TM 6004 – Teknik Pemboran Lanjut

SUMMARRY OF MOHR AND MOHR-COLOUMB

CONCEPT

Babas Samudera Hafwandi (22220003)

Program Studi Magister Teknik Perminyakan ITB
1
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Types of Compression Tests
3. Mohr Failure Criterion
4. Mohr-Colomb Failure Criterion
5. Application
6. Conclusion.

2
1. Introduction
• Mohr and Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion for rocks has
been used extensively in various rock engineering
applications.
• The Mohr criterion states that yielding or fracturing should
occur when the shear stress exceeds the sum of the cohesive
resistance of the material c and the frictional resistance of the
slip planes or fracture plane

3
1. Introduction (Continued)
• The Mohr–Coulomb failure assumes that failure occurs at
particular combinations of the greatest and least principal
stresses, that the intermediate principal stress has no effect on
failure and that failure criteria can be set out in terms only of
the stress state, without any consideration of the state of
strain or the deformation mechanisms at work that lead to
failure.

4
2. Types of Compression Test
Before discussing Mohr and Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion,
there are six types of common test procedures:

1. Hydrostatic compression tests

2. Uniaxial compressive tests
3. Uniaxial tension tests
4. Triaxial compression tests
5. Triaxial extension tests
6. Polyaxial tests.
5
2.1. Hydrostatic Compression Tests

Fig 1. Hydrostatic compression tests (Zoback., 2007)

6
2.2. Uniaxial Compressive Tests

Uniaxial compressive tests

S1 > 0, S2 = S3 = 0

Fig 2. Uniaxial compressive tests (Zoback., 2007)

7
2.3. Uniaxial Tension Tests

Uniaxial tension tests

S1 < 0, S2 = S3 = 0

Fig 3. Uniaxial tension tests (Zoback., 2007)

8
2.4. Triaxial Compressive Tests

Triaxial compressive tests

S1 > S2 = S3

Fig 4. Triaxial compressive tests (Zoback., 2007)

9
2.5. Triaxial Extension Tests

Triaxial extension tests

S1 = S2 > S3

Fig 5. Triaxial extension tests (Zoback., 2007)

10
2.6. Polyaxial Tests

Polyaxial tests
S1 > S2 > S3

Fig 6. Polyaxial tests (Zoback., 2007)

11
3. Mohr Failure Criterion
• The Mohr criterion states that yielding or fracturing should
occur when the shear stress exceeds the sum of the cohesive
resistance of the material c and the frictional resistance of the
slip planes or fracture plane.
• In the Mohr criterion, conventional assumptions in particular,
the isotropy of the materials concerned, are adopted, in
addition to the brittleness of the material, i.e. the material
exhibits different strength against tension and compression.

12
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

The assumption used in mohr failure criterion, are :

1. Failure / fracture takes place on a plane through the
material point concerned.
2. Failure is determined by the stresses exposed on the
fracture plane.
3. Shear stress on any plane always tends to promote fracture
on this plane.

13
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

4. There exists an envelope which circumscribes the major

Mohr’s circles for all stress states at failure.
5. The envelope obtained above offers a criterion for the
fracture of a plane as a point on the major Mohr's circle of a
stress state, i.e. any point outside the envelope is associated
with a failed plane whilst the plane corresponding to a point
inside the envelope remains safe.

14
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

τ, Psi

σ, Psi

Fig. 7. Mohr's circle representation of Mohr failure criterion.

(Bourgoyne et al., 1986). 15
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
• The mohr criterion is stated mathematically by:

τ = ± (c + σ tan θ)…………………………….…………..(1)
where:
τ = shear stress at failure, psi
c = cohesive resistance of the rock, psi
σ= normal stress at failure plane, psi
θ = angle of internal friction, degree.
16
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
• As shown in Fig. 7, this is the equation of a line that is
tangent to Mohr's circles drawn for at least two compression
tests made at different levels of confining pressure.
• To understand the use of the Mohr criterion, consider a rock
sample to fail along a plane, as shown in Fig. 8a, when
loaded under a compressive force F and a confining pressure
p. The compressive stress σ1 is given by:

17
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
•  …………………………………….…………..(2)

where:

= compressive stress, psi

F= compressive force, lbf
r = radius of rock sample, inch

18
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
•  And confining stress is given by:
…………………………………….…………..(3)

where:

= confining stress, psi

p = confining pressure, psi

19
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

τ, Psi

σ, Psi

Fig. 8a. Reference rock specimen of mohr’s circle graphical

analysis (Bourgoyne et al., 1986). 20
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
• If we examine a small element on any vertical plan bisecting
the sample, the element is in the stress state given in Fig. 8b.
• Furthermore, we can examine the forces present along the
failure plane at failure using the free-body elements shown in
Fig. 8b.
• The orientation of the failure plane is defined by the angle Φ
between the normal-to-the-failure plane and a horizontal
plane.

21
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
• It is also equal to the angle between the failure plane and the
direction of the principal stress σ1.
• Both a shear stress τ and a normal stress σn must be present to
balance σ1 and σ3.

22
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

τ, Psi

σ, Psi

Fig. 8b. Reference free body stress element of mohr’s circle

graphical analysis (Bourgoyne et al., 1986).
23
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
Normal to failure plane Parallel to failure plane

Fig. 8c. Force balance normal and parallel to failure plane of

mohr’s circle graphical analysis (Bourgoyne et al., 1986).
24
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
•  Summing forces normal to the fracture plane (Fig. 8c) gives :

...................................(4)

• The unit area along the fracture plane dA n is related to the

unit areas dA1 and dA2 by:

25
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)

• 
And

• Making these substitutions in the force balance equation gives:

................................. (5)

26
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
List of Dimensions
•   = compressive stress, psi
= confining stress, psi
= normal stress, psi
Φ = angle between normal to failure plane and horizontal
plane (degrees)
dAn = unit area along the fracture plane, inch 2
dA1 = unit area along the compressive plane, inch 2
dA3 = unit area along the confining plane, inch 2.

27
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
•  Summing forces parallel to the fracture plane gives :

...................................(6)

• Expressing all unit areas in terms of dA n and simplifying

yields

= ....................................................... (7)
28
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
List of Dimensions
•   = compressive stress, psi
= confining stress, psi
= shear stress, psi
Φ = angle between normal to failure plane and horizontal
plane (degrees).

29
3. Mohr Failure Criterion (Continued)
• Note that Eqs. 5 and 7 are represented graphically by the
Mohr's circle shown in Fig. 8d. Note also that the angle of
internal friction, Φ, and 2Φ must sum to 90°.

30
  
𝜏 =𝑐 +𝜎 𝑛 tan 𝜃

Fig. 8d. Mohr circle representation of mohr

failure criterion (Bourgoyne et al., 1986).
 
𝜏 =− 𝑐 −𝜎 𝑛 tan 𝜃 31
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
• The Mohr–Coulomb (MC) failure criterion is a set of linear
equations in principal stress space describing the conditions
for which an isotropic material will fail, with any effect from
the intermediate principal stress being neglected.
• The MC criterion can be considered as a contribution from
Mohr and Coulomb.

32
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Mohr’s condition is based on the assumption that failure
depends only on σI and σIII, and the shape of the failure
envelope, the loci of σ, τ acting on a failure plane can be
linear or nonlinear.
• Coulomb’s condition is based on a linear failure envelope to
determine the critical combination of σ, τ that will cause
failure on some plane.

33
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Coulomb, in his investigations purposed the relationship :

|τ| = S0 + σ tan θ…………………………….…………..(8)

where:
τ = shear stress at failure, psi
S0 = inherent shear strength of the rock, psi
σ= normal stress at failure plane, psi
θ = angle of internal friction, degree.
34
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• The representation of Eq. 8 in the Mohr diagram is a straight
line inclined to the σ-axis by the angle Φ.
• By constructing a Mohr circle tangent to the line (a stress
state associated with failure) and using trigonometric
relations, the alternative form of Eq. 9 in terms of principal
stresses is obtained:

35
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
•...........................(9)
 

Where:
= major principal stress, psi
= minor principal stress, psi
S0 = cohesive resistance of the rock, psi
Φ = angle between normal to failure plane and horizontal
plane (degrees).
36
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
•One
  form of Mohr’s failure criterion is:

..........................................................................(10)

Where:

37
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion (Continued)
List of Dimensions
•   = major principal stress, psi
= minor principal stress, psi
Φ = angle between normal to failure plane and horizontal
plane (degrees)
= mean principal stress, psi
= mean shear stress, psi.

38
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Knowing the relationship given by Eq. 10, the Mohr
envelope can be constructed on the σ, τ plane, and failure
occurs if the stress state at failure, the circle of diameter (σ I -
σIII) is tangent to the failure envelope, τ = g(σ).
• Thus, from Eq. 9, Coulomb’s criterion is equivalent to the
assumption of a linear Mohr envelope.

39
Fig 9. Mohr diagram and failure envelopes
(Labuz et al., 2012) 40
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
•  With no order implied by the principal stresses σ1, σ2, σ3,
the MC criterion can be written as:

.........................................................(11)

41
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
•Where:
 
a = constant, , dimensionless
m = constant, , dimensionless
C0 = uniaxial compression strength, psi
T0 = theoretical uniaxial tensile strength, psi
b = constant, , dimensionless.

42
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• The shape of the failure surface of Mohr-Coloumb criterion
in principal stress space is dependent on the form of the
failure criterion: linear functions map as planes and nonlinear
functions as curvilinear surfaces.
• Consider the transformation from principal stress space (σ 1,
σ2, σ3) to the Mohr diagram (σ,τ).

43
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Although the radial distance from the hydrostatic axis to the
stress point is proportional to the deviatoric stress, a point in
principal stress space does not directly indicate the value of
shear stress on a plane.
• However, each point on the failure surface in principal stress
space corresponds to a Mohr-Coloumb circle tangent to the
failure envelope (Fig. 10).

44
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• The principal stresses at point D represent the stress state for
a triaxial compression test (σ1, σ2 = σ3)D, and point D is given
by circle D in the Mohr-Coloumb diagram.
• Similarly, for point C with principal stresses (σ 3, σ1 = σ2)C
associated with a triaxial extension test, Mohr-Coloumb
circle C depicts the stress state.
• Points D and C can be viewed as the extremes of the
intermediate stress variation, and the normal and shear
stresses corresponding to failure are given by points D f and
Cf.
45
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion (Continued)

σ3,C σ3,D σ1,C σ1,D

Fig .10. Linearized Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion (Labuz et

al., 2012) 46
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Conducting a series of triaxial tests defines an empirical
Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope that describes failure of the
rock at different confining pressures (Fig 11).
• Allowable stress states (as described by Mohr circles) are
those that do not intersect the Mohr–Coulomb failure
envelope.

47
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion
(Continued)
• Stress states that describe a rock just at the failure point
“touch” the failure envelope.
• Stress states corresponding to Mohr circles which exceed the
failure line are not allowed because failure of the rock would
have occurred prior to the rock having achieved such a stress
state.
• The slope of the Mohr failure envelopes for most rocks
decreases as confining pressure increases, as shown
schematically in Fig 11.

48
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion (Continued)

• However, for most rocks it is possible to consider the change

of strength with confining pressure in terms of a linearized
Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope (Fig 13) defined by two
parameters: μi, the slope of the failure line, termed the
coefficient of internal friction, and the unconfined
compressive strength (termed the UCS or C0).

49
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion (Continued)

Fig 11. Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion (Zoback ., 2007).

50
4. Mohr-Coloumb Failure Criterion (Continued)

Fig 12. Linear simplification of Mohr-Coloumb failure

criterion (Zoback ., 2007). 51
5. Comparison of Mohr and Mohr-Colomb
Failure
• Mohr’s condition is based on the assumption that failure
depends only on σI and σIII, and the shape of the failure
envelope, the loci of σ, τ acting on a failure plane is linear.
• Mohr-Coulomb’s condition is based on a Mohr’s linear
failure envelope to determine the critical combination of σ, τ
that will cause failure on some plane and the the loci of σ, τ
acting on a failure plane is non-linear.

52
5. Comparison of Mohr and Mohr-Colomb Failure (Continued)

A B

Fig 13. Graph Comparison (a) Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion

(Zoback., 2007). (b) Mohr failure criterion (Bourgoyne et al.,
1986). 53
5. Comparison of Mohr and Mohr-Colomb Failure
(Continued)
re
ail u
bF
l o um pe
r -Co velo
h En
Mo

Fig 14. Mohr and Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion (Zoback.,

2007). 54
6. Application

The application of Mohr and Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion

can be found at :
1. Compressive strength testing of cement
2. Failure mechanisms of drilling bit
3. Casing setting depth.

55
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement
• The compressive strength of the set cement is the
compressional force required to crush the cement divided by
the cross-sectional area of the sample.
• Test schedules for curing strength test specimens are
recommended by API Spec 10A.
• These schedules are based on average conditions encountered
in different types of cementing operations and are updated
periodically on the basis of current field data.

56
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement
(Continued)
• The compressive strength of the cement is usually about 12
times greater than the tensile strength at any given curing
time.
• The equipment used in testing the strength of cement is a
compressive strength tester.

57
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement (Continued)

Fig 15. Schematic of compressive strength tester (Nazir., 2018)

58
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement (Continued)

Table 1. Compressive strength specification requirements (API 10A., 2002)

Minimum Compressive Strength at
Cement Schedule Final Curing temp Final Curing Pressure Indicating Curing Period
Class No. 8-Hr, +/- 15 min 24 Hr, +/- 15 Min
deg F deg C psi kPa psi MPa psi MPa
A - 100 38 Atmos. 250 1.7 1800 12.4
B - 100 38 Atmos. 200 1.4 1500 10.3
C - 100 38 Atmos. 300 2.1 2000 13.8
D 4S 170 77 3000 20700 NR NR 1000 6.9
6S 230 110 3000 20700 500 3.4 2000 13.8
E 4S 170 77 3000 20700 NR NR 1000 6.9
8S 290 143 3000 20700 500 3.4 2000 13.8
F 6S 230 110 3000 20700 NR NR 1000 6.9
9S 320 160 3000 20700 500 3.4 1000 6.9
G, H - 100 38 Atmos. 300 2.1 NR NR
- 140 60 Atmos. 1500 10.3 NR NR
59
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement
(Continued)
In the field, after the cement has been pumped and hardened it
must be pressure tested. The tests should include both positive
and negative differential pressure. The following should be
considered when making a test:

• A positive pressure test can be performed by closing the

BOPs and pressuring up on the casing. (Do not exceed
formation fracture gradient.)

60
6.1. Compressive Strength Testing of Cement
(Continued)
• A negative pressure test (or inflow test) can be performed by
reducing the hydrostatic pressure inside the casing. This can
be done using a DST tool or displacing with the well to
diesel. This test is more meaningful since mud filled
perforations may hold pressure from the casing, but may
become unblocked when pressure from the formation is
applied.

61
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit
• Drag bits are designed to drill primarily by a wedging
mechanism.
• If drag bits could be kept drilling by wedging, they would not
dull so quickly.
• It is when they are dragging and, thus, scraping and grinding
that they drill slowly and dull quickly.

62
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit
(Continued)
• A twisting action also may contribute to rock removal from
the center portion of the hole.
• A schematic illustrating the wedging action of a drag bit tooth
just prior to cutting failure is shown in Fig. 16.

63
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit
(Continued)
• A vertical force is applied to the tooth as a result of applying
drill collar weight to the bit, and a horizontal force is applied
to the tooth as a result of applying the torque necessary to
tum the bit.
• The result of these two forces defines the plane of thrust of
the tooth or wedge.
• The cuttings are sheared off in a shear plane at an initial
angle to the plane of thrust that is dependent on the properties
of the rock.
64
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit
(Continued)
• The depth of the cut is controlled by the plane of thrust and is
selected based on the strength of the rock and the radius to
the cut.
• The bottom clearance angle prevents the wedge from
dragging the hole bottom while taking a chip and, thus,
causing the bit to jump and chatter and to wear fast.
• The bottom clearance angle should not be too great, however,
to prevent the bit from digging too deep and stalling the
rotary whenever the weight-to-torque ratio is too great.
65
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit
(Continued)
• A slight rake angle can help promote an efficient wedging
mechanism, although a positive rake angle may not be
necessary because of the downward slope of the hole bottom
when the bit is operated properly.
• The bit tooth loses strength as the rake angle is increased.

66
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit (Continued)

Fig 16. Wedging action of drag bit cutter (Bourgoyne et al.,

1986) 67
 6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit (Continued)

Fig 17. Failure Mechanism of rolling cutter bits (Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
68
Table 1. IADC Diamond and PDC drill bit classification chart
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
BIT DESIGN FEATURES
IADC
Step Long Short Non Downhole Side Oil Core
Formation Series Other
Type Taper Taper Taper Motor Track Base Ejector
Number
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
0
1
Soft D1 2
3
4
0
1
Medium
D2 2
Soft
3
4

69
Table 1. IADC Diamond and PDC drill bit classification chart
(Continued) (Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
BIT DESIGN FEATURES
IADC
Step Long Short Non Downhole Side Oil Core
Formation Series Other
Type Taper Taper Taper Motor Track Base Ejector
Number
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
0
1
Medium D3 2
3
4
0
1
Medium
D4 2
Hard
3
4
0
1
Hard D5 2
3
4
70
Table 2. IADC Diamond and PDC core bit classification chart
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
IADC Conventional Face
Other
Formation Series Core Barrel Discharge
Number
(1) (2) (3)
0
1
Soft D7 2
3
4
0
1
Medium D8 2
3
4
0
1
Hard D9 2
3
4
71
 Table 2. IADC Rolling-cutter bit classification chart
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
Features
Sealed Sealed
Standard Roller Roller Sealed Sealed

Types
Series

Roller Friction
Formations Roller Bearing Brg Gage Roller Friction Directional Other
Brg Gage Brg Gage
Bearing Air Protected Bearing Bearing
Protected Protected
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Soft formations with low 1
1 compressive strength and 2
3
high drillability
Milled Tooth Bits

4
Medium to medium hard 1
2 formations with high 2
compressive strength 3
4
1
Hard semi abrasive and 2
3
abrasive formations 3
4

72
 Table 2. IADC Rolling-cutter bit classification chart
(Continued) (Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
Features
Sealed Sealed
Standard Roller Roller Sealed Sealed

Types
Series

Roller Friction
Formations Roller Bearing Brg Gage Roller Friction Directional Other
Brg Gage Brg Gage
Bearing Air Protected Bearing Bearing
Protected Protected
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1
Soft formations with low
2
4 compressive strength and
3
high drillability
4
1
Insert Bit

Soft to medium formations

5 with low compressive 2
strength 3
4
1
Medium hard formations
2
6 with high compressive
3
strength
4

73
 Table 2. IADC Rolling-cutter bit classification chart
(Continued) (Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
Features
Sealed Sealed
Standard Roller Roller Sealed Sealed
Series

Types
Roller Friction
Formations Roller Bearing Brg Gage Roller Friction Directional Other
Brg Gage Brg Gage
Bearing Air Protected Bearing Bearing
Protected Protected
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1
Hard semi abrasive and 2
7
abrasive formations 3
Insert Bit

4
1
Extremely hard and 2
8
abrasive formations 3
4

74
6.2. Failure Mechanism of Drilling Bit (Continued)
Table 3. Rolling cutter bits tooth design characteristic
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)

75
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
• The selection of the number of casing strings and their
respective setting depths is generally based on consideration
of the pore-pressure gradients and fracture gradients of the
formations to be penetrated.
• The setting depth of the casing will also be determined by a
range of other considerations such as:

76
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
1. The need to isolate weak formations from high mudweights
2. Isolate lost circulation zones
3. To isolate troublesome formations, such as shales, which
can cause hole problems whilst drilling subsequent
formations.

77
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• The example shown in Fig. 18 illustrates the relationship
between casing setting depth and these gradients.
• A line representing the planned mud-density program is also
plotted.
• The mud densities are chosen to provide an acceptable trip
margin above the anticipated formation pore pressures to
allow for reductions in effective mud weight caused by
upward pipe movement during tripping operations.

78
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination (Continued)

Fig 18. Casing setting depths (Bourgoyne et al., 1986) 79

6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination (Continued)
Datum Rotary Table
Mean Sea Level
Sea Water Gradient

Seabed
Effective Mud Gradient
Fracture
Gradient

Minimum Setting Depth

Fig 19. Conductor minimum setting depth (BG group., 2001) 80

6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• The conductor-casing setting depth is based on the mud
density required to prevent washout of the shallow borehole
when drilling to the depth of the surface casing.
• Conductor setting depths should provide sufficient strength to
allow circulation of the heaviest anticipated mud weight in
the next hole section and to support the loads from the
wellheads, BOPs and additional casing strings if applicable.

81
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• The minimum setting depth is the depth at which bottom hole
pressure created by the rilling fluid being circulated (ECD) in
the next hole section, is exceeded by the fracture value of the
formation.
• The effective mud weight should take into account the weight
of cuttings suspended in the mud which is dependent on
drilling rates and hole cleaning. The static bottom hole
density is increased by the ECD which, normally
insignificant, should be taken into account in areas where lost
circulation is critical.
82
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination (Continued)

Fig 20. Typical behavior of formation pressure and casing setting depth
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986) 83
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• It is recommended to consider the setting depth of the casing
shoes with regards to formation strength such that it can
withstand any influx from deeper formations during the life of
the well.
• During drilling the casing shoe is set as deep as possible based
on the mud weight and fracture gradient.
• To set a casing deeper may therefore be impossible without
pushing boundaries and reducing safety factors.

84
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• A solution on how to enable a deeper setting depth may be to
add an extra casing string to the well design.
• This is done by setting one casing shallower than initially
planned and increase the mud weight.
• The increased mud weight makes it possible to drill the next
section deeper than initially planned and the additional can be
set deeper.

85
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• Other factors, such as the need to protect freshwater aquifers,
the presence of vugular lost circulation zones, the presence of
depleted low pressure zones that tend to cause stuck pipe, the
presence of salt beds that tend to flow plastically and close the
borehole, and government regulations, can also affect casing-
depth requirements.

86
6.3. Casing Setting Depth Determination
(Continued)
• Moreover, experience in an area may show that it is easier to
achieve a good casing-seat cement job in some formation
types than in others, or that fracture gradients are generally
higher in some formation types than in others.
• Under such conditions, a design must be found that
simultaneously will meet these special requirements and the
pore pressure and fracture-gradient requirements.

87
7. Conclusion

1. Mohr’s condition is based on the assumption that failure

depends only on σI and σIII, and the shape of the failure
envelope, the loci of σ, τ acting on a failure plane is linear.
2. Mohr-Coulomb’s condition is based on a Mohr’s linear failure
envelope to determine the critical combination of σ, τ that will
cause failure on some plane and the the loci of σ, τ acting on a
failure plane is non-linear.

88
7. Conclusion (Continued)

3. Stress states corresponding to Mohr circles which exceed the

failure line are not allowed because failure of the rock would
have occurred prior to the rock having achieved such a stress
state.
4. The application of Mohr and Mohr-Coloumb failure criterion
can be found on compressive strength testing of cement,
failure mechanisms of drilling bit and casing setting depth

89
Refrences

• Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., & Chevenert, M.E. (1986).

Applied Drilling Engineering. Richardson, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Chapter 3,5 and 6.
• Mitchell, R.F., Miska, S.Z. 2011. Fundamental of Drilling
Engineering. SPE Textbook Series Vol. 12, Houston, USA.
Chapter 4 and 7.
• Zoback, M.D., (2007) Reservoir Geomechanics. Edinburgh,
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, Chapter 4.

90
References (Continued)

• Petroleum Engineering Department. 2017- Heriot Watt

University, Drilling Engineering. Heriot-Watt University,
Chapter 7 and 8.
• Labuz, J.F., Zang, A. (2012) Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Journal, Germany.
SpringerLink.
• Li, Shuguang. (2020) A Reflection on the Mohr criterion.
Journal of Mechanics of Materials. Elsevier.

91