
An approach using volumetric formation evaluation and log-derived moduli of defor-

mation has met with some success. The strength relationship takes the form:
Co is given the value of the uniaxial compressive strength of the core. Provided that
a sufficient number of core measurements is available, the simultaneous equations can
be solved to give the coefficients Ai, etc.Given that (a/l?) is the strain or deformation
resulting from the uniaxially applied stress (u), and that CO is the maximum stress
that can be applied before failure, it can be seen that in the above equation, the
deformation of each component, including porosity, is considered to act in series.
6Santarelli
%iu
‘See Appendix A. A full explanation is given in J.E. White’s Underground Soundn Elsevier, 1983.
‘Tokle et al.
4
.!, .
The above strength relationship can be compared to the classification of intact rockg
in which the “modulus ratio” of each type of rock is defined as Et/CO where & is

the tangent modulus at 50% ultimate strength. The term in square brackets in the
strength relationship corresponds to the reciprocal of the modulus ratio.
h alternative analysis in which fractional volumes are attributed to textural type, is

presently under development. A third method involves the identification of lithofacies
and the assignment of strength values from a data base.
IN-SITU STRESSES
Plane-Strain Model
Evaluation of in-situ stresses starts with the determination of the overburden. This
is usually achieved by integration of bulk density, recorded to surface, in at least one
well in the field. A plain strain model10 is used to make the first estimate of the
horizontal stresses, assuming the direction of one principal stress (in the far-field) to
be vertical.
4 = ( —)(a~
(I–iov + Al)
and o~ = (Aoo: + Al)
The expression above is given in terms of effective stresses. The pore pressure , F’P,
can be accounted for in several ways. In soil mechanics, 11
Eflective Stress = Total Stress - Pore Pressure.
In porous rocks, 12the extent to which the pore pressure contributes to the total stress
is modified by the poro-elastic constant, a.
For example: 0: = o= — aPp

where ~ = 1 —@ and ~ = Kdrvtrarne /Kr
6 increases as a function of the area of contact betweengrains,

and reducesto zero
‘Deereand MilJer
10Jaeger
ll’Ibaghi
12Biot
....
5
when there is no contact. Thus, for rock which undergoes multiple tensile failure or
has become plastic it is equal or very close to one. As porosity increases a tends

to one. Since grain-to-grain contact can depend on the direction of stress, a is also
dkction-dependent.
To enable the poro-elastic constant to be calibrated against measurements on cores

of bulk modulus ~b, the equation has been modified.
a? = 1 – A2~A8 + A4
The rock grain modulus Kr is determined from physical constants for pure minerals,
or from the sonic and density measurements extrapolated to zero porosity.
A model to obtain the total minimum horizontal stress u. in formations with oriented
grain structures is written as follows:
‘Z = —)(oZ + Al
( (l–VAOV – aPp) + CY’PP
where A. and Al are defined above.
Normalization
A mini-frac test (or infectivity test inducing fractures) will, following suitable analysis,
give a value for the actual minimum horizontal stress S’z at a given level, Figure 8.
Calibration of the first log-derived estimate of minimum horizontal stress is improved
as mini-fkac test (or injectivit y test) results are collected on a field-wide basis.
The final computation, using linear scaling coefficients is
S2 = A5az + A6
Rotation To New Axes

For vertical wells, the computed far-field stresses are considered to be the same as the
principal stresses, and thus the tangential, axial and radial stresses at the borehole
wall are also principal stresses. In deviated wells it is necessary to apply a series
of trigonometric equations to rotate the far-field stresses to a new set of Cartesian
coordinates. 13 Data required are the well deviation and azimuth, and the orientation
of the maximum horizontal stress. To complete the calculation of the axial stress,
lsBradley
-6-
Poisson’s ratio is needed. The Z-axis lies along the wellbore, and the X-axis lies on
the vertical plane through the well. The state of stress on the wall of the inclined

hole alters with the position on the circumference and with the amount of deviation.
Tangential and axial stresses at the borehole wall are computed in terms of cylindrical
coordinates, leading to the determination of the principal stresses, al, C72,and CT3.One
of these is the radial pressure at the borehole wall which is equal to the well pressure.
WELLBORE STABILITY
A log analysis well program has been written to search the wellbore circumference at
various levels of well pressure to find:
● The maximum and minimum well pressure permissible before the rock yields.
● The position on the circumference at which the stress difference al —rY3is the
greatest.
The solutions are dependent on:
● The far-field stresses.
. The rock failure criteria.

,.. . The borehole deviation.
The maximum safe well pressure is just at the limit before either shear (compressive)
or tensile failure occurs. These frequently cause mud losses when drilling. The min-
imum safe well pressure gives the lower limit of stability before yielding takes place,
again through a shear failure mechanism. Between these two well pressure levels the
rock will stay in an elastic condition. At a certain deviation limit, depending on the
factors mentioned earlier, the two ‘safe” well pressures will intersect, Figure 9. At a
higher deviation the near wellbore region will be permanently in a yielded, or “plastic”
condition. The state of the near-wellbore region prior to perforating influences the
choice of failure criteria in the log-derived solution in determining critical drawdown
pressure.
MODELLING
Simulation
It has been shown that the main factors affecting sand production are14: well pressure,
normalized pressure gradient at the cavity surface, in situ stresses, loading history,
deformation and failure characteristics of rock, perforation geometry and density,
borehole inclination, capillary pressure and rock weakening effect by chemical reaction.
---- 14MOritaet al., SPE16990
7
The effect of these parameters can be studied using two finite element models
“a transient fluid flow and a geostructural model coupled with fluid

force. The transient fluid flow model calculates pore pressure dktribu-
tion around perforation holes for a given set of boundary conditions.
The geostructural model, with the pore pressure input evaluated by
the fluid model, calculates stress state, deformation and plsstic defor-
mation. Using a post-processor, the stability of perforations is judged
from the stress state or the plastic strain, using appropriate failure
criterion suitable for the rock.” 15
A flowchart of this calculation procedure is shown in Figure 10.
Log Evaluation
While log evaluation has the benefit of continuity along the wellbore, and a second
dimension can be introduced to represent position on the circumference, the effect of
the third dimension - radial distance - has to be treated by alternative means.
A stress term AO is included in the effective stresses to account for the radial pore
pressure gradient. 10
The total radial stress Or at the borehole wall is the well pressure Pw. In a permeable
medium with the well flowing, the pore pressure at the wall surface is Pw. Thus the
effective stress o; is zero. However with increasing distance from the wellbore, the
radial stress Ur and pore pressure both increase to their far-field values, according to
their respective stress17and fluid flow models. Close to the well a combination of rock
properties and the pressure drawdown can make the effective radial stress tensile.
Introducing far-field and near-well permeabilities, and fluid flow into the simulator,
allows a degree of confidence to be given to the stress term Ao.
Elastic
The foregoing discussions on wellbore stability involved the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion and introduction of the maximum and minimum effective principal stresses.
A level of critical well pressure may be found which lies between pore pressure and
mud pressure, implying a negative ‘critical drawdownn. This result indicates that the
borehole wall has already “failedn when the well is shut-in, but in its yielded or plastic
condition maintains its integrity. A positive critical drawdown indicates that with the
lKMorita et al., SPE 16989
leCoates
17Kirech
-8-
“,.,.,,
well shut-in the rock is still elastic, but will yield, when the flowrate is sufficiently
large.

Plastic
For most practical purposes, catastrophic failure can only take place if plsstic strain
criteria are exceeded. Such precise deformation measurements are not yet attainable
in a deep wellbore. It is therefore considered justifiable, for log evaluation purposes, to
treat the plsstic annulus as a material with altered elasticity where the major principle
stress, al at the elastic/plastic boundary diminishes toward the intermediate principle
stress, 02, at the borehole wall.
In zones of total plasticity the in-situ stresses are considered to approach equilibrium
with the mud pressure while drilling (and logging). Disturbance of this equilibrium is
caused by reduction of the well pressure below a critical value. Criteria found useful
in this case are of the type involving the stress invariant fi. A simplified treatment
assumes that the octahedral normal stress crOCt in the “plastic” annulus is equal to
the minimum horizontal stress, to a first approximation. From a more practical
point of view, OOCt can be considered equal to the mud pressure at the time of the
logging operation. The mud pressure can be measured accurately during the wireline
“. formation test. Continuing with the assumption that, having cased the well but prior
to perforating, we know oOCt,if a spherical cavity were instantaneously created in this
medium the tangential stresses O@and U4 would be derived from the equation
CT(J – P.]
= u# = o.5[3L70c~
where PCis the fluid pressure within the cavity. 18119
Inour log evaluation

programa solution drawdown (PP- PC)is found
forthecritical
using a generalization of Griffith theory due to Murrell. 20 The equation of the failure
surface under compressive conditions where the effective stress aj = u~ is:
(O! - a;)2 = CO(X4 + 4
Solving for o; leads to an estimate of the critical drawdown. The above equation
has neglected the tensile component induced in the rock matrix when fluid is flowing
into the cavity. A term for the radial pore pressure gradient is included in the actual
solution in the same manner as described previously (page 8).
la~lmoshenko and Goodk
19POU10S
and Davis
.,.. 20J aeger
9
DISCUSSION

O?mervationsFrom Simulations
The example discussed in this paper is a simulation of the stability behaviour of a
perforation in a single sand unit within the Jurassic. Table 3 is a summary of input
parameters. Eight typical plugs were taken close together from a single core, and
uniaxial and triaxial tests performed. A plot of stress versus strain, both axial and
radial, obtained from a triaxial test on one plug, is shown in Figure 1. The stress-
strain curves obtained from a constitutive model for the same loadings as used in
the laboratory test are also displayed for comparison. The constitutive model was
designed to reproduce on average the curves obtained from the eight plugs. We can
observe that the most significant features, i.e. onset of yielding, work hardening, and
ultimate failure, are very similar. Trials were made with different plastic behaviour
patterns, the conclusion being that a kinematic model, coupled to a cap (to take care
of the volumetric compaction), was the most appropriate to the data.21
Different failure criteria from the triaxial tests are entered into the post-processor. A
second order polynomial was fitted to each of the following :
. The maximum stress versus minimum stress (confining pressure), Figure 3
● m versus sum of the principal stresses (11), Figure 5

● Plastic strain (cP) versus the stress sum (11), Figure 6.
The simulated stresses, strains and the stress invariants 11 and ~ from the Gauss
points of the surface elements of the cavity shown in Figure 2, are plotted in Figures
JI to 16. Figures M and L!?show that a slim cavity is highly unstable, even with zero
drawdown, and will probably fail. As the cavity grows, its stability changes. Figures
13 and 14 show the stability of a cavity of 1 inch diameter with no drawdown.
Compared to the slim cavity, the stability is significantly incressed, but the cavity
is still very close to a shear failure (depending upon how you draw the failure line).
Adding a drawdown of 500 psi induces very little change in the ~ versus 11, and
a moderate change in CPversus 11 as shown in Figure 15. To check the baaisofour
results
we tested
a highervalue(20% increase)
ofhorizontal
stress.
Thiswas slightly
more stable.
We further checked the effect of changing the permeability in the permeability-reduced

zone. At steady-state conditions, this effect is also a minor one.
The input parameter of most significance is the constitutive model. In Figure 16 it

21Morita and Gray
1o
,,..!-.
can be seen that a 200% increase in the zeroth order coefficient in the expansion for
the yield curve will cause a large effect on the stability. This amount of increase

represents the maximum possible uncertainty in the laboratory measurements in the
low stress region. The effect is that the initiation of yield starts at a higher stress
level.
The in-situ stresses used are the stresses of the partly depleted reservoir. Our analysis
has also shown that keeping the reservoir pressure closer to the initial pressure would
have increased the stability significantly.
In the simulations conducted so far, we have assumed simultaneous but limited cavity
growth. For a complete study it will be necessary to study the stability of a large
cavity, which may be formed if several perforations coalesce.
Log Evaluation Result

In the log evaluation result, of a section of well A shown in Figure 17, the “dry-frame”
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are displayed in Track 4 (numbered from the
left). Track 5 contains the minimum horizontal stress (total) which matched closely
the field-measured value. It also shows the maximum and minimum principal stress
(effective) at the borehole wall O! and u!, consistent with the elsstic mode for a well
pressure PWequal to the actual mud pressure at the time of logging.
Wellbore Stability
The critical well pressure expressed in psi/ft is shown as the minimum safe mud
gradient in Track 2. In general the actual mud pressure lies between the minimum
safe mud weight and the m&imum mud weight before tensile failure, thereby verifying
that, at normal mud pressure during logging, the borehole does not have an unstable
annulus. But in the high porosity sands, the minimum safe mud weight is approaching
the mud gradient. This indicates the possible presence of a plastic annulus while
logging.
In a more highly deviated well it may be impossible to find a solution for the critical
drawdown for elastic failure less than the actual mud pressure. This indicates the
presence of a plastic annulus while logging.
Plastic Strain
As shown by the maximum plastic strain failure criterion., Figure 6, the sand around
the perforation can withstand some plsstic strain before collapse. In the elastic/plastic
mode, the Mohr’s circle is drawn on o~ and o: which are the curves displayed in Track
6. At the same time the uniaxial compressive strength Co is reduced from the values
...
11
fitted to the core to a residual value consistent with the residual strength following
yield. Critical drawdown in this mode represents the limit of drawdown prior to

borehole failure and a safety margin is required (Mohr in track 1).
Spherical Cam”ty
The Murrell/Griffith failure criterion in ‘plastic” mode is applied with reduced CO
(track 1). Since the cavity is considered to be only ‘in communication” with the
wellbore but not influenced by its geometry, Ueand 04 are independent of the borehole
deviation. Critical drawdown with the Griffith criterion is much more sensitive to the
evaluation of COin the annulus.
Field-wide Experience
Table 4 lists experience from rate-tests on six recent wells in the field. Table 5 sum-
marizes the critical drawdown from log evaluation. In general it is a little higher than
the sand-free drawdown as it corresponds to irrecoverable collapse.
Sand Control
Since a well in this sand unit can produce sand-free at around 150 psi drawdown, it
appears that, provided pressure changes at the sand-face are performed very gently,
the perforation tunnels maintain their stability although already in a plastic state.
This tenuous stability could be altered at the onset of water break-through, when the
points to be considered would be:
o A possible need to increase the overall rate to enable the oil production to be
maintained constant.
● Chemical changes and alterations of permeability and capillary pressure.
Referring to well D (zone A2), the maximum sand-free drawdown (3OOpsi) was 500
psi less than the critical drawdown predicted from logs. This was attributed to the
fact that it was an injection well in the water-bearing interval. The normalized C’O
and failure criterion may not have been appropriate to a water-saturated interval.
Laboratory Testing
It is worth commenting that the minimum effective stress in the most vulnerable ele-
ments around the perforation are either in the neutral position, slightly compressive,
or tensile. The results of laboratory testing can be improved if greater attention is
given to the tests at low confining pressure and to the tensile failure region.
-12-
CONCLUSIONS
● Reliability of the 3D simulator depends largely on the accuracy of the consti-

tutive model.
● In this example, changing the permeability of the darnaged zone by one or-
der of magnitude i.e. from IO% to 1% of the fa~-field permeability did not
significantly alter the result.
● Increasing the perforation tunnel to 1 inch diameter will change stability, in
our case from just stable to just failing.
● The magnitude of in-situ stresses and the far-field pore pressure had the great-
est influence on the plastic/elaztic state.
● Reliable calibration of the log-derived in-situ stresses by means of mini-fracs
or injectivit y tests inducing fractures is essential.
● In high permeability sands the amount of drawdown between the reservoir and
the wellbore has a much less important effect than the other parameters, for
example reservoir pressure depletion.
. When the region around a perforation is in a plastic state, as in this example,
too sudden a change in flowrate may produce a tensile cavity failure.
,...
. A highly deviated well may already have a plastic annulus. In the simplified
models of the stress state around the wellbore used for log analysis the plastic
annulus should be studied further. Array sonic devices will be particularly
useful.
● Cyclic changes and the stability of large cavities have to be studied.
Finally, regarding the utilization of both a 3D simulator and log analysis, each has
it’s own special merits and shortcomings. A petrophysicist is required to provide the
communication between the two.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Statoil would like to thank Nobuo Morita of Conoco Inc., for instructions and advice
on the usage of the finite element models. Schlumberger would like to thank Nigel
Corbin of Schlumberger London, for the coding and numerical solutions in the log
evaluation program.
.-.
13
NOMENCLATURE
Uniaxial compressive strength

Young’s modulus
Tangent modulus at 50% ultimate strength.
Field wide normalization constants

Volume of mineral i
Porosity
Stress
Effective stress
Poisson’s ratio
Pressure ofi Pore, Well, Fluid in cavity
Poro-elastic constant
Normalized Poro-elastic constant
Normalized total stress
Principal plastic strains
&ru~rame,
Km, K,, K~ bulk modulus of
dry-&ne, clay-free matrix, rockgrain, bulk formation
11 =0; +0; +0; stress invariant
J2 = :[(0{ - 0;)’+ (a! – a:)2+ (C7j

– t7{)‘] stress invariant
~P
= plastic strain
Sublacript
29 us z Cartesian co-ordinates
#>s9 r tangential, axial, and radial in cylindrical co-ordinates of the wellbore
49@9r spherical polar co-ordinates on cavity surface
1> 27 3 principal stresses
Ott octahedral
-14 -
REFERENCES

Biot, M. A., 1941, General Thwrg of Three-Dimensional Consolidation, J. Applied
Physics, Vol. 12 p. 155-164
Blanton, T. L., March 14-161983, The Relation between Recovery Deformation and
h-situ Stress Magnitude, SPE 9836, SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium
Bradley W. B., Dec 1979, Failure of Inclined J30rehdes, J. Energy Res. Tech. pp
232-39 TMUIS., AIME 101
Coates, G.R., Denoo S.A., June 23-26 1981, Mechanica/ Properties Program using
Borehole AnU/~8i8 and ~ohr’8 Circle, SPWLA Twenty Second Annual Logging Sym-
posium Transactions
Deere, D. U., Miller, R. P., AFWL-TR65-116 Dec 1966,1Jngineering Clas8ijication and

Indez Properties for Intact Rock, U.S. Air Force Systems Command Weapons Lab.,
Kirtkmd Air Force Base New Mex., Tech. Rep.
Jaeger, J. C., Elasticity, Fracture and Flow with Engineering and Gwlogical Applica-
tiorw (New York: Chapman and Hall) p. 60,120,214
Kirsch, G., 1898,Die Thwrie der Elastiztat und die Dedurjni88e der Fe8tigkeitslehre,
Veit. Ver. Deut., Ing 42
Liu, O., June 1984, Stone/ey Wave-Derived Delta T Shear Log, SPWLA Twenty fifth
Annual Logging Symposium Transactions
Morita, N., Gray, K. E., Sep 21-241980, A C’onstitutiue Equation for Nonlinear Stres8-
Strain Curves in Roth and Its Application to Stre88 Ana@8 Around a Borehole
During Drilling, SPE 9328, SPE 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference
Morita N., Whitfill, D. L., Fedde, @. P., L@vik, T. H., Sep 27-30 1987, Parametric
Study of Sand Production Prediction, SPE 16990, SPE 62nd Annual Fall Technical
Conference
Morita N., Whitfill, D. L., Massie, I., Knudsen, T. W., Sep 27-30 1987, Rcdh?tic
Sand Production Prediction: Numerical Approach, SPE 16989, SPE 62nd Annual Fall
Technical Conference
..
15
Poulos, H. G., Davis, E. H., Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics (New York:
Wiley) 1974

Santarelli, F. J., Brown, E. T., Maury, V. 1986, Analysis of Borehole Stresses Using
Pressure-Dependent, Linear Elasticity, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech.
Abstr. Vol 23 No. 6, p. 445-449
Teufel, L.W., May 27-29 1981, Strain Relaxation Method for Predicting Hydraulic
Fracture Azimuth from Oriented Core, SPE 9836, SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symp-
osium
Terzaghi, K., Z’heoretical Soil Mechanics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1943)
Timoshenko, S., Goodier, J. N., 1951, Theory of Ehwticity (New York: McGraw-Hill)
p. 359
Tokle, K., Horsrud, P., Bratli, R. K., Ott 5-81986, Predicting Uniaziaf Compressive
Strength from Log Parameters, SPE 15645, SPE 61st Annual Fall Technical Conference
White, J.E. Underground Sound (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983) p. 58.
-16-
APPENDIX A

BULK DENSITY
Correcting measured bulk density reading to dry frame value.

pwet = pb + #t(l – Q (Ihnf – h)
Pdru = Pwet – dt(l – swb)ezm’ptn~
BULK MODULUS
ForDry Frame
l/K is compressibility. The Gassman Equation is:
lftlti~ is at logging saturation S.Ot.

&k = aflb[l/~t2 – 4/3(~t~~ar) 2] h measured ValUt?.
K, is modulus of solid rock matrix (zero porosity).
Ku = ap&l[l/lX~l – 4/3(llt,~ar&l) 2] Subscript AI is for dry clay
Imposed limiting case d~ <.01 then &V = Kbdk – (1 – ~bdk/Kr)~f~uid
For Different Saturation Conditions
(1- Ktirv/Kr)2
Kbdk= Ktirv +
#t/Kf/.iri + (1– @t)/K. - Ktirv/K~
In the reservoir
l/Kjl~d = (Swt – Swb)/Kwater + (1 – swt)/Khti + swb/Kbw
-17-
In invaded zone (water based mud)

l/KilUi~ = (SzOt_ SWb)/KW.~.r+ (1 _ Sz~~)/~~V+ S~b/Kb~

SONIC VELOCITIES
Shear modulus of dry frame and fluid-filled rocks assumed to be the same.
Gdrv= Gb~k then Dt,h.a,drv= Dt,hear~Pdrv/pb
and Dtdrv = ~(updrv)/(~drv + $Gdrv)
For other saturations replace subscript dry.

If the fluid is very compressible then Dtdrv ~ Dt
units
a = 1.3464 x 104 if pb is in g/cc, Dt is in us/ft, and K is in kpsi
’18-
-19-
..
07
WI
m
c
r
s
m
c1
o
r
,.
198 June 5-8, Symposium, Logging Annual Twenty-Ninth SPWLA
Simulator Input

Prnl = 0.23cp
Pml= 0.61g/cc
(p= 3opu in the reservoir
k=lD in the reservoir
A reduced permeability is used in the elements around the perforations
Elastic Parameters: v = .13 II = 637 kpsi
vrOCk = .2 &OCk= 3600 kpsi
In-situ Stress: o: = u; = 1080psi OS

‘ = 2900psi
Al
A2 200’ 300”
A3 125’
A4 - 31O* 210’
550* -
“[Du~~g Water Production On Cleanup)
*(Maximum Drawdown No Sand Production)
‘(Maximum Sand Free Drawdown)
n TABLE 5 11
Critical Drawdown From Log Evaluation (psi)
Zone A B c D E F
Al 300 - 400 700 400 100
+
A2 250 500 200 800 200 -
A3 300 400 350 - 200 50
A4 500 500 350 , - , 250 , 200
I Bll-]-]-l- ]8001 - II
-20-
STRESS - STRAIN ELEMENT CChNFffiURATION
‘“~

:020
.,, . .
,,AB)
0,000 0,005 0.010 0,015 0,020 (MODEL)
STRAIN (INIIN)
Figure 1. Measured stress-strain curve from o“e Figure z Type of mesh used in the flow- and geostructural simulator
core plug. The modelled curve is displayed (55 elements and 400 nodes)
for comparison
MAX VS. MIN STRESS
MDHR’S DIAGRAM
STABLE
.
:
% eoOO- LINEAR /
,.-L
3
~
FAILURE m
: s,J~~.
o
0 3000 Sooo 9000 12000 15000
MAXIMUM STRESS [KPSINI,) NORMAL STRESS (PSI)
Figure 3. Maximum stress versus confining pressure Figure 4. Mohr’s circlas of the date in fig. 3. UCS=21OO pai, angla=29”
at failure. Eight measurements are plotted and cohesion= 620 pai from linasr fit
together with the polynomial fit to them
MAXIMUM PLASTIC STRAIN MAXIMUM STRENGTH
0,012
0
‘~
0,010- 5-
O.OOe- 4- FAILURE
FAILURE
~ ;
5 o, OOs- g 3-
.L
E
0,004 - 2- 0
STASLE
STABLE
0.002- 1-
0
0.0007
-5 0 5 10 75 20 -5 0 5 10 15 )
STRESS SUM IKPSI)(I1) STRESS SUM [KPSI)(I1)
“.
Figure 5. Failure points from 8 coreplugs. The failura Figure 6. Failure points from 8 corepluga, The failure envslope is a
envelops is a polynomial fit polynomial fit
“DRY - FRAME” AND WET (Sw = 1) LOGS ACROSS OWC
— _—______
H,
m,

Pa, ‘., / 7 ,,, /
pEi%#a
----
MO.
—_____
.! ,, .,,.,w “.
111
Figure 7. Atc and At~h corrected via Gassman’s theory in a well drilled
with OBM. The changes in log responses are only due to
changing saturation.
MAX INJECTION RATE TEST ELASTIC STABILITY

3V30
‘Or——————
1
% ‘8207 PSI ox -‘+ -5700 Psl
2800- 30
0. ‘7700 t%,
+
2500-
% FLOWIFW WELL HEAD

& -
WESSURE AT FRACTURE
* 2200-
?
,900 I
1600
mo~
b’ ,N.IECT,CN MTE {ESL, D,
wo PRESSURE w)
1
Figure 8. Example of a fracturing well Figure 9. Mud pressure versus

head pressure in a water injec– hole deviation
tion well used to compute the showing limits for
minimum horizontal stress for elastic stability.
the field.
FLOW CHART FOR SIMULATION PROCEDURE
G GEOSTRUCTURAL
MODEL
Figure 10.
MAXIMUM STRENGTH MAXIMUM PLASTIC STRAIN

4 0.008 -

3 0.006-
= 2
<
g 0.004.
.L
!2
1 o,oo2-
0 0.000
-5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15
STRESS SUM (KPSI)(I1) STRESS SUM (KPSI)(I1)
Fig. 11 Fig. 12
Figures 11 & 12. Cavity size = 0.15”x 11.0”, no drawdown.
MAXIMUM STRENGTH MAXIMUM PLASTIC STRAIN

4
0“006~
3- 0.006-
3 5
=
g o.oo4-
b.L
Li2
1- o.oo2-
0 0.ooo-
-5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15
STRESS SUM IKPSII(I1) STRESS SUM (KPSI)(I1)
Fig. 13 Fig. 14
Figures 13 & 14. Cavity size = 0.5” x’ 11”, no drawdown,
MAXIMUM PLASTIC STRAIN MAXIMUM PLASTIC STRAIN
0.008
“oos~
0.006 0.006-
52 2
c r
g 0.004 g o.oo4-
.L .L
0.002 o.oo2-
0.000 0.ooo-
-5 0 5 10 1 -5 0 5 10 15
STRESS SUM (KPSI)II1) STRESS SUM (KPSI)(I1)
Fig. 15 Fig. 16
Fig. 15. Cavity size = 0.5” x 11”, 500 psi Fig.16. Cavity size = 0,5” x 11.0”, no
drawdown. All points are moving towards :;ra:emvn. The onset of plastic yield is
the region of failure (compare with fig. 14)
A 50
x 51
In figures 11 to 16 are plotted plastic strains and ~ versus 1, for the elements 50–55
v 52
..- + 53
(fig. 2). Theee are from four different passes of the simulator .
I I
o 54
0 55
--— ------
%A
1 I I I I
I;:::=
::::
..
::::
~
::::
....
::::
:;::
...
5
I
1 1 I I 1
SPWLA Twenty-Ninth Annual Logging.,Symposium, June 5-8, 1988
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
David Edwards, now a consultant based in London, joined Schlumberger in 1960

after earning a B.Sc.(Hons.) degree in electrical engineering from the University of
Manchester. He worked as a field engineer in the Middle East and North Sea before

joining the computer processed interpretation group in Paris in 1968. He has held sales
and field management positions in Indonesia, Australia, Norway, and the Netherlands.
He also served as project leader of the interpretation development group in London, and
was manager of the interpretation devolopment group in Mexico.
Hiivard Jfiranson graduated from University of Bergen in 1984 with a Cand Real
(M.Sc.) in physics. He joined Statoil as a petrophysicist at Statoil’s headoffice in
Stavanger. For the last two years he has been working mainly with rock mechanics and
acoustic logging.
James Spurlin graduated from Georgia Tech in 1973 with an M.Sc. in Physics. He
joined Schlumberger and worked in various field assignment in Europe and the Far
East. Between 1980 to 1984 he worked in London on assignments as Log Analyst, Data
Processing Support, and Interpretation Development. Between 1984 and 1985 he was
responsible for Data Processing and Interpretation in Norway. Currently he working as
a consultant to Statoil on interpretation and DP.

Spwla 1988 y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spwla 1988 y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPWLA Twenty-Ninth Annual Logging Symposium, June 5-8, 19

FIELD NORMALIZATION OF FORMATION

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

FOR USE IN SAND CONTROL MANAGEMENT

DAVID EDWARDS : DYNAMIC .Y PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATIONS Ltd., L( NDON, ENGLAND

HAVARD J@ RANSON : STATOIL A/S, STAVANGER, NORWAY

JAMES SPURLIN : SCIILUMBERGER LOG SERVICES B. V., STAVANGER, NORWAY

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

A method to extract constitutive equations for sandstones has been described.l It

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

ELASTIC PROPERTIES and STRESS DEPENDENCE

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

We presently base the log-derived strength on an empirical relationship with the

An approach using volumetric formation evaluation and log-derived moduli of defor-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

h alternative analysis in which fractional volumes are attributed to textural type, is

and o~ = (Aoo: + Al)

Eflective Stress = Total Stress - Pore Pressure.

For example: 0: = o= — aPp

6 increases as a function of the area of contact betweengrains,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

To enable the poro-elastic constant to be calibrated against measurements on cores

where A. and Al are defined above.

The final computation, using linear scaling coefficients is

Rotation To New Axes

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

. The rock failure criteria.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Inour log evaluation

(O! - a;)2 = CO(X4 + 4

.,.. 20J aeger

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

. The maximum stress versus minimum stress (confining pressure), Figure 3

● m versus sum of the principal stresses (11), Figure 5

We further checked the effect of changing the permeability in the permeability-reduced

The input parameter of most significance is the constitutive model. In Figure 16 it

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Log Evaluation Result

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Tangent modulus at 50% ultimate strength.

Field wide normalization constants

Pressure ofi Pore, Well, Fluid in cavity

Normalized Poro-elastic constant

Normalized total stress

Principal plastic strains

11 =0; +0; +0; stress invariant

J2 = :[(0{ - 0;)’+ (a! – a:)2+ (C7j

#>s9 r tangential, axial, and radial in cylindrical co-ordinates of the wellbore

49@9r spherical polar co-ordinates on cavity surface

1> 27 3 principal stresses

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Deere, D. U., Miller, R. P., AFWL-TR65-116 Dec 1966,1Jngineering Clas8ijication and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

White, J.E. Underground Sound (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983) p. 58.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPWLAALS/proceedings-pdf/SPWLA-1988/All-SPWLA-1988/SPWLA-1988-Y/2025729/spwla-1988-y.pdf/1 by Nazarbayev University user on 10 April 2023

Correcting measured bulk density reading to dry frame value.

Pdru = Pwet – dt(l – swb)ezm’ptn~

lftlti~ is at logging saturation S.Ot.

Ku = ap&l[l/lX~l – 4/3(llt,~ar&l) 2] Subscript AI is for dry clay

Imposed limiting case d~ <.01 then &V = Kbdk – (1 – ~bdk/Kr)~f~uid