ARMA 21– 1233

Numerical simulation of fractures propagation around the wellbore:

Effect of the surrounding rock's stiffness
Agofack, N. and Cerasi, P.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

SINTEF Industry, Petroleum department, Trondheim, Norway

Copyright 2021 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 55th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Houston, Texas, USA, 20-23 June
2021. 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 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Wells play an important role in subsurface activities such as oil/gas exploitation, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen
storage. During these activities, wells are submitted to various mechanical and thermal loadings which can lead to the creation of
fractures in the near-well region (cement sheath and rock formation), and thus be potential leakage paths. Analytical and numerical
understanding of the stress distribution that may lead to fractures around the near-well is therefore crucial. Depending on the casing,
cement sheath, formation properties, and the in-situ stresses, the analytical model predicts the induced stresses which can lead to
fracture creation, while the numerical tool is used to model the propagation of these fractures. A modified discrete element method
(MDEM) is used in the numerical simulations. The results show that the fracture creation and propagation not only depend on the
casing pressure, initial in-situ stresses, and pore pressure, but also on the formation rock's mechanical properties such as the Young's
modulus.
observed after mechanical loading on the casing (Anya et
1. INTRODUCTION
al., 2020; Goodwin and Crook, 1992; Skorpa et al., 2019;
Wells are needed in various subsurface activities Skorpa et al., 2018; Vrålstad et al., 2019). The observed
including oil/gas exploitation, greenhouse gas storage, cracks are not only limited within the cement sheath but
etc. The construction of these wells can be simplified as can propagate also into the rock formation nearby.
follows: a hole goes through different formations, a steel
hollow cylinder (called casing) is run into the hole, and a
cement paste in injected into the annular space, which
hardens to become the cement sheath (Figure 1). One of
the main concerns in well construction is to achieve zonal
isolation, which prevents downhole fluids that are under
high pressure to leak and flow up to shallow formations
or to the surface in an uncontrolled manner. However,
during their life, wells are submitted to various
mechanical and thermal loadings which can create radial
fracture in the cement sheath and surrounding, and thus
compromise their integrity. It is therefore important to
investigate the mechanism controlling the fractures
creation and propagation as well as their extension from
the cement sheath to rock formations nearby. It was
shown that the main failure mechanics following loadings
applied to the casing include inner and outer debonding at Figure 1. Well architecture, usually composed of hole, casing
and cement sheath.
the casing/cement and cement/rock interfaces,
respectively, shear damage, radial cracks and axial
More recently, a laboratory experiment on a mini-well
disking (Bois et al., 2012; Bois et al., 2011). Most of these
setup was performed. With this setup it was possible to
failure mechanisms have been confirmed in laboratory
control both the confining (or outer) pressure and the
experiments where crack creation and propagation are
casing (or inner) pressure, as well as the possibility to scan
the setup under pressure with CT (Taghipour et al., 2021).
A class G cement paste was injected into the annulus
between the casing and the rock formation (Castlegate
sandstone in this case). The cement was cured for two
days at ambient temperature and under 2 MPa of
confining pressure. In the first experiment (with no
confining pressure), the confining pressure was released
after curing, and the casing pressure was increased to
45 MPa. In the second test, the rock's pore pressure and
the confining pressure were increased to 5 MPa and
10 MPa, respectively. The casing pressure was then
increased to 45 MPa, followed by a reduction of the
confining pressure down to 8.5 MPa. A seal rubber sleeve
was used on the lateral outer surface of the rock to prevent
communication between the rock's pore fluid and the
confining fluid. The results, given in Figure 2, show
continuous fractures from cement sheath into the rock.
More fractures (with smaller opening) are observed in the
experiment under confining pressure, while the
experiment without confining pressure displays fewer
fractures but with bigger opening. There also seems to be
the formation of a micro-annulus at the casing/cement
interface (possibly during the confining pressure release
after curing, see Figure 2a).
Figure 2. Radial fractures due to casing pressure and after CT
scan (under pressure): (a) with no confining pressure, (b)
confining pressure of 8.5 MPa (Taghipour et al., 2021).
(R = rock, ce = cement, ca = casing, F = fracture).
Beside laboratory experiments, other methods have been
used to investigate cement sheath integrity, which include
theorical modelling (Bois et al., 2012; Thiercelin et al.,
1998), finite elements-based methods (De Andrade and
Sangesland, 2016; Orlic et al., 2018) as well as discrete
elements method. Thiercelin et al. (1998) used
thermoelastic modelling to examine the conditions under
which radial cracking or debonding may appear in the
cement sheath. Their results revealed that the downhole
conditions as well as the thermoelastic properties of
casing, cement and rock all play important roles in the
failure mechanisms. They also underlined that having a
high compressive strength cement formulation is not
always a solution to prevent cracks. De Andrade and
Sangesland (2016) investigated the effect of casing stand-
off (not centralized in the hole) and thermal loading on
cement sheath failure using a finite elements method.
They concluded that the Young's moduli of the cement
and the rock were the key properties controlling the
cement sheath failure. Gheibi and coworkers (Gheibi et
al., 2021; Gheibi et al., 2019) used the modified discrete
element method (MDEM) to numerically analyze the
effect of the tensile strength of cement and that of the
confining pressure on radial fracture propagation. They
showed that under 20 MPa of confining pressure, crack
creation and propagation can only be limited within the
cement sheath even at casing pressure as high as 87 MPa.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023
The radial cracks, as mostly observed in laboratory
experiments and simulation, result from the tensile
(negative) stress in the material becoming higher (in
absolute value) than its tensile strength. However, from
analytical point of view, the stress distribution around the
borehole is not only a function of the applied casing
pressure and in-situ stresses, but also depends on the
mechanical properties of the materials behind the casing
(Jaeger et al., 2007). As presented in Figure 1, the well
goes through different formations which may have
different mechanical properties. The effect of rock
mechanical properties (e.g., stiffness) on the radial crack
creation and propagation both in the cement sheath and
the rock itself still needs to be properly investigated and
is therefore the main aim of this paper.
In the following sections, a brief description of the
numerical code is given. The analytical description of
elastic equations of stress and strains distributions around
the well will be given in section §3. The simulation results
and discussion will then be given is section §4, and the
paper will end with some conclusions.
2. NUMERICAL DESCRIPTION
The modified discrete element method (MDEM) code,
developed at SINTEF, is used to simulate fracture
propagation in the near-well. Written in MATLAB and
C/C++, this code was first developed by Alassi (Alassi,
2008; Alassi and Holt, 2012) for failure in the context of
reservoir geomechanics.
Figure 3. An element in MDEM. The red dots show the contacts
and their allocated ID (Alassi, 2008; Gheibi et al., 2021). A
triangle element (continuum) is made of the centres of three
particles that are connected by springs. A force is transmitted
when a relative displacement occurs between the particles.
Its use has been extended to reservoir pressurization, ur + iu = (u + iv)e − i (4)
hydraulic fracturing, fault reactivation (Rongved and
Cerasi, 2019) as well as casing pressurization (Gheibi et
 rr +   =  xx +  yy (5)
al., 2019). MDEM is a hybrid code, which can capture  −  rr + 2i r = ( yy −  xx + 2i xy )e2i (6)
both continuum (in elastic regime) and dis-continuum
(when an element fails) behavior of material. An element where ur and u are radial and tangential displacements,
in the code, as presented in the Figure 3, can only be a
triangle in 2D or tetrahedra in 3D, and the boundary  rr ,   and  r the radial, tangential and shear stress,
conditions are given in cartesian coordinates. The code is respectively, and ei = cos + i sin . The traction in the
coupled with the open-source MATLAB Reservoir material is defined by:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

Simulation Toolbox (MRST) code for fluid flow. This
coupling makes it possible to simulate the fracture 2( N − iT ) =  yy +  xx − ( yy −  xx + 2i xy )e2i (7)
propagation and the fluid flow into it.
where N and T are its normal and shear components,
3. ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION respectively. In these polar coordinates, the complex
variable is given by z = rei , r and  being real numbers
Let us consider the well architecture of Figure 1. The in-
denoting the radius and the Lode angle, respectively. The
situ stresses are usually anisotropic.  1 and  2 are
strains are defined by:
perpendicular to the hole axis while  3 is along the axis. ur 1 u ur
 rr = ;   = +
The material is transversely isotropic around the hole-axis r r  r (8)
(no properties variation in the plane  1 –  2 ). The elastic 1  u 1 ur u 
 r =   + −
formulation is then reduced to 2D. The casing pressure is 2  r r  r 
denoted Pi , and is sometimes referred to as the inner
pressure, and the outer pressure (also referred to as where,  rr ,  and  r the radial, tangential and shear
confining pressure) is denoted P0 . In the configuration of strains, respectively. In the case of a single hollow
(multi-) hollow cylinder(s), the in-situ stresses  1 and  2 cylinder, according to Jaeger et al. (2007), the complex
are replaced by the confining pressure P0 . Jaeger et al. potentials can be given by:
d
(2007) showed that the stress and displacement  ( z ) = cz ;  ( z ) = (9)
distribution within a hollow cylinder can be derived from z
two complex potentials. For example, if  ( z ) and  ( z ) where c and d are real constants, which can be evaluated
are those complex potentials, the displacements ( u , v ) using the outer and inner boundary conditions. When
and stresses (  kl ) in cartesian coordinates are given by multi-concentric hollow cylinders are considered, as
the following expressions: presented in Figure 4, similar forms of complex potentials
can be used for each hollow cylinder as follows:
2G(u + iv) =  ( z ) − z ( z ) − ( z ) (1) dj
j ( z ) = c j z ;  j ( z ) = (10)
z
 xx +  yy = 2   ( z ) +  ( z )  (2)
  where c j and d j are real constants,  j ,  j the complex
 yy −  xx + 2i xy = 2  z  ( z ) + ( z )  (3) potentials in each material, and z the complex variable.
 

where G is the shear modulus of the material, u and v

the displacements in the x- and y-directions, respectively.
 = 1 − i  2 represents the conjugate of the complex
number  = 1 + i  2 ;   and   are the first and second
derivatives of  , z = x + iy is a complex variable, with (1)

i the complex number such as i = −1 .  is a function

2 (2)

of Poisson's ratio  . It is given by  = 3 − 4 for plane (3)

strain (  1  0 ,  2  0 ,  3 = 0 ) and  = (3 − ) / (1 + )
for plane stress (  1  0 ,  2  0 ,  3 = 0 ). The analytical
computations given in this section are for the plane strain
problem. In polar coordinates, the displacements and
stresses are derived from equations (1)-(3) as follows:
Figure 4. Three concentric hollow cylinders.
For a well architecture, the hollow cylinders of Figure 4
represent the casing, cement sheath, and rock (see Figure
1 on Formation 1's region). The casing has an inner radius
a and outer radius a1 . The inner radius of the rock is a2 3 
c1 = P0 − 2 Pi (23)
and its outer radius b . The cement sheath is then limited 2 1 2 1
by a1 and a2 . The three materials are characterized by where  j are dimensionless constants given by:
their shear moduli and Poisson's ratios (G j , j ) , with
a12 − a 2  2 1
j = 1, 2, 3, standing for casing, cement, and rock, 1 = +
respectively. The pressure Pi is applied at the inner
b2 1 1
surface of the casing, and the pressure Po is applied at the  2   a2
2 =  1 − 2  2 (24)
outer lateral surface of the rock. From equation (10), there  1 1  b
are six unknown constants, which need six independent
 2 

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

relations. Continuity of displacements and tractions is 3 =  1 − 2  3
assumed at the two interfaces (casing/cement and  1 
cement/rock). Two equations are then obtained from
displacement continuity, two from traction continuity and  j and  j are also dimensionless constants given by:
b2 − a22 a22 ( 2 + 1 )
two from the boundary conditions at the inner wall of the
casing and the outer surface of the rock. From equations 1 =  2 + 2 (25)
(1), (4) and (10), the displacements in different materials b2 b2  3
are given by: a22 − a12 b2 − a22 a22 ( 2 + 1 )
2 = + (26)
1  d1  b2 b2 b2  3
ur + iu = ( 1 − 1)c1r − r  ; a  r  a1 (11)
2G1   b2 − a22 ( 1 − 2 )
3 = 1 + 2 (27)
ur + iu =
1  d 
( 2 − 1)c2r − 2  ; a1  r  a2 (12) b2 3

2G2  r 
( 1 + 1 ) a12 − 2 ( a12 − a2 )
1  d3  1 = (28)
ur + iu = ( 3 − 1)c3r −  ; a2  r  b (13) b2
2G3  r 
( 2 + 1 ) a12 + 2 ( a22 − a12 )
2 = (29)
From equations (1) - (7), the tractions in the materials are b2
also given by:
a2  a2 
d
N − iT = 2c1 + 21 ; a  r  a1 (14)
 3 = 2 ( 3 + 1 ) 22 − 2 (1 − 2 )  1 − 22  (30)
r b  b 
d
N − iT = 2c2 + 22 ; a1  r  a2 (15)  j is a function of the Poisson's ratio of material j. Using
r
(23) into equations (17) - (22), the other constants can be
d
N − iT = 2c3 + 23 ; a2  r  b (16) successively determined and are given as follow:
r
1 a2 
The continuity of displacements and tractions at the c2 = c1 − Pi + 3 P0 (31)
interfaces and the boundary conditions lead to the 1  1 1  1 b 2
1
following system of equations: a22 ( 2 + 1 ) ( 1 − 2 ) P
c3 = c2 − (32)
b 2
3 3 0

(1 − 1)a c − d1 = 1 (2 − 1)a c − 1 d2

2 2
(17)
d1 = a2 ( Pi − 2c1 )
1 1 1 2
(33)
(2 − 1)a c − d2 = 2 ( 3 − 1)a c − 2d3
2 2

( )
2 2 2 3 (18)
d2 = b P0 − 2a c − 2 b − a c3
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
(34)
2a12c1 + d1 = 2a12c2 + d2 (19)
d3 = b2 ( P0 − 2c3 ) (35)
2a c + d2 = 2a c + d3
2
2 2
2
2 3 (20)
a2 Pi = 2a2c1 + d1 (21) In the case of similar materials ( G1 = G2 = G3 = G and

b2 Po = 2b2c3 + d3 (22)
 1 =  2 =  3 =  ), it can be demonstrated that:
1 b2 P0 − a2 Pi
c1 = c2 = c3 = (36)
where 1 = G1 / G2 and 2 = G2 / G3 are dimensionless 2 b2 − a 2
parameters, G1 , G2 and G3 being the shear moduli of the a2 b2 ( Pi − P0 )
d1 = d2 = d3 = (37)
casing, cement and rock, respectively. The resolution of b2 − a 2
the system given in equations (17) - (22) leads to: and
 ur =
(
( − 1) b P0 − a Pi
2 2

r
)
−
1 a b ( Pi − P0 )
2 2
(38)
(a,d). When increasing the casing pressure, the radial
stress and radial strain increase, while the tangential stress
4G b2 − a 2 2G b2 − a 2 r ( ) and strain decrease. Particularly, for the casing pressure

 rr =
(
( − 1) b P0 − a Pi
2 2

+
)1 a b ( Pi − P0 )
2 2
(39)
up to 7.5 MPa (d), the tangential stress is compressive
(positive) in cement and rock. With further increase of the
4G b2 − a 2 (
2G b2 − a 2 r 2 ) inner pressure, the tangential stress become progressively

  =
(
( − 1) b P0 − a Pi
2 2

−
)
1 a b ( Pi − P0 )
2 2
(40)
tensile (negative) in the cement sheath and the rock. At
casing pressure of 45 MPa, the tensile stress is as high as
4G b2 − a 2 2G b2 − a2 r 2 ( ) 370 MPa, 10 MPa and 12 MPa in the casing, cement, and
b2 P0 − a2 Pi a b ( Pi − P0 ) rock, respectively. This high tensile stress within the
2 2

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

 rr = + (41)
( )
b2 − a 2 b2 − a 2 r 2
b2 P0 − a 2 Pi a b ( Pi − P0 )
2 2
  = − (42)
b2 − a 2 (
b2 − a 2 r 2 ) distribution, we consider the case in which the casing and
Equations (36) - (42) correspond to those usually found
for one hollow cylinder ( u = 0 ,  r = 0 ,  r = 0 ).
Unlike the displacement and strains, notice the
independence of stress with the material's elastic
properties – equations (41) and (42). Table 1 provides
some materials' properties which are used to compute the
analytical results of strains and stresses. They are given
for different casing pressures, at a fixed outer pressure of
5 MPa, and as a function of radius from the wellbore
(Figure 5). The tangential strain and radial stress are
continuous through the interfaces (Figure 5b,c), while the
radial strain and tangential stress are highly discontinuous
material is responsible for the radial cracks when its
absolute value exceeds the material's tensile strength. To
analyse the effect of rock stiffness on the stress
the outer pressures are equal (Pi = Po = 5 MPa). Three
configurations are analysed: (i) all the materials are
similar, (ii) the system is similar to that of Figure 4 with a
rock softer than cement, (iii) similar to (ii) but with a rock
stiffer than cement. Their properties are summarized in
Table 2. The computation of radial and tangential stresses
is presented in Figure 6. In the first case, it can be
observed that there is no variation of stresses within the
material when the inner and outer pressures are equal.
However, in cases (ii) and (iii), due to different elastic
properties of the materials, compressible tangential stress
as high as 36 MPa appeared in the casing, which suddenly
drops at its interface with the cement. One can also notice
the difference in stress distribution depending on the rock

Figure 5. Strains, and stresses as a function of casing pressure for constant pressure applied to the formation: P o = 5 MPa.
being softer or stiffer than the cement. When increasing 4. SIMULATION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
only the casing pressure from 5 to 25 MPa (and using
For numerical simulation, the system of Figure 4 has been
properties of Table 2), it can be observed that the tensile
meshed with different domains to be as close as possible
stress appears earlier in the stiffer rock (Figure 7).
to the experimental configuration. Like the analytical
Table 1. Materials properties. description, the simulation is limited here to the 2D case.
The meshed domains are presented in Figure 8 within a
Material Casing Cement Formation
square of 0.5×0.5 m2 in cartesian coordinates. The
a = 30.15 mm a1 = 32.15 mm a2 = 38 mm boundaries are constrained along the x- and y-axes at the
Size left and bottom sides, respectively, while boundaries at
a1 = 32.15 mm a2 = 38 mm b = 76 mm the right and top sides are free for movement. Only x-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

E (GPa) 200 8.0 15.0 displacement (respectively y-displacement) is permitted
on the bottom (respectively on the left) side. The meshed
ν [-] 0.3 0.15 0.28
domain is composed of a hole, a casing, an interface
casing/cement, a cement sheath, a rock, a seal sleeve, a
Table 2. Soft and stiff rock. confining region, and an outer region. The use of an
a = 30 mm Material Casing Cement Rock interface between the casing and the cement is because for
b = 76 mm practical cases (both in laboratory experiments and in the
Thickness:→ 2 mm 6 mm 38 mm
field), there is no perfect bond at this interface and some
E (GPa) 200 8.0 2.0
…softRock of its elements may move differently during a loading.
ν [-] 0.3 0.15 0.28
E (GPa) 200 8.0 30.0
This non-perfect bond can also explain the potential of
…stiffRock micro-annulus creation at casing/cement interface (Bois
ν [-] 0.3 0.15 0.28

Figure 6. Radial and tangential stresses for different material when Pi = Po = 5 MPa.

et al., 2011; Taghipour et al., 2021). It can be observed

Figure 7. Tangential stress for two rock's stiffnesses under an
outer pressure of 5 MPa and a casing pressure of 25 MPa.
that at the crossing of different materials, the element
sizes are affected, which could impact both the
convergence time and the crack patterns. A solution could
be to reduce and keep a constant element size in all
domains. It will improve the mesh, but significantly
increase the number of nodes and thus, the computing
power. A good compromise was found by adapting the
size of elements based on the particular material size, and
as a rule, to refine the mesh from the outer region down
to the casing. The sizes of different materials of Figure 8
and their poroelastic properties are summarized in Table
3. Notice different values of the rock's Young's modulus,
which effect will be analyzed. The casing/cement's
interface, the cement sheath and the rock can fail in tensile
mode during a variation of the casing pressure if the
induced tensile stress exceeds the given tensile strength.
A standard variation was also applied to the tensile
strength of these three materials and has shown to have
rather limited effect on crack creation and propagation.
Other materials such as casing, sleeve, confining, and
outer regions were prevented to fail in tensile mode.
Extremely high tensile strengths were then assigned to
them. The permeabilities of casing and sleeve were also
extremely low to prevent fluid communication from the
hole or from the confining region.
Figure 8. Mesh of different materials.
4.1. Parameter calibration
The experimental results of Taghipour et al. (2021),
presented in Figure 2, were used for calibration. Since the
poroelastic properties of the cured cement were not
directly measured during the experiment, they were
estimated by means of micromechanical modeling as
presented in (Agofack, 2019; Agofack et al., 2020).
Similarly, the properties of the Castlegate sandstone (the
rock used in their experiments), were not measured.
Previous investigations showed that its Young's modulus
is around 2 GPa for unconfined loading tests but can be
as high as 13 GPa under high confining pressure
(Agofack et al., 2018). A value of 7.5 GPa was assumed
for a confining pressure of 5-8 MPa. The parameters such
as tensile strength and loading rate were then calibrated.
A simulation was run with the parameters of Table 3: the
tensile strength of interface casing/cement, cement sheath
and rock were 0.10, 7 and 2 MPa, respectively. The initial
pore pressure in these materials was set to 5 MPa. The
confining pressure was kept at 7.5 MPa and the casing
pressure increased to 45 MPa. It was then decreased to
20 MPa. The result is presented in Figure 9 and is in good
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023
agreement with those of Figure 2, even though their
confining was 1 MPa higher. From Figure 9 it is also
observed that cracks started in the cement, precisely at its
interface with the casing, before propagating into the
rock. Most of the created cracks did not propagate through
the entire rock, probably due to material sizes in this
simulation, which were slightly higher than those used in
the experiment of Figure 2. Except for pore pressure, no
change was observed (e.g., crack closure) during the
reduction of the casing pressure from 45 MPa to 20 MPa.
Confining region
Rock formation
Cement sheath
Casing
Fracture/crack
Figure 9. Calibration's results at a casing pressure of 45 MPa
and under a confining pressure of 7.5 MPa.
4.2. Results and discussion
With parameters presented in Table 3, three different
simulations were run and only the Young's modulus of the
rock was made different in these simulations (7.5, 15 and
30 GPa). The confining pressure was kept constant at
5 MPa and the casing pressure increased up to 45 MPa.
The results are given in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
In Figure 10, the left graphs (a, d, g and j) are for a rock's
Young's modulus of 7.5 GPa (less than that of the
cement). The middle and the right graphs are for a rock's
Young's moduli of 15 and 30 GPa, respectively. The
graphs in the first row (a, b and c) correspond to a casing
pressure of 10 MPa, and those at the bottom row
correspond to a casing pressure of 35 MPa. At a given
rock's Young's modulus, the simulation results show that
fractured elements and fracture propagation increase with
increase of the casing pressure. For example, for the
rock's Young's modulus of 7.5 GPa, there is no fractured
element at the casing pressure of 10 MPa (Figure 10a),
while four major cracks are present in the cement sheath
 Table 3. Parameters of the different materials used in this simulation.
Interface
Material Hole Casing Casing/cement
Size: OD (mm) 60.3 64.3 65.0
Young modulus [GPa] 0.28 200 2 8.0
Poisson ratio [-] 0.48 0.27 0.15
Porosity [-] 0.95 0.02 0.40
Permability [m2] 1×10-5 1×10-21 1×10-16
Tensile strength σt [MPa] 1020 1020 0.10
and rock at casing pressure of 15 MPa (d), and many more
cracks at 35 MPa (j). The rock's Young's modulus also
strongly affects the crack initiation and propagation. For
example, at a given casing pressure of 10 MPa, there are
no cracks when the rock's Young modulus is 7.5 GPa,
while many cracks have appeared in the cases of higher
rock's Young's moduli (b, c). It is therefore observed that
the higher the rock's Young's modulus the earlier cracks
appear in the rock and/or cement sheath. This observation
agrees with the analytical solution presented in Figure 7,
which showed that the tensile stress appears earlier when
the rock is stiffer. A softer rock indeed is more deformable
and thus permits less buildup of the tensile stress, as
observed in the stiff rock. Also note that for the rock's
Young's modulus of 30 GPa, there is almost no crack in
the cement sheath for the casing pressure up to 15 MPa,
while many cracks have appeared in the rock (c, f). A
damaged region can also be observed at the interface
cement/rock (for stiffer rock) and increases with the
casing pressure (c, f, i and l).
At the casing pressure of 45 MPa (Figure 11), it is
observed that some boundary effects appeared in the rock
with higher Young's modulus. These boundary effects
manifest themselves by formation of a damaged region
within the rock, which could have probably increased
with higher casing pressures (Figure 11n). Overall, the
simulations agree very well with the experimental results
(Figure 2). Some compromises were however needed to
obtain satisfactory and semi-quantitative match between
the simulation results and the laboratory experiments.
These can be summarized by stating that the MDEM
software was conceived for porous rocks and therefore it
was not straightforward to include steel casing and rubber
sleeve, without having rigorous interfaces between them
and the geomaterials. Interface transitions are best
captured with a detailed mesh, however computing time
becomes excessive if the whole domain is discretized in
detail, especially as fracturing starts to develop. It is thus
very tempting to reduce the modelling domain extent,
although this is not easily done without compromising
accurate representation of applied stresses, especially in
the isotropic stress case. Eventually, it was possible to
Confining Outer
Cement Rock Sleeve
Region Region
76.0 152.0 155.0 200.0 500
7.5, 15, 30 0.028 2.8 7
0.15 0.28 0.48 0.45 0.25
0.40 0.29 0.02 0.95 0.3
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023
1×10-16 2×10-15 1×10-23 1×10-5 1×10-13
7 2 1020 1020 1020
correctly calibrate the model to recreate the observed
fracturing from the experiments. Once this is achieved, it
is a straightforward matter to upscale dimensions to field
well sizes. In addition, the MDEM code was designed for
anisotropic in-situ stresses in cartesian coordinates, where
the main fractures propagate along the direction of the
maximum horizontal stress. For isotropic boundary
stresses, in theory, the cracks can start at any point around
the wellbore. However, even with the use of a confining
domain, it was found that the x- and y-axis were
systematically the main directions of first cracks initiation
and propagation (e.g., see Figure 10b, d).
5. CONCLUSIONS
A combined analytical and numerical approach was used
in this paper to investigate the effect of rock stiffness on
crack initiation and propagation around the borehole.
Equations of multi-hollow cylinders were derived, and the
stress and strain distributions were computed. The results
showed that under certain casing pressure, the tangential
stress becomes negative (tensile) and is responsible of
radial cracking. In addition, it was observed that the stiffer
the rock the earlier the tensile stress appeared with
increase of the casing pressure. For simulations, the
MDEM code was used. The parameters were calibrated
on the experiments of Taghipour et al. (2021). The results,
which agreed very well with the experimental
observations showed that under constant confining
pressure, radial cracks increased with the applied casing
pressure. At fixed casing and confining pressures, radial
cracks increased with the rock's Young's modulus. When
the rock's stiffness is higher than that of the cement and
its tensile strength lower, the cracks started in the rock
before propagating into the cement sheath.
6. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication has been produced with support from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
program, grant no. ENER/H2020/764531/SECURe. The
authors would also like to acknowledge Idar Larsen for
guidance and advices during the numerical simulations.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023

Figure 10. Effect of rock's stiffness on fracture around the well under a confining pressure of 5 MPa and for casing pressure up to
35 MPa.

Figure 11. Effect of rock's stiffness on fractures around the well
under the confining and casing pressures of 5 MPa and 45 MPa,
respectively.
REFERENCES
1. Agofack, N. 2019. Micromechanical and
homogenization modelling for a hydrating oilwell
cement paste. In Proceedings of the 53rd US Rock
Mechanics /Geomechanics Symposium, New York, 23–
26 June 2019.
2. Agofack, N., S. Ghabezloo, and J. Sulem. 2020. Chemo-
poro-elastoplastic modelling of an oilwell cement paste:
Macroscopic shrinkage and stress-strain behaviour.
Cement and Concrete Research. 132: 106046.
3. Agofack, N., S. Lozovyi, and A. Bauer. 2018. Effect of
CO2 on P- and S-wave velocities at seismic and
ultrasonic frequencies. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control. 78: 388-399.
4. Alassi, H.T. 2008. Modeling reservoir geomechanics
using discrete element method: Application to reservoir
monitoring. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology. PhD Thesis. 144p.
5. Alassi, H.T. and R. Holt. 2012. Relating discrete
element method parameters to rock properties using
classical and micropolar elasticity theories.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics. 36: 1350-1367.
6. Anya, A., H. Emadi, and M. Watson. 2020. Computed
Tomography Study of Annular Cement Mechanical
Response Under Cyclic Hydraulic Stress. Proceedings
of the 8th Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference, Austin, 20-22 July 2020.
7. Bois, A.-P., A. Garnier, G. Galdiolo, and J.-B. Laudet.
2012. Use of a Mechanistic Model To Forecast Cement-
Sheath Integrity. SPE International Conference on CO2
Capture, Storage, and Utilization, New Orleans, 10–12
November 2010.
8. Bois, A.-P., A. Garnier, J. Saint-Marc, and N. Aimard.
2011. How To Prevent Loss of Zonal Isolation Through
a Comprehensive Analysis of Microannulus Formation.
In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4–
7 October 2009.
9. De Andrade, J. and S. Sangesland.
2016. Cement Sheath Failure Mechanisms:
Numerical Estimates to Design for Long-
Term Well Integrity. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering. 147: 682-698.
10. Gheibi, S., N. Agofack, and S.
Sangesland. 2021. Modified discrete element
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA21/All-ARMA21/2479314/arma-2021-1233.pdf by Yangtze University, kai wang on 06 September 2023
method (MDEM) as a numerical tool for
cement sheath integrity in wells. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering. 196.
11. Gheibi, S., Sangesland S., Vrålstad T. 2019. Numerical
modeling of radial fracturing of cement sheath caused
by pressure tests. Proceedings of the ASME 2019 38th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering OMAE2019, Glasgow, June 9-14, 2019.
12. Goodwin, K.J. and R.J. Crook. 1992. Cement Sheath
Stress Failure. SPE Drilling Engineering. 6: 291-296.
13. Jaeger, J.C., N.G.W. Cook, and R.W. Zimmerman.
2007. Fundementals of rocks mechanics. Fouth Edition,
Blackwell Publishing.
14. Orlic, B., A. Chitu, L. Brunner, M. Koenen, J.
Wollenweber, and G.-J. Schreppers. 2018. Numerical
investigations of cement interface debonding for
assessing well integrity risks. 52nd US Rock Mechanics
/Geomechanics Symposium, Seattle, Washington, USA,
17–20 June 2018.
15. Rongved, M. and P. Cerasi. 2019. Simulation of Stress
Hysteresis Effect on Permeability Increase Risk Along
A Fault. Energies. 12: 3458.
16. Skorpa, R., B. Werner, and T. Vrålstad. 2019. Effect of
Mud on Cement Sheath Integrity. In Proceedings of the
SPE Norway One Day Seminar, Bergen, 14 May 2019.
17. Skorpa, R., T. Øia, A. Taghipour, and T. Vrålstad. 2018.
Laboratory set-up for determination of cement sheath
integrity during pressure cycling. In Proceeding of the
37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, ASME, Madrid, June 17-22, 2018.
18. Taghipour, A., A. Ghaderi, P. Cerasi, and S. Gheibi.
2021. Novel experimental setup for study wellbore
cement and formation integrity. (Under review at)
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.
19. Thiercelin, M.J., B. Dargaud, J.F. Baret, and W.J.
Rodriquez. 1998. Cement Design Based on Cement
Mechanical Response. SPE Drilling & Completion. 266-
273.
20. Vrålstad, T., R. Skorpa, and B. Werner. 2019.
Experimental Studies on Cement Sheath Integrity
During Pressure Cycling. In Proceeding of the
SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, The Hague, 5-7 March 2019.