Well Bore Stability

Well-bore stability
Date:2002.9.
foreword
 Significance
1. stability problems during drilling

cause substantial problems in all
areas of the world, even in vertical
wells. These stability problems
are often encountered in the
shale-like rock layers above the
foreword
reservoir, resulting in loss of time

and sometimes also loss of
equipment.
2. A significant part of development
costs for a field today is production
drilling. If the production wells can
be drilled as deviated holes,
foreword
the production platform can drain a lar
ger area.
This can reduce the number of pla
tforms required to produce the field. St
ability during drilling can be critical for
highly deviated wells. There is hence a
large potential for cost saving here, bot
h with respect to reducing
foreword
the cost of the wells which are actually
drilled and also with respect to
reducing the required number of
production wells.
foreword
*research concern:
this report will presents an
overview of how rock mechanics can
be applied to analyze well stability
problems. The presentation is aimed at
showing the basic procedure, while the
borehole is in a complicated stress
foreword
circumstances, so the reality can not
be described exactly by an model, no
mater how complicated the model is.
Based on some ideal assumptions,a
stability analysis, however, can give
some guiding limits, which then have
to be related to practical conditions.
Section 1 Some geological
aspects of rock mechanics
From the point of view of rock
mechanics, it is the present state of a
rock and its present mechanical properties
which are of interest. The rock has
however undergone a long and in many
cases complicated process from its initial
state of a loose sediment to its present
state as a rock.
A sedimentary basin may be exposed
to tectonic forces creating repeated cycles
of elevation and depression, in addition
to erosion, changes in sedimentation of
environment, changes in sedimentation
rate, solution and precipitation of
cementing material etc. These geological
activities and events will however affect
the properties which will be of main
interest in rock mechanics, including in
situ stress, pore pressure and rock
mechanical properties.
Therefore, some knowledge of
geological processes is often valuable,
and although on a totally different time
scale and length scale, geological
processes are often comparable with
events in rock mechanics laboratory
testing.
1.1 Underground stresses (see
figure )
Underground stresses
z
 y
x
1) Normally, an underground formation
has to carry the weight of the overlying
material,
z
 z   0  ( z ) gdz (1.1)
Where is the density of the material
and g is the acceleration of gravity. If
the density don’t varies with depth, the
vertical stress at depth z becomes
simpler. ( notice that if we determine the
z-axis is pointing vertically downwards,
with z=0 corresponding to the earth
surface ).
Assuming that the horizontal stresses
are equal, by applying the elastic theory,
we may get :

x y   z (1.2)
1 
where v is Poisson’s ratio. Values of
the total vertical stress are normally
found by integrating density log down to
the appropriate depth. Horizontal stress
value are more difficult to infer. A Poisson’s
ratio measured in the lab today should
not be used to estimate a ratio between
the vertical and horizontal stresses. The
most direct method of obtaining the
horizontal stress is to perform a fracture
test of the formation. This is however
not done routinely, and the number of
data points will therefore mostly be
inadequate for evaluation of horizontal
stress gradients.
2 ) The earth’s crust consists of a number
of discrete tectonic plates. When different
plates interact, extensive deformation
will occur along plates boundaries, this
lead to tectonic stresses. (see figure)
Schematic illustration of
tectonic plate movement
Subduction Spreading Subduction

zone ridge zone
lithosphere
asthenosphere
If we take the tectonic activity into
consideration, then the horizontal stress
will be:
v
x (   1 ) z (1.3a )
1 v
v
 y  (   2 ) z (1.3b)
1 v
Where the  1and  2 represent the
tectonic coefficient.
3 ) The pore pressure is an important
parameter in any rock mechanics study
of porous, fluid-filled rock systems. The
pore fluid will carry part of the total
stresses applied to the system, thus
relieving the rock matrix from part of the
load. The effective stress as defined by
Terzaghi is equal to the total stress less
the pore pressure. This effective stress
concept was first introduced by Terzaghi
in soil mechanics in 1923, on an empirical
basis.
    P0 (1.4)
'
The effective stress concept has later been re

fined by Biot as:
'
    P0 (1.5)
Where

is the effective stress coefficient.
namely, the Biot coefficient.
A further study shows that the Biot
coefficient has something with the rock’s
volumetric compressibility and the solid
Matrix compressibility.
C r or E /(1  2 )
  1 (1.6)   1 (1.7)
Cb Ei (1  2 i )
where: E and --the Young’s modulus
of the rock volume and the solid
Ei
matrix
and --the Poisson’s ratio
of the rock volume and the solid

matrix
i
still we can use the transverse wave
velocity and the longitudinal wave
velocity to calculate the effective co-
efficient as the following:
 b (3v pb  4v sb )
2 2
  1 (1.8)
 r (3v pr  4v sr )
2 2
where:  b ,  r --the density of the rock

volume and the solid matrix
v pb , v pr --longitudinal wave velocity of
the rock volume and the solid
matrix
v sb , v sr --transverse wave velocity of the
rock volume and the solid
matrix
then the effective stresses can be
expressed as: (if we make  =1)
'
 z   z  0 (1.9a)
' v '
x (   1 ) z (1.9b)
1 v
' v '
y (   2 ) z (1.9c)
1 v
1.2 two strength criterion
1 )Mohr-Coulomb criterion
1

 
3
1
 C   (1.10)
where:

--the inner friction coefficient
of the rock, ;
  tg
--the inner friction angle;

C—shear strength
This has give us a criterion to judge if
the rock has failed or not.
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion also can
be written as the following form which
is the function of the principal stress of
 and  3 :
1
 2 1/ 2
  2 1/ 2

 1 (  1)     3 (  1)    2C (1.11)
this is just one form among four.
2) Drucker-Prager criterion
while from the above formula, we can
find that Mohr-Coulomb criterion has not
taken the medium stress into consideration.
Contrary to it, the Drucker-Prager criterion
does.
The expression is as the following:
1/ 2
J2  QI1  K f  0(1.12)
where:
I1   1   2   3
 2 2
J 2  ( 1   2 )  ( 2   3 )  ( 3   1 )
1
6
2

3 sin 
Q
3 3  sin  2
3C cos 
Kf  2
3  sin 
1.3 Rock mechanical properties

The mechanical properties of a rock
normally be described by 4 mechanical
parameters: two elastic parameters ( i.e.
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio )
and two failure parameters ( friction angle
and uniaxial compressive strength when
applying the Mohr-Coulomb criterion ).
while the rock mechanical properties
could be tested in the lab. ( see figure )
Compressive test
During the test, increased the
pressure around the rock sample to
certain value, at the same time, we
enhance the vertical pressure in order to
increase the  , together write down
1
the sample’s axial compressive strain .
1
 1 equal to vertical distortion value divide
the original length of the sample.
3 2 1 0
3 3 3 3  0
1  3 0  cons tan t
)
T  cons tan t
3
3
2
3
1
0 3
3
1
from the picture, we can find that the
maximum vertical stresses before the
rock’s failure is the strength value
according to certain horizontal pressure.
when we increase the horizontal
pressure, it will not only increase the
strength of the rock, but also the plasticity,
i.e. the strain value before failure will
also increased. The third curve
approximately approach to the ideal
plasticity situation; the fourth one has
shown obvious hardening property. The
slope of the curve equal to the Young’s
modulus. If we record the transversal
strain  2  ,3 then we can get the
value of the Poisson’s ration . 
3
  (1.13)
 1
the rock’s tensile strength is much
smaller than its compressive strength.
It is difficult to carry out the tensile test
in the axial direction directly. So we
adopt the following method to obtain the
tensile strength  .
t

t  (MPa )(1.14)
rt
where: P—the total stress(N)
r-- the radius of the sample (mm)
t--the thickness of the sample(mm)
Tensile test
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
Underground formations are always
under some stress, mostly due to over-
burden pressure and tectonic stresses.
When a well is drilled in a formation,
stressed solid material is removed and
replaced with a fluid under pressure.
Since the well fluid pressure normally
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
does not match exactly the stress which
the removed solid exerted, there will be
an alteration in the stress state of the
formation around the well. (see figure )
This stress alteration is important, since
large stress deviation may lead to failure
in the formation. (see figure )
Stresses in a formation
before (a) and after drilling (b)
Well-bore failure
(caving)
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
If we consider the well is in a linear
elastic formation, so we can use the
the following model to analyze the well’s
stresses situation: ( see figure )
for convenience, we use cylindrical
co-ordinates to study the stresses
distribution around the well-bore wall.
Borehole wall stresses
model (1)
Borehole wall stresses
model (2)
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
2.1 the stresses distribution of the
vertical well
1) the stresses caused by well pressure
R2
r  2  ( 2.1a )
r
R2
   2 ( 2.1b)
r
Where R is the radius of the well-
bore.
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
2) The stresses caused by the  x
x R2  x 3R 4 4 R 2
 r  (1  2 )  (1  4  2 ) cos 2 (2.2a)
2 r 2 r r
x R2 x 3R 4
  (1  2 )  (1  4 ) cos 2 (2.2b)
2 r 2 r
x 3R 4 2 R 2
 r  (1  4  2 ) sin 2 (2.2c)
2 r r
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
3) Caused by the  y
y R2  y 3R 4 4 R 2
 r  (1  2 )  (1  4  2 ) cos 2 (2.3a)
2 r 2 r r
y R2 y 3R 4
  (1  2 )  (1  4 ) cos 2 (2.3b)
2 r 2 r
y 3R 4
2R 2
 r  (1  4  2 ) sin 2 ( 2.3c)
2 r r
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
4) Caused by the  z
2
R
 z   v   [2( x   y ) 2 cos 2 ](2.4)
r
5) Caused by permeable effect

When the well pressure increase to a certain
value, it will cause loss of circulation, this
will lead to additional stresses distribution
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
around the well-bore wall
 (1   )(1  2 ) (r 2  R 2 ) 
r   2
 f  (  0 )(2.5a )
 2(1   ) r 
 (1   )(1  2 ) r 2  R 2 
    f  (  0 )(2.5b)
 2(1   )
2
r 
 (1   )(1  2 ) 
z    f  (  0 )(2.5c)
 2(1   ) 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
where :
 --Poisson’s ratio
f --porosity of the rock
0
0 --pore pressure of the virgin

formation
  1   (see Page 23)
when the well-bore wall is non-permeable,
there is no this additional stresses.
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
so the stresses distribution around the
well-bore wall can be formed by the
above formulas:
R2 1 R2
 r  2   ( x   y )(1  2 )
r 2 r
1 3R 4 4R 2
 ( x   y )(1  4   2 ) cos 2
2 r r
 (1   )(1  2 ) R2 
  (1  2 )  f  (  0 )(2.6a )
 2(1   ) r 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
R2 1 R2
    2   ( x   y )(1  2 )
r 2 r
1 3R 4
 ( x   y )(1  4 ) cos 2
2 r
 (1   )(1  2 ) R2 
  (1  2 )  f  (  0 )(2.6b)
 2(1   ) r 
 R 2 
z z    2( x   y )( ) cos 2 
 r 
 (1   )(1  2 ) 
   f  (  0 )( 2.6c )
 (1   ) 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
when the well is permeable,  =1;
when the well is non-permeable,  =0.
at the well-bore wall (r=R), the stresses
distribution is:
 r    f (  0 )(2.7 a )
      x (1  2 cos 2 )   y (1  2 cos 2 )
 (1   )(1  2 ) 
   f  (  0 )(2.7b)
 (1   ) 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
 z   z   2( x   y ) cos 2 
 (1   )(1  2 ) 
   f  (  0 )(2.7c)
 (1   ) 
2.2 the stresses distribution around the

deviated well
As for the deviated well, the stresses
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
distribution around the well-bore wall is
more complicated. While the direction of
the well axis does not accord with the
principal stresses’, so we need to
transform the co-ordinate from (1,2,3)
which represent the principal stresses’
direction to (x,y,z) where z oriented the
same with the well axis. For convenience,
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
we also need to set up the relation
between the perpendicular co-ordinate
with the cylindrical co-ordinate.
while a transform from (1,2,3) co-
ordinate to (x,y,z) co-ordinate can be
obtained in two operations. (see figure)
where : represents the azimuth;
represents the deviation.


Co-ordinate Transform
3 1 

 


 1
2
1  1
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
1)make the 3 as the axis, rotate angle
according to the right hand’s rule, to
the (x1,y1,z1) co-ordinate. The relation
between the (1,2,3) with the (x1,y1,z1)
can be expressed as the following:
 x1  cos  sin  0 1 
 y1   sin  cos  0 2 (2.8)
    
 z1   0 0 1 3 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
2) make the y1 as the axis, rotate 
angle to the (x,y,z) co-ordinate. The
relation between the (x1,y1,z1) and
the (x,y,z) can be expressed as the
following matrix:
 x  cos  0  sin    x1
 y   0 1 0   y1 (2.9)
    
 z   sin  0 cos    z1
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
so the transform from (1,2,3) co-ordinate
to (x,y,z) co-ordinate can be expressed
by the following matrix:
 x  cos  0  sin    cos  sin  0 1 
 y   0 1 0   sin  cos  0 2
     
 z   sin  0 cos    0 0 1 3 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
cos  cos  cos  sin   sin   1 

   sin  cos    
0  2 (2.10)
 sin  cos  sin  sin  cos   3 
the relation between the component of

,  xx ,  yy 
in zzthe (x,y,z) coordinate
and the component  1 ,  2 ,  3in the
(1,2,3) co-ordinate can be expressed
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
 xx  xy  xz  cos  cos  cos  sin   sin  
   
 yx  yy  yz     sin  cos  0 
 zx  zy  zz   sin  cos  sin  sin  cos  
 
 1 0 0  cos  cos   sin  sin  cos 
 0  0   cos  sin  cos  sin  sin   (2.11)
 2  
 0 0  3    sin  0 cos  
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
Or can be written as:
 xx   1 cos 2  cos 2    2 cos 2  sin 2 
  3 sin 2 
 yy   1 sin    2 cos 
2 2
 zz   1 sin 2  cos 2    2 sin 2  sin 2 

2
  3 cos 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
 xy   1 cos  cos  sin 
  2 cos  sin  cos 
2
 xz   1 sin  cos  cos 
2
  2 cos  sin  sin 
  3 sin  cos 
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
 yz   1 sin  cos  sin 
  2 sin  sin  cos 
while as we are study the deviated
well, so the stresses distribution around
the well-bore wall are not only caused by
the above terms, but also are caused by
the component of  xy ,  xz ,  yz.
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
1) by the  xy
4 2
3R 4R
 r   xy (1  4  2 ) sin 2
r r
4
3R
    xy (1  4 ) sin 2
r
4 2
3R 2R
 r   xy (1  4  2 ) cos 2 (2.12)
r r
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
2) By the  xz
2
R
 rz   xz (1  2 ) cos
r
2
R
 z   xz (1  2 ) sin  (2.13)
r
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
3) By the  yz
2
R
 rz   yxz (1  2 ) sin 
r
2
R
 z   yz (1  2 ) cos (2.14)
r
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
add the stresses caused by different
component, we can get the total stresses
distribution around the deviated well:
 r  ..  ..
   ..  ..
 z  ..  ..
 r  ..  ..
 rz  ..  ..
 z  ..  ..(2.15)
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
at the well-bore wall (r=R) the stresses
can also be obtained:
 r    f (  0 )
(1   )(1  2 )
      [  f ](  0 )
(1   )
  xx (1  2 cos 2 )   yy (1  cos 2 )
 4 xy sin 2
Section 2 Stresses
around boreholes
(1   )(1  2 )
 z  [  f ](  0 )   zz
(1   )
  [2( xx   yy ) cos 2  4 xy sin 2 ]
 r  0
 rz  0
 z  2 yz cos  2 xz sin  (2.16)
Section 3 Critical Mud-Weight
1.Unstable boreholes—reasons and

consequences
Formations at a given depth are
exposed to compressive stresses,vertically
and horizontally, as well as a pore pressure.
when a hole is drilled, the surrounding rock
must carry the load which was carried by
the removed rock. In a rock which behaves
linearly elastic, this leads to a stress
concentration near the well. If the
well is drilled through a weak rock, thi
s stress concentration can lead to failu
re of the borehole.
To prevent flow of pore fluid into t
he well or rock failure (among other thi
ngs), the well is filled with mud. The m
ud-weight is primarily adjusted to prev
ent inflow of pore fluid, while the
aspect of rock stability traditionally
has had a low priority. This represents
no problems in competent rocks,
but in weak formations it may be the
stability which sets the lower
acceptable limit for the mud-weight,
not the pore pressure.
–
The mud will carry parts of the stress
concentration. The mud-weight can, however,
not be increased too much, since this will
cause hydraulic fracturing of the formation,
risking lost circulation and the possibility of a
blowout.
There are basically two types of borehole
failure.see the following figures:
Stability problems during
drilling
compressive failure is caused by an i
nsufficient mud-weight compared with r
ock strength and the stress around the
borehole, while tensile failure is caused
by an excessive mud-weight compared
with the smallest in situ stress.
compressive failure can be divided
into two main types:
1). Increased borehole diameter due to
brittle failure and caving of the well-bore
wall. This can lead to cementing
problems and difficulties with logging
response and log interpretation. This
normally takes place in brittle rocks,but
borehole increase may also be due to
erosion (hydraulic or mechanical) in a
poorly cemented (weak) rock.
2). Reduced borehole diameter normally
occurs in weak (plastic) shale,
sandstones and salt. Some chalk
formations can also show such behavior.
This phenomenon requires repeated
reaming, or may even resulting in a stuck
drill-pipe.
Tensile failure or hydraulic fracturing i
s recognized by lost circulation. This can
reduce the hydraulic pressure in the well
and cause inflow of pore fluid. In the wor
st case, this results in a blowout.
When drilling in competent and no
rmally stressed rocks, these problems
are usually not experienced. They can,
however, appear in zones which are
abnormally stressed compared with
the strength of the rock. The mud may
also have detrimental effects,resulting
in a weakening of the rock. A typical
example is swelling shale, where the
mud is not in chemical equilibrium with
the rock, so that an initially chemical
problem is turning into a mechanical
problem.
The increased costs of such
problems are obvious. Instabilities may
also cause considerable problems to
later operations in the borehole.
Examples of this are logging, log
evaluation and cementing. Poor
cementing of the casing can lead to
problems for perforating, sand control,
production and stimulation.
stability problems can appear both
in vertical and in deviated wells. The pr
oblems are generally larger in a deviat
ed hole, since the stress distribution is
less favorable. The vertical stress, whi
ch is normally the
the largest, will have an increasing
component normal to the well-bore as
the deviation angle increasing, and the
stable range for the mud-weight
decrease. This may requires additional
casings. In some zones it may be
inadvisable to drill above a certain
angle.These limitation must therefore
be considered already in the planning
phase of a field.
This effect of deviation applies to
zones of normal stress gradients. If
tectonic components are present, the
situation may be the opposite, i.e.
increased deviation is more favorable,
at least in a given azimuth direction.
2. The principle of a stability analysis
Ideally a theoretical model should cover
all aspects which could affect stability,such
as well pressure, temperature, time, mud
chemistry etc.
such a model is, however, unavailable
today, and is not likely to appear in the
near future since all mechanisms are not
mapped. The model would require large
resources, and it would be very difficult
to get the necessary input data, since
availability of cores is a limiting factor.
A two-step method for analysis is

therefore presented:
1) Calculate the well pressure required
to avid compressive failure and tensile
failure (hydraulic fracturing) using linear
elastic theory.
2) Then taking into other detailed conditions
related to the problem.
To illustrate the procedure, calculations
for a vertical well will be presented. The
principle is exactly the same for a deviated
well, but the equations are more
complicated and difficult to handle
analytically.
In a real case, this represents a first
order approximation to the problem,
which has to be coupled with all the
practical experience and other relevant
information from a field to generate the
best recommendations and solutions.
The purpose of the calculation is to
find the minimum and maximum allowable
mud-weight to avoid the stability problems
described in the above section. The stress
calculations are based on a linear, elastic
model. Failure is assumed to take place
when the elastic limit of the rock is
reached. In the elastic case, the stress
concentration will reach its maximum at
the well-bore wall. Failure will thus occur
first at the well-bore wall, and it is
therefore the stress solutions at the well-
bore wall which will be of interest.
The calculation itself is limited to
compressive failure and tensile failure
as mentioned above. Shear failure may in
some cases precede tensile failure when
increasing the well pressure. However,
when considering practical aspects of
stability during drilling,
significant problems are not expected to
appear before the formation fractures
and the mud circulation is lost. Therefore
the discussion will be restricted to tensile
failure as the upper limit for the mud-
weight.
The calculation require primarily
the following data:
1) In situ stresses
2) Pore pressure
3) Failure criterion for the rock
4) Physical parameter of the rock
5) Geometry parameter of the well-bore

3. Calculation of minimum mud-weight required to prevent bore
hole collapse
Based on the solutions presented in
the last section, the stresses at the well-
bore can be calculated.
There are two type of failure criterion
to calculate the lower mud-weight:
1) Mohr-Coulomb criterion
2) Drucker-Prager criterion
To illustrate the principle, consider a

vertical well with equal horizontal stresses.
we suppose the vertical stresses is  v ,
the horizontal stresses is  h . The stresses
distribution around the well-bore wall is:
 r  p (3.1a )
   2 h  p(3.1b)
 z   v (3.1c)
The effective stresses around the well-
bore wall is:
 r '  p  p 0 (3.2a)
'
   2 h  p  p0 (3.2b)
'
 z   z  p 0 (3.2c)
where --initial pore pressure of the formation , (we
make the effective coefficient as 1.)
p0
1)When the well pressure is smaller
comparatively, then     z   r ,basing
on the Mohr-Coulomb criterion:
2
   C 0   r tg  (3.3)

where: C 0  2C (1   2 )1 / 2   (3.4a ) 
 
   (3.4b)
4 2
C—shear strength
 -- inner friction coefficient
 -- inner friction angle
then we can calculate the critical
well pressure:
2
2 h  C 0  (tg  ) p 0
p cr  2
(3.5)
1  tg 
2) When increasing the well pressure,
 r   z    , basing on the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion:
2
 r  C 0    tg  (3.6)
then we can get the critical pressure:
2
C 0  p 0  (2 h  p0 )tg 
p cr  (3.7)
1  tg
while the stresses distribution
around the well-bore was obtained by
assuming the rock is in a linearly elastic
situation. However, some kind of rock’s
Young’s modulus has something with
the horizontal stresses. It will increase
when the horizontal stresses was
increased, taking shale for example.
After making research on shale
rock layers of Jurassic system in LunNan
area. We find the relation between the
Young’s modulus with the horizontal
stresses can be expressed as:
n
E  E 0
where:  --confining pressure;
E—Young’s modulus;
E 0,n—constant related to the
rock
In Talimu area, it can be written as:
0.1
E  2736
It can be seen that the relation is non-linear.
Basing on the research of rock
mechanics lab of our school, the critical
mud-weight to keep the well-bore stability
is:
 (3 H   h )  2CK  p 0 ( K 2  1)
m  2
 100
(K  )H
where: K— ctg (45 0   / 2);

H—the depth of the well;
 --m the density of the mud;
C—the shear strength;

--non-linear amend coefficient,
 range from 0.8~0.95;
-- the biggest and the smallest
 H ,  h horizontal stresses.
--the effective coefficient

4. Calculation of maximum mud-weight before
fracturing
The upper limit for the mud-weight
is the maximum mud-weight before
tensile failure (fracturing)
Fracturing will take place when the
smallest effective principal stress
becomes tensile and equal to the tensile
strength of the rock:
'
 3  0  0 (6.1)
A good approximation is normally
to set the tensile strength equal to zero,
since there will always be small cracks
and imperfection in the well-bore wall.
Many models have been put forward
to predict the critical mud-weight. While
because different assuming and factors
have been taken into consideration, so
big difference exist in different models.
1 ) Eaton model
This method was widely used in the gulf
region of America. It suppose:
1)The rock layer was in equal horizontal
stresses situation;
2)Imperfection and mini-fracture exist in
the formation;
3)well fluid penetrate into the fracture
under pressure, and it only need to
overcome the stresses of the vertical
fracture plane to initiating fracture.
basing on the above assumption, the
effective in situ stresses are:
'  '
x   z (3.8a )
1 
'  '
y   z (3.8b)
1 
'
 z   z  p 0 (3.8c)
From the suppose 2) and 3) we know
that initiating fracture only need to
overcome the horizontal stresses, so
the effective fluid pressure of the well is:

p f  p0  ( z  p 0 )(3.9)
1 
so the critical pressure is:

pf  ( z  p 0 )  p 0 (3.10)
1 
while Eaton model applies to the
newly sedimentary formation, which has
seldom been affected by the tectonic
activity. Its prediction effect will not be
satisfactory if were not in such formation.
2) Stephen model
Basically it has the same assumption
with the Eaton model, while it take the
tectonic activity into consideration. So
the effective in situ stresses are:
 z '   z  p 0 (3.11a )
'  '
x (   ) z (3.11b)
1 
'  '
y (   ) z (3.11c)
1 
where:  --the uniform tectonic

coefficient horizontally
the effective fluid pressure in the well to
initiating vertical fracture is:

p f  p0  (   )( z  p0 )(3.12)
1 
so the critical pressure is:

pf  (   )( z  p 0 )  p 0 (3.13)
1 
However the above two model
haven’t taken the stresses concentration
near the well-bore into consideration.
3) HuangRongzun model
Professor HuangRongzun of our
school has put forward new prediction
method in 1981 and 1984.
it suppose:
1)The formation was in non-uniform
tectonic stresses situation;
2)Stresses concentration exists near the
well- bore.
3)The reason that the formation fracturing
is because the stresses at the well-bore
exceed the formation’s tensile strength.
If we use  3 represents the over-
loading stresses,  1 ,  2 ( 1   2  0) , then
the stresses at the well-bore wall (r=R)
are:
r  p
   ( 1   2 )  2( 1   2 ) cos 2  p (3.14)
 r  0
In most cases, it will be vertical
fracture when increasing the well
pressure, the main reason causing the
well-bore unstable is that the effective
tangential stresses turn from the
compressive stresses to tensile stresses,
and exceed the tensile strength.
Obviously, the maximum tensile stresses
will be reached at the position of   0
and   180 firstly, then
   ( 1   2 )  2( 1   2 ) cos 2  p
 3 2   1  p(3.15)
the effective stresses is:
 '  3 2   1  p  p0 (3.16)
where: p 0 --the pore pressure;
 --the effective coefficient;
the fracturing condition is:
  '   S t (3.17)
where: St --the tensile strength of the
formation;
then
p f  3 2   1  p 0  S t (3.18)
where: p f --the critical pressure.
If we express the over-lying
pressure as the following form:
H
 3  S    ( H ) gdH (3.19)
0
then the effective over-lying pressure is:

'
 3  S  p 0 (3.20)
then the effective horizontal stresses
caused by the weight of the formation
are: 
' ' '
1   2   3 (3.21)
1 
if we take the tectonic stresses into
Consideration,
' 
then '
1  (   1 ) 3 (3.23a )
1 
'  '
2  (   2 ) 3 (3.23b)
1 
where:  1 , 2 --the tectonic coefficient.

then the critical pressure is:
2
p f  p0  (  k )(S  p0 )  S t (3.24)
1 
where: k   1  3 2
This model was widely used at
present, and has high veracity.
4)New HuangRongzun model
This new model was put forward
by professor HuangRongzun in 1990, it
was aimed at making use of the well
logging material to realize predicting
the formation’s fracturing pressure
continuously. It suppose:
1)The formation was in an over-lying and
non-uniform horizontal tectonic
stresses situation;
2)The displacement of each sedimentary
layer is continuous;
3)The fracturing was caused because
the rock’s stresses reached the tensile
strength.
Sedimentary layer
C
D
E
if we use A,B,C,D,E represent different
sedimentary layer underground, because
the displacement of different layer is
continuous, so the two main strains of
different layer must be the same.
( A) (B)
1  1  ...   1 (3.25a )
( A) (B)
2  2  ...   2 (3.25b)
Based on the Hooke law, we get the
relation of the stress and strain:
1 
1
Es
 
 1 '   s ( 2 '   3 ' ) (3.26a )
2 
1
Es

' ' '

 2   s ( 1   3 ) (3.26b)
if we suppose the  1 and  2 as constant,
 1   1  const (3.27 a )
 2   2  const (3.27b)
so from the equation of the following:
'
 ' '

 1   s ( 2   3 )  E s  1 (3.28a)
 '
  s ( 1   3
2
'
s 2
'
)  E  (3.28b)
' '
we can get the expression of  1 ,  2 :
' 1  1 E s 2 s ( S  p 0 )  2 E s 
1      (3.29a )
2 1   s 1  s 1  s 
' 1  1 E s 2 s ( S  p 0 )  2 E s 
1      (3.29b)
2 1   s 1  s 1  s 
where:
 1   1   2 (3.30a )
 2   1   2 (3.30b)
they represent the formation coefficient.
take the horizontal principal stresses:
'
 1   1  p 0 (3.31a)
'
 2   2  p 0 (3.31b)
into:
p f  3 2   1  p 0  S t (3.32)
so we can get the expression of the
fracture pressure as the following:
 1 E s  2 E s  2 s
pf     ( S  P0 )  p0  S t (3.33)
1   s 1   s  1   s
the first term reflects the tectonic effect;
the second term reflects the over-lying
effect;
the third term reflects the pore pressure
effect;
the fourth term reflects the tensile
strength effect;
The value of the can
 s andE s
be obtained by transforming the
well logging data. So it has put a
new method for predicting the fracturing
pressure continuously and mapping the
fracturing pressure’s section.
Illustration of stability analysis
for a deviated well-bore
Section 4 predict the well-
bore stability continuously
using well logging data
1.longitudinal wave and transverse wave
in elastic medium using elastic theory
E d (1   d )
Vp  ( 4.1)
 (1   d )(1  2 d )
Ed
Vs
where:  ( 4 .2 )
--longitudinal wave velocity
2  (1   d )
Vp
Vs --transverse wave velocity;
E d --dynamic Young’s modulus;
 d--dynamic Poisson’s ratio;
--density of the medium.
2.decide the elastic parameters using well
logging data
From the formula (4.1) and (4.2)
we know that if we have know the value
of  , E d and  d ,then we can get the
value of V p andVs . Contrary to this, if we
can know the value of  , V p andVs , then
we can get the value of E d and  d :
V s 2 3(V p / V s ) 2  4
Ed  2
( 4.3)
(V p / V s ) 1
(V p / V s ) 2  2
d  ( 4.4)

2 (V p / V s ) 2
1 
2.1 decide the longitudinal wave velocity
and transverse wave velocity
1
Vp  * 10 6 ( m / s )
t p
1
Vs  * 10 6 ( m / s )( 4.5)
t s
where: t p --time difference of longitudinal

wave  ( s/m )
Vs --time difference of transverse wave
velocity ( s / m )
2.2 decide density of rock
we can get the value of rock density
using the normal compensation density
logging, it can be used to calculate the
value of elastic parameters with enough
precision except the very uneven well-
bore wall condition. While for the oil gas
reservoir, the rock’s porosity is much
bigger, so we need to revise the value
of rock density as the following:
   log  0.5   e  S  (  ma   f )(4.6)
where:  --revised density;
 log --logging density;
 e --rock porosity;
S—gas saturation;
 ma--density of the rock matrix;
 f--density of fluid in layer;
at the same time, we need to revise the
value of time difference in the oil gas
layer as the following:
t  t log  C p  (C p  1)   e  S  (t f  t ma )(4.7)
where: t --revised time difference;

t log--logging time difference;
t f --time difference of layer fluid;
t--time
ma
difference of rock matrix;
C p --revised coefficient.( C =1~2)
p
3. Decide the rock strength using logging
data
3.1the relation between uniaxial
compressive strength with dynamic
Young’s modulus established by Deer and
Miller in 1966 as the following:
 e  0.0045Ed (1  Vcl )  0.008EdVcl ( MPa)(4.8)
where: Vcl --the mud content of sand
rock;
E d --dynamic Young’s modulus
of sand rock;(Mpa)
normally, the tensile strength of the rock
times 8~15 is the compressive strength,
S t   c / 15( 4.9)
where: S t --the tensile strength of the
rock;(Mpa)
3.2 decide the value of shear strength C
and inner friction angle 
3.2.1basing on the research of Bruce S and
Coates the relation between shear
strength and wave velocity is as the
following:
15 2 1  d 2 4
C  5.44  10  (1  2 d )( ) V p (1  0.78Vcl )(4.10)
1  d
where:  --dynamic Poisson’s ratio of
d
the rock;
V p--longitudinal wave velocity of
the rock; (m/s)
 --rock density; ( )g / cm 3
--mud content of layer; (it can be get
Vclby gamma logging data and its
expression will be given in later
example)
3.2.2 the relation between inner friction
angle and shear strength is as the
following basing on our school’s research:
 2
  a  log M  ( M  1) 1/ 2
 b(4.11)
where: M  a1  b1  C
a,b, a1 ,b1 are some constant related to
rock, which can be get by experiment.
We have calculated the expression
for Talimu region as the following, while
other region’s rock also can use it to get
the approximate value of inner friction
angle when knowing the value of shear
strength.
 2
  2.564  log M  ( M  1) 1/ 2
 20(4.12)
M  58.93  1.785  C
3.3decide the value of efficient coefficient
the expression has been given
before, and usually we can make it
equalize to 1 for sands rock basing on
the Terzadhi theory, except for the
quite lower permeability condition.
3.4 decide the static parameters
 s  A1  K 1   d
E s  A2  K 2  E d ( 4.13)
where: A1 , A2 , K 1 , K 2--are transforming
coefficients;
basing on the experiment result
performed in North of China, They are
related with the stress difference of rock:
A1  0.24543  0.155483  log( )
A2  198.4  1810.2  log( )
K1  0.050248  0.364781  log( )
K 2  0.066184  0.160931 log( )(4.14)
where:
=  v  gH (Mpa)
generally speaking, it can also be used
among other regions.
3.5 decide the tectonic coefficient
1 ,  2
1
 1  ( H   h  2P0 )(1   s )  2 s ( S  P0 )
Es
1
 2  ( H   h )(1   s )(4.15)
Es
while tectonic coefficient is a constant
for certain tectonic region, so when we
know its value at certain depth then it
can be used in overall tectonic region.
Example
Known condition:
1)vertical well:
the deviation angle--  = 0 ;
the azimuth angle--  = 0 ;
2)in situ stresses(measuring depth=1000)
 H =2.61 Mpa/100m;
 h =1.71 Mpa/100m;
Example
v =2.35 Mpa/100m;
P0 =1.3 Mpa/100m;
 s =0.25 ;
E s =40 Gpa;
3)the effective coefficient  =0.85;
4)the well-bore wall is non-permeable,i.e.
 =0;
Example
5)well logging data:
MD TVD AC GR DEN
1050 1050 72 100 2.41
1055 1055 65 105 2.39
1060 1060 87 88 2.42
1065 1065 51 81 2.38

Example
1070 1070 62 70 2.37
1075 1075 55 30 2.42
1080 1080 80 77 2.39
1085 1085 82 71 2.41
1090 1090 65 87 2.43

Example
6)the relation between the velocity of lon
gitudinal wave and of the transversal
wave:
v s  0.59v p  0.21 km/s
7)the relation between the static and
dynamic elastic parameter:
 s  0.1 d  0.15
E s  0.3E d  0.33Gpa
Example
8)pore pressure =1.3
P0Mpa/100;
9)mud content Vcl
GR  GR min
IGR 
GR max  GR min
2.7 IGR
2 1
10)whenVcl 
depth<1050m, the average
2.7
2 deno=2.31
density of the formation, 1
3
g / cm
Example
Question:
1)calculate the tectonic coefficient  1 ,  2;
2)calculate the value of the in situ
stresses varying with the depth;
3)calculate the value of formation strength
varying with the depth;
4)calculate the value of the collapsing
Example
pressure and the fracturing pressure;
Solution:
1) 1  1 ( H   h  2P0 )(1   s )  2 s ( S  P0 )
Es
1
 2  ( H   h )(1   s )
Es
notice:transform the units

Example
2)
1  1 E s i  2 s i ( S i   P0 )  2 E s i  
 H i        P0
2 1   s i  1   s i  1   s i 
1  1 E s i  2 s i ( S i   P0 )  2 E s i  
 h i        P0
2 1   s i  1   s i  1   s i 
Example
 s  0.1 d  0.15
E s  0.3E d  0.33Gpa
V 2 s 3(V p / Vs ) 2  4
Ed 
0.2 1  p
(V p / Vs ) 2  1
0.5 9v  s v
2
(V p / Vs )  2
d 

2 (V p / Vs )  1 2

v s  0.59v p  0.21
Example
V p  12  2.54  10 / AC km/s;
S i   DEN i  g  MDi 
3) 15 2 1  d 2 4
C  5.44  10  (1  2 d )( ) V p (1  0.78Vcl )
1  d
GR  GR min
IGR 
GR max  GR min
IGR
2 1
Vcl  2.7
2 1
Example

  2.564 log M  ( M  1) 2 1/ 2
 20
M  58.93  1.785C
S t  0.0045E d (1  Vcl )  0.008E d Vcl / 12
4)fracturing pressure
  1 E s  2 E s  2 s
pf     ( S  P0 )  p 0  S t
1   s 1   s  1   s
Pf  1000
f  g / cm 3
g  MDi 
Example
collapse pressure
 (3 H   h )  2CK  p 0 ( K 2  1)
m  2
 100
(K  )H
Well logging data and calculating result
Depth Time Gamma Density
(m) difference ray of the
s / ft rock
1050 72 100 2.41
1055 65 105 2.39
1060 87 88 2.42
1065 51 81 2.38
1070 62 70 2.37
1075 55 30 2.42
1080 80 77 2.39
1085 82 71 2.41
1090 65 87 2.43
1 2
Over-loading
(horizontal (horizontal stress
stress stress
coefficient coefficient)
)
0.00024 0.000281 23.794
0.00024 0.000281 24.839
0.00024 0.000281 25.009

0.00024 0.00028 25.074
0.00024 0.00028 24.930
0.00024 25.257
0.00028
25.480
0.00024 0.00028
25.545
0.00024 0.00028
0.00024 25.877
0.00028
Horizontal Horizontal Tensile Shear
stress stress strength
strength
16.522 14.109 4.974 23.484
17.347 14.386 6.173 37.101
15.946 14.311 3.280 9.647

19.493 14.623 10.017 74.636
17.670 14.432 6.564 30.802
18.836 14.600 8.511 41.781
16.360 14.436 3.854 11.895
16.286 14.444 3.670 10.418
17.626 14.618 6.160 31.166

Inner Mud- Mud-
Friction Fracture weight weight
angle pressure (fracture) (collapse)
23.219 19. 1.915 1.292

728
22.049 20. 2.023 1.026

936
24.181 19. 1.848 1.627

217
24.782 23. 2.234 -0.154
343
21.781 21. 2.014 1.341
140
22.989 22. 2.127 1.148
427
24.071 19. 1.864 1.609
752
24.144 19. 1.848 1.638
667
21.624 21. 1.995 1.284
337

Well Bore Stability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Well Bore Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well-bore stability

1. stability problems during drilling

reservoir, resulting in loss of time

Subduction Spreading Subduction

The effective stress concept has later been re

where:  b ,  r --the density of the rock

1.3 Rock mechanical properties

5) Caused by permeable effect

0 --pore pressure of the virgin

2.2 the stresses distribution around the

the relation between the component of

 zz   1 sin 2  cos 2    2 sin 2  sin 2 

1.Unstable boreholes—reasons and

A two-step method for analysis is

3) Failure criterion for the rock

4) Physical parameter of the rock

5) Geometry parameter of the well-bore

To illustrate the principle, consider a

where: K— ctg (45 0   / 2);

where:  --the uniform tectonic

then the effective over-lying pressure is:

where:  1 , 2 --the tectonic coefficient.

where: t p --time difference of longitudinal

where: t --revised time difference;

1050 1050 72 100 2.41

1055 1055 65 105 2.39

1060 1060 87 88 2.42

1065 1065 51 81 2.38

1075 1075 55 30 2.42

1080 1080 80 77 2.39

1085 1085 82 71 2.41

1090 1090 65 87 2.43

notice:transform the units

1050 72 100 2.41

1055 65 105 2.39

0.00024 0.000281 24.839

0.00024 0.000281 25.009

0.00024 0.00028 24.930

16.522 14.109 4.974 23.484

17.347 14.386 6.173 37.101

15.946 14.311 3.280 9.647

17.670 14.432 6.564 30.802

18.836 14.600 8.511 41.781

16.360 14.436 3.854 11.895

16.286 14.444 3.670 10.418

17.626 14.618 6.160 31.166

23.219 19. 1.915 1.292

22.049 20. 2.023 1.026

24.181 19. 1.848 1.627

You might also like