Stability Analysis of Wellbore by

Controlling Mud Pressure in a

Deep Reservoir

Ansh Mishra
12MI31002
Under the guidance of

Prof. Debasis .Deb

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR

May, 2017
Stability analysis of wellbore by controlling mud pressure
in a deep reservoir

Project Report Submitted to

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
For the partial fulfillment of award of the degree
Of

M. Tech (Hons.) in Mining Engineering

By

Ansh Mishra

Under the guidance of

Professor Debasis .Deb

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR

May, 2017
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Certified that the Project Report entitled STABILITY ANALYSIS OF WELLBORE BY
CONTROLLING MUD PRESSURE IN A DEEP RESERVIOR Submitted by ANSH
MISHRA to Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, for the partial fulfillment of the
award of the degree of B. Tech (Hons.) in Mining Engineering has been accepted by the
examiners and that the student has successfully defended the Project Report in the viva-voice
examination held today.

Signature

Prof. Debasis Deb

Signature Signature

Dr. A.K Verma Dr. Khanindra Pathak.

(MTP Coordinator) (Head of the Department)

 DECLARATION

I certify that

a) The work contained in this Project Report is original and has been done by me under
the guidance of my supervisor(s).
b) The work has not been submitted to any other Institute for any degree or diploma.
c) I have followed the guidelines provided by the institute in preparing the Project
Report.
d) I have confirmed to the norms and guidelines given in the Ethical Code of conduct of
the Institute.
e) Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, figures, and text) from the
other sources, I have given due credit to them by citing them in the text of the Project
Report and giving their details in the references. Further, I have taken permission
from the copyright owners of the sources, whenever necessary.

Signature of Student.
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Project Report entitled Stability Analysis of wellbore by
controlling mud pressure in deep reservoir, submitted by Ansh Mishra to Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur, is a record of bona fide research work under my (our) supervision
and is worthy of consideration for the partial fulfillment of the award of the degree of M.
Tech (Hons.) in Mining Engineering of the Institute.

Prof. Debasis Deb

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writing of the thesis has been one of the most significant academic challenges to me I
have ever faced. During this academic career I had the following people who were very
supportive and helpful. Without their constant support I probably cannot reach the goal. I
convey my heartiest gratitude to all of them.

I express my cordial sense of gratitude and thanks to Prof. D Deb for his invaluable time,
guidance and help in spite of his very busy schedule. I have been working under him for past
three years. He helped me all the way to complete the thesis. I would like to thank all faculty
members and staffs of Department of Mining Engineering who help me a lot.

I am also thankful to all other people who were directly and indirectly involved during my
work. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my parents and other family members for their
constant support, patience and encouragement.
 ABSTRACT

When a wellbore is drilled, the equilibrium in-situ stresses are changed. Wellbore drilling in a
formation causes stress alteration around the borehole due to removal of rock. The induced
stress increases around the walls of hole because of higher cutting stress at its boundary. To
prevent collapse of formation rock just after drilling, wellbore is filled with drilling fluid. The
application of drilling fluid into wellbore creates new stress configurations which are in
equilibrium state of stress provided the hydrostatic drilling fluid pressure is in safe mud
pressure window. It means that pressure on the bore face must be less than formation fracture
pressure and more than the collapse pressure to avoid fluid losses or borehole breakouts.
These two limiting pressure condition corresponds to tensile and shear failure.

Therefore its necessary to identity the area of rock strata around opening, prone to failure in
advance before injection of drilling fluid (mud) and even before drilling operation. The
objective of this project is to apply numerical model by finite element method with ANSYS
software to study stability of oil wells. It simulates real far field stress condition and its
possible failure in multiple lithological rock strata at Ohio River Valley CO2 sequestration
site. The first simulation study includes failure analysis in a state of stress with no internal
support pressure applied by drilling fluid on the inner walls of borehole. Main focus is on
stability analysis of formation rock at greater depth by the induced stresses developed due to
excavation due to drilling operation. Internal support pressure is applied in second simulation
study to predict suitable mud pressure necessary to avoid minimal possibilities of failure in
targeted zones. The prediction of mud pressure before drilling operation is essential in order
to prevent blowout or fracture in formation rock.

I
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. Objective and Scope of Work ..................................................................................... 3
3. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 4
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Stresses in Vertical Wells ........................................................................................ 7
4.2 Rock Mass Failure Criteria (Mohr Coulomb) .................................................... 8
5. Work Done So Far ......................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Geological Data ........................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Modeling Simulation ............................................................................................... 12
5.2.1 Geo-technical properties of strategraphical layers .................................................... 13
5.2.2 Model Mesh ........................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Mud Pressure Calculation ...................................................................................... 18
6 Results ............................................................................................................................ 20
6.1 Failure Analysis without Internal Pressure........................................................ 22
6.2 Effect of Internal Pressure ..................................................................................... 24
7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27
8 References ........................................................................................................................ 28

II
List of Figures
Figure 1: Redistributed state of stress around wellbore ............................................................. 6
Figure 2: Generalized Stress transformation system for deviated borehole. ............................. 7
Figure 4: Velocity and Density log and calculated Youngs Modulus and Poisons Ratio ....... 10
Figure 3: Geometrical Statiography intersection of the plant .................................................... 9
Figure 5: Wellbore modes of failure ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Geometrical model of 8 different stratiographical layer of rock formation. ........... 12
Figure 7: Triangular mesh representation at the surface of borehole ...................................... 16
Figure 8: Concentrated meshing along the borehole boundary ............................................... 17
Figure 9: Isometric view of mesh formation in three different rock layers ............................. 17
Figure 10: Mohr Coulomb Yield Surface in Deviatoric Space................................................ 20
Figure 11: Mohr Coulomb Yield Surface in Principal Stress Space ....................................... 21
Figure 12: Part of the simulation body which has undergone failure ...................................... 22
Figure 13: Plastic strain on the top surface of simulation body ............................................... 23
Figure 14: Equivalent Plastic strain values along depth of 200m ............................................ 23
Figure 15: Simulation body which has undergone failure after internal pressure applied ...... 24
Figure 16: Equivalent Plastic Strain at top surface after application of internal pressure ....... 25
Figure 17: Equivalent plastic strain after application of internal support pressure ................. 26

List of Tables
Table 1: Results of the Maximum Horizontal Stress Magnitude ............................................. 10
Table 2: Input Data and Shmin Constraints for Shmas Stress Determination ......................... 11
Table 3: Geotechnical data of Trenton Limestone applied in simulation ................................ 13
Table 4: Geotechnical data of Well Creek Dolomite applied in simulation ............................ 13
Table 5: Geotechnical data of Beekmantown Dolomite applied in simulation ....................... 14
Table 6: Geotechnical data of Rose Run Sandstone used in Simulation ................................. 14
Table 7: Geotechnical data of Lower Maryville Sandstone..................................................... 14
Table 8: Geotechnical Data of Copper Ridge Dolomite used in simulation............................ 14
Table 9: Geotechnical data of Nolichoki Shale used in simulation ......................................... 15
Table 10: Geotechnical data of Lower Maryville Sandstone................................................... 15
Table 11: Geotechnical data used in simulation analysis ........................................................ 19

III
 1. Introduction

Unexpected or unknown behavior of rock is often the cause of drilling problems, resulting in
an expensive loss of time, sometimes in a loss of part or even whole borehole. Borehole
stability is a continuing problem which results in substantial yearly expenditures by the
petroleum industry. As result, a major concern of the drilling engineers is keeping the
borehole wall from falling in or breaking down. Detailed attention is paid to drilling fluid
programs, casing programs, and operating procedures in drilling a well to minimize these
costly problems.

Underground formations are subjected to a vertical compressive stress caused by the weight
of the overlying strata and horizontal stresses due to the conning lateral restraints. Under the
action of these in situ stresses, prior to drilling a borehole, the rock mass is in a state of
equilibrium that will be destroyed by the excavation as the stresses will be redistributed
around the boundary of borehole.

When a borehole is drilled, the load carried by the removed rock is then taken by the adjacent
rock to re-establish equilibrium. As a result, a new stress concentration is produced around
the well. If there is no hydrostatic support pressure introduced into the borehole, failure in the
formation may take place. Therefore, maintaining equilibrium in the eld to prevent rock
failure requires the use of a support pressure which is usually provided by the drilling uid.
In order to evaluate the potential for wellbore stability a realistic constitutive model must be
used to compute the stresses and strains around a borehole just after excavation.

This project aims at identifying potential failure zones for an on shore vertical well at higher
depth and calculating appropriate mud pressure required to stabilize rock formation after the
stresses in the rock formation has been re-distributed. Numerical methods based on the
concepts of Finite Elementary Methods are used to simulate the state of stresses just after
drilling and to identify the weak zones at the boundary of wellbore which prone to fail as the
in-situ stresses are disturbed. This Numerical model based analysis is programmed in
ANSYS software.

Numerical methods based on plasticity theory, such as finite difference or finite elements
methods; present the advantage of showing the extent of the damaged region, leading to a
better indicator of instability. These models usually consider two kinds of failure around the
wellbore: shear failure and tensile failure.

The models described here depend on a realistic constitutive model that must be able to
reproduce the several failure modes around boreholes strata zone. Experimental studies show
that rocks under high confining pressures can reach the hydrostatic stress strength. Once this
limit is attained, severe compaction of porous media occur, leading to porosity and
permeability reduction. This work names this kind of failure as volumetric failure.

1
The numerical modeling of wellbore stability analysis is made considering small strain and
small displacement finite element method and classical associated plasticity theory. The
software used was ANSYS and the mesh is based on linear triangles.

The ability to accurately model the state of stress for complex geometries using the
simulation tools ANSYS technology/approach allows for pre-drilling wellbore stability
analyses. Needless to say the stability analysis is important to predict an optimized wellbore
trajectory. The inbuilt analysis methodology of simulation stability study implements the
complete stress tensor which is obtained from reservoir scale finite element (FE) models. The
stresses obtained from the FE model are used to calculate stable operational pressure
windows. Stereo net projections of these pressure windows are utilized to determine the most
stable wellbore trajectories for the given state of stress.

2
 2. Objective and Scope of Work

This project aims at identifying potential failure zones for an on shore vertical well at higher
depth and calculating appropriate mud pressure required to stabilize rock formation after the
stresses in the rock formation has been re-distributed. Numerical methods based on the
concepts of Finite Elementary Methods are used to simulate the state of stresses just after
drilling and to identify the weak zones at the boundary of wellbore which prone to fail as the
in-situ stresses are disturbed. This Numerical model based analysis is programmed in
ANSYS software.

The second half of this project includes analytical calculation of mud pressure such that the
hydraulic vertical pressure of drilling fluid symmetrically balances the collapsing formation
pressure and the pore pressure of reservoir fluid embodied inside the formation rock.

Both the above mentioned objectives are important for a drilling engineer before the
operation starts as the investigation of wellbore stability and a sensible trajectory requires
precise knowledge of rock strata and its geo-mechanical characteristics. The knowledge of
the state of stress and the magnitude of appropriate mud pressure can save a lot of time and
money if chosen wisely before drilling operation.

Although the selection of appropriate rock failure criterion for analyzing wellbore criteria is
difficult and controversial. A number of rock failure criteria and behaviour models have been
accomplished for the diagnosis and prediction of wellbore instability. Since there is no single
criterion suitable for all materials and situations, drilling engineers should be able to choose a
suitable rock failure criterion based on formation rock properties to predict an optimum mud
pressure to stabilize wellbore.

The data used of geological rock strata and geo-mechanical properties are derived from a
research paper on CO2 sequestration at a Ohio River Valley Site. In regions like the Ohio
River Valley that have many large point sources of CO2 emissions and limited options for
CO2 sequestration in other geological media, such as oil and gas reservoirs, the feasibility
evaluation of CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers is essential to find any failure prone
area along the length of strata.

3
 3. Literature Review

Rock mechanics is the basic concept behind every prediction model of wellbore stability
analysis. Bradley (1979) proposed first model based on concept of rock mechanics. Several
models have been developed on continuum mechanics after these papers. These models
assume electroplastic material properties.

A new elasticity based analytical procedure was proposed by Morita (2004) to evaluate state
of stress around borehole. The stress failure is studies as tensile and failure criteria The most
used failure criteria are Drucker-Prager, Mohr Coulomb, modified Lade criterion (Ewy,
1999) or Hoek and Brown (Zhang and Zhu, 2007).

Coelho et al. (2005) presented a numerical study on a wellbore drilled in a reservoir from
Brazilian coast and showed that volumetric failure can be reached under those reservoir
conditions. These results are compatible with experimental studies. Haimson (2007)
identified a breakout pattern for porous rocks, distinct of those identified for rocks of lower
porosity.

Al. Ajmi and Zimmerman (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman 2004) introduced the fully polyaxial
MogiCoulomb failure criterion, and then proposed a new 3D analytical model (2006) to
approximate the mud weight needed to avoid failure for the vertical wells based on Mogi
Coulomb failure mechanism coupled with elastic theory. Their study shows the significant
role of intermediate principle stress in rock strength, where using three dimensional Mogi
Coulomb failure criterion greater mud weight windows than MohrCoulomb failure
mechanism have been obtained. Zhang et al. (2010) examined five failure criteria on various
rock specimens to determine the best criterion for the wellbore stability analysis. Therefore,
they concluded that the 3D HoekBrown and the MogiCoulomb criteria are appropriate for
wellbore stability analysis.

On the other hand, numerical modelling methods provide an excellent opportunity to analyze
the wellbore state of stress for different applications such as wellbore drilling, wellbore
design or hydraulic fracturing (Lee et al. 2011). McLean and Addis (1994) used finite
element methods to predict wellbore stability parameters. Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay
(2003) used ANSYS finite element software and investigated stress around a wellbore to
study the effects of fluid pressure during drilling. Hoang et al. (2004) investigated wellbore
stability in multilateral junctions using finite element method and showed that orientation of
junction and in situ stresses both have significant impact on well completion and stability.
Wang and Sterling (2007) performed numerical analyses named finite element to investigate
the stability of a borehole wall during horizontal directional drilling in loose sand with an
emphasis on the role of the filter cake in borehole stability. Muller et al. (2007) performed
wellbore stability analysis with a finite element program that incorporates coupled fluid
mechanical effects and elastic-plastic behaviour of the rock. Alberto et al. (Alberto and
Sepehrnoori 2008) used commercial finite element software to investigate wellbore stability

4
in multilateral open holes during drilling and production times and concluded that the most
unstable region in multilaterals is the junctions (lateral wells). Salehi et al. (Salehi and
Hareland 2010) investigated wellbore stability in underbalanced drilling with respect to
equivalent circulating density with both Finite-Explicit and Finite-Element codes to cross-
check the results.

Bradley (1979) was the first to model for compressive wellbore failure of a deviated well for
the purpose of proposing proper mud weights to preclude borehole failure. However, he did
all of his analyses for the rare case where the two horizontal stresses are equal and less than
the vertical stress.

Ewy (1999) found that the modified Lade criterion predicts critical mud weight values that
are less conservative than those predicted by the MohrCoulomb criterion yet are not as
unconservative as those predicted by the DruckerPrager criterion.

Design of wells using principles of rock mechanics is well reported in the literature (Wong et
al., 1994; Morita and Whitebay, 1994). A case study of designing a horizontal well in
Vlieland sand in the Dutch sector of North Sea is reported by Fuh et al. (1991). The rock
mechanical parameters such as in-situ stresses, strength and pore pressure of the Vlieland
sand and shale which overlies it were computed from the back analysis of drilling problems
from previous eight vertical wells drilled in the area. A mud program was designed using
these estimated parameters and a horizontal hole was drilled with few manageable instances
of instability.

Drilling of overburden shale in offshore Nigeria resulted in several problems of stuck pipes
and sidetracks. A detailed rock mechanics study was conducted to characterize the state of in-
situ stress, rock strength, and formation pore pressure. These parameters were used to
perform a geo-mechanical simulation and estimate safe mud weights. Use of these mud
weights led to a marked improvement in wellbore stability (Lowrey and Ottesen, 1995).

In the past, fields were developed using vertical wells which did not exhibit any drilling
trouble. The trend nowadays is to drill horizontal wells to enhance productivity. The
experience of drilling vertical wells is carried forward without appropriate modifications to
drill the horizontal wells resulting in wellbore instabilities

5
 4. Methodology

Before a wellbore is drilled the rock is in a state of equilibrium. The stresses in the earth
under these conditions are known as the far field stresses (v, H, h or in-situ stresses
(Gaurina-Meimurec, 1994). When the well is drilled, the rock stresses in the vicinity of the
wellbore are redistributed as the support originally offered by the drilled out rock is replaced
by the hydraulic pressure of the mud. The stresses can be resolved into a vertical or
overburden stress, v, and two horizontal stresses, H (the maximum horizontal in-situ
stress), and h (the minimum horizontal in-situ stress), which are generally unequal.
(McLean et al.1990).

If the redistributed stress state exceeds the rock strength, either in tension or compression,
then instability may result. Figure 1 below shows the wellbore stresses after drilling. These
are described as radial stress r, tangential stress (circumferential or hoop stress) t , and
axial stress a. The radial stress acts in all directions perpendicular to the wellbore wall, the
tangential stress circles the bore hole, and the axial stress acts parallel to the wellbore axis
(McLean, 1990).

Figure 1: Redistributed state of stress around wellbore

.

The local stress distribution around a wellbore are controlled by mechanical (in-situ stresses),
chemical, thermal, and hydraulic effects. The local stress distribution caused by chemical,
thermal effects is dependent on the temperature profile as well as the pore pressure. The
coordinate referencing system used to calculate the stress distribution around a wellbore,
governed by the in-situ stress and hydraulic effects is shown in the Figure 2 below.
6
 Figure 2: Generalized Stress transformation system for deviated borehole.
The in-situ stresses of a virgin formation for a deviated well is given below:-

Where v, H and h are the vertical, maximum and minimum horizontal stresses,
respectively. The angle (alpha) corresponds to the deviation of the borehole from horizontal
plane, and the angle i represents the deviation of the borehole from vertical. (Animul 2009)

4.1 Stresses in Vertical Wells

For a vertical well drilled in a homogeneous and isotropic elastic rock in which one principal
stress (the overburden stress, Sv) is parallel to the wellbore axis and (alpha) = 0, the effective
stress at the wall of a vertical borehole is given by Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman (2006)

7
 Looking at the above equations, it can be concluded that the radial pressure rr is dependent
upon wellbore pore pressure. The tangential pressure depends on the pore pressure and . The
axial pressure is dependent on poissons ratio and . The wellbore stress diminishes far from
well because as stresses distribution in far field in undistributed.

4.2 Rock Mass Failure Criteria (Mohr Coulomb)

The MohrCoulomb shear-failure model is one of the most widely used models for
evaluating borehole collapse due to its simplicity (Horsrud 2001; Fjaer et al. 2008). Mohr
Coulomb criterion can be expressed based on shear stress and the effective normal stress like
below

where s is the shear stress, n is the normal stress, c and are the cohesion and the internal
friction angles of the rock, respectively. The MohrCoulomb criterion uses unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) and angle of internal friction () to assess the failure, and then it
can be expressed in terms of the maximum and minimum principal stresses, 1 and 3.

The parameters q and c can be determined, respectively, by Zhang et al.

The failure criteria can then be defined as

Considering MohrCoulomb criterion, shear failure occurs if F 0, and accordingly, the

required mud weight to prevent failure in each mode of failure can be calculated in such a
way so that the above equation gets balanced.

8
 5. Work Done So Far
Wellbore stability is concerned with estimating the drilling mud fluid pressure to maintain
borehole wall integrity during drilling operation. The purpose is to maintain hydrostatic
pressure such that the effective boreface pressure must be less than fracture pressure to
prevent tensile failure and it should be more than collapse pressure of host rock to prevent
shear failure.

In the course of the stability test analysis, we have acquired geo-mechanical survey data from
Lucier et al 2005 research paper from Professor Zoback and Professor Lucier. They have
presented the geological stereography of rock formation at Ohio River Valley sight and its
flow simulation to evaluate anthrapogenetic CO2 sequestration in potential injection zone as
shown in the figure below.

Figure 3: Geometrical Statiography intersection of the plant

9
 Figure 4: Velocity and Density log and calculated Youngs Modulus and Poisons Ratio

Regionally, the Ohio River Valley is located in a relatively stable, interpolate tectonic
s e t t i n g . In general the regional stress state is strike-slip to reverse faulting, with the
maximum horizontal stress (S Hmax) oriented n o r t h e a s t to east-northeast.

The above two diagrams shows the distribution of several zones where CO 2 operation
can take place and the velocity and Density log of rock mass which can be helpful in
calculating Youngs Modulus.

5.1 Geological Data

Table 1: Results of the Maximum Horizontal Stress Magnitude

Depth Sv (MPa) Pp Wellbore Bo Poissons Youngs Co T (C) Shmin
(m) (MPa) Failure Width Ratio Modulus (Mpa) (MPa)
Type (GPa)
1925 50.44 21.18 BO 50 0.29 60 105-155 -7 40-44
1975 51.75 21.73 BO,DITF 50 0.31 74 105-155 -7,8 40-44
2050 53.71 22.55 BO 50 0.31 76 105-155 -9 41-45
2125 55.67 23.38 DITF 50 0.3 68 350 -10.25 42-46
2265 59.34 24.92 DITF 0 0.29 94 240 -12.5 44-48
2365 61.69 26.02 DITF 0 0.25 85 350 -14.1 34-36
2465 64.58 27.12 DITF 0 0.28 95 350 -15.7 46-50
2502 65.55 27.52 DITF 0 0.28 100 350 -16.3 47-51
2625 68.77 28.88 DITF 0 0.27 72 350 -17.8 49-53

The S v gradient is 26.2 MPa/km. The P p gradient is 11 MPa/km. wellbore failure types are
drilling-induced tensile fractures (DITF) and breakouts (BO). Breakouts are assumed to have
a width of 50j. Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus values come from the geophysical logs
and are used to approximate the static moduli. Compressive rock strength, Co, for the four

10
shallowest depths are from the results of the constrain stress diagram at 1975 m (6479 ft) The
other Co values are from the triaxial test results. The value of DT is the temperature
difference of the drilling fluids and the formation temperature. The Shmin constraints are
based on the mini-fracture test analysis. Inputs that remained constant for all depths are a
coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.4106/jC, and DP equals zero.

Table 2: Input Data and Shmin Constraints for Shmas Stress Determination

Lithological Unit Depth Pp Shmin (MPa) Sv (MPa) SHmax

(m) (MPa) (MPa)
Queenstone Shale 1925 21.2 40-44 50.4 71-88
Trenstone Limestone 1975 21.7 40-44 51.7 72-94
Trenstone Limestone 2050 22.5 41-45 53.7 73-90
Trenstone Limestone 2125 23.4 42-46 55.7 74-91
Trenstone Limestone 2265 24.9 44-48 59.3 75-95
Top Rose Run Sandstone 2355 25.9 31-32 61.7 42-63
Rose Run Sandstone 2365 26.0 34-36 62.0 42-63
Bottom Rose Run Sandstone 2388 26.3 35-37 62.6 42-63
Copper Ridge Dolomite 2465 27.1 46-50 64.6 73-95
Copper Ridge Dolomite 2502 27.5 47-51 65.5 73-95
Nolichocky shale 2625 28.9 49-53 68.8 81-100

Therefore, the final boundary conditions used in the simulation of Co2 data can be
implemented from above table.

The three type of failure which can occur is the slit mode breakout in case of higher porosity.
Haimson and Lee (2004) research observed that these distinct modes of failure are not only
dependent on porosity, but also on material composition. Haimsons work associated these
fracture-like breakouts with empty compaction bands. This failure mode is not clear under
field conditions

Figure 5: Wellbore modes of failure

a) Tensile Failure, b) Shear failure, c) Fracture type blowout

11
5.2 Modeling Simulation

The geo-mechanical simulation model is build to represent a vertical well of underground

rock formation at Ohio River Valley site as mentioned earlier. We are mainly focused on the
rock mass from depth below 2000m till 2800m which constitute 8 different rock layers with
individual geo-technical properties. These geo-technical properties of rock layers has been
given as input into simulation analysis as it is crucial in defining characteristic behavior of
rock strata in response to varying state of stress.

Fig.6 shows isotropic view of body developed for geo-mechanical simulation. It has the form
of solid cuboids with length 800m and a hollow cylindrical well extending through full length
of cuboids. This hollow cylindrical well is a representation of vertical well being drilled in
rock mass from depth 2000m to 2800m with no internal pressure on inner walls of it. The
solid body represents the formation rock in the vicinity of well which is experiencing induced
state of stress after removal of rock in well dimensions. The state of stress on solid rock body
has been applied as the boundary condition in vertical and horizontal directions as can be
seen in Fig. 6 as red arrows.

For the purpose of stability analysis during drilling operation, simulations body was modeled
considering no internal fluid (mud) flow inside the cylindrical well body. There is hollow
from inside. The values of far-field effective stresses in vertical and horizontal direction were
applied at faces the boundaries of the model, as well as a pressure on the cavity, which is
equivalent to the differential fluid pressure between the fluid in the cavity and reservoir
pressure.

Figure 6: Geometrical model of 8 different stratiographical layer of rock formation.

The red arrows represent acting normal load acting at boundary of different rock layers. The
yellow arrow represents the downward gravitation force acting through the meshes of whole
body.

The horizontal extent of wellbore is 10m on each dimension ( X and Y) with a 0.5 diameter
hole at the center of it. The dimension of horizontal face is large in comparison to hole
dimension as per the applicability of fundamental assumption of in-situ stress in far field

12
 stress conditions. In order to maintain symmetry of model body, horizontal extent of each
layer is same but vertical extent of each layer has different height as per the data acquired.
The uppermost layer is Trenton limestone which is at the depth of 2000m. This layer of rock
is experiencing a downward overburden pressure of 54.4 KPa. Remaining rock layers will be
experiencing overburden pressure of 54.4KPa plus added overburden pressure of overlying
rock layers. A vertical well is drilled along the length of this model till 2800m. This means
that the model is representing a phase of initial drilling where it is yet to drill the remaining
50m of considered strata downwards.

5.2.1 Geo-technical properties of strategraphical layers

The primary data required for the stability analysis of the state of stress in underground rock
formation is the geotechnical data which should involve
1. Density
2. Youngs Modulus
3. Poissons Ratio
4. Bulk Modulus Ratio
5. Shear Modulus
6. Drucker Prager Yield Stress and Linear criteria Slope
The DruckerPrager yield criterion is a pressure-dependent model for determining whether a
material has failed or undergone plastic yielding. The criterion was introduced to deal with
the plastic deformation of soils. It and its many variants have been applied to rock, concrete,
polymers, foams, and other pressure-dependent materials.

1. Trenton Limestone
Table 3: Geotechnical data of Trenton Limestone applied in simulation

2. Well Creek Dolomite

Table 4: Geotechnical data of Well Creek Dolomite applied in simulation

13
3. Beekmantown Dolomite
Table 5: Geotechnical data of Beekmantown Dolomite applied in simulation

4. Rose Run Sandstone

Table 6: Geotechnical data of Rose Run Sandstone used in Simulation

5. Upper Maryville Dolomite

Table 7: Geotechnical data of Lower Maryville Sandstone

6. Copper Ridge Dolomite

Table 8: Geotechnical Data of Copper Ridge Dolomite used in simulation

14
 7. Nolichocki Shale
Table 9: Geotechnical data of Nolichoki Shale used in simulation

8. Lower Maryville Sandstone

Table 10: Geotechnical data of Lower Maryville Sandstone

5.2.2 Model Mesh

The mesh is the very integral and the functional part of FEM study. Meshing in ANSYS is
defined as the process of dividing whole component into number of small elements such that
when an external load is applied on a component of the body under study, that load will be
uniformly distributed in all elements. The mesh elements used in our stability study are
triangular elements with advanced sizing function of Curvature and Proximity.

The uniform distribution of load helps in simpler evaluation of constitutive equation at the
nodes of each element instead of whole component. The results of overall external load on
the component can be determined by adding results of each element in that component.
Meshing is one of the primary necessities of numerical modeling.

One of the limitations of detailed meshing is that as the number of meshing increases the
computational power required to evaluate end result increases. But reducing the number of
elements or sizing can hamper the validity of end results. Therefore, its a tradeoff between
the meshing statistics and the computational power required to get the simulation done in
order to get results viable enough to match with the theoretical expectation.

15
The number of triangular mesh elements generated in simulation study is 950898 constituting
185498 nodes. The important points to note here are the minimum size fixed at 0.250m, max
face size of 200m with a growth rate of 1.45. The maximum sizes for the whole body and for
the outer face of the simulation are 200m and 100m. The mesh models are generated under
physical reference of explicit dynamics which is essential for failure study. It is impossible to
analyze Drucker-Prager Failure criteria under regular ANSYS Static model.

Figure 7: Triangular mesh representation at the surface of borehole.

Fig.7 shows zoomed view of meshing generated at the top surface of simulation body. The
sizes of elements in the vicinity of well are very less than those in the far field. The number
of meshing is very high at the wall of circular well. This is because of higher the number of
meshes; higher will be the accuracy of finite elementary method. The algorithm of finite
elementary method solved each equilibrium equation for each node. The results obtained for
these elements are then transformed into the global coordinates. The global coordinate system
solves these equations in terms of the deviatory stresses to solve the final value of stresses.

But as the number of elements in the simulation of finite elements increases, the extra burden
on the memory of computer increases. It means that as the elements increases, the ANSYS
software would be generating higher number of temporary files in the computer. This would
take up the necessary memory which could be used in solving the equation. This makes most
of the regular computer incapable of solving the equation. Generally, to say a normal ANSYS
code can be simulated if it has up to 15 Lakh elements. If it increases such number then use
of super computers may be advised.

16
 Figure 8: Concentrated meshing along the borehole boundary
Figure 8, show meshing generated along a section plane cutting the body symmetrically
through the center of the vertical well. The figure shows jointed meshes at the interface of
two different rock layers. Again the mesh size at the middle of well is very small in
comparison to meshes at the boundary of the surfaces.

Figure 9: Isometric view of mesh formation in three different rock layers

17
5.3 Mud Pressure Calculation
The major objective of application of mud pressure into inner walls of wellbore during
drilling operation is to prevent the existence of such overall state of stress on the surrounding
walls so that failure may not happen in any element of the whole geo-mechanical body
involved in simulation.

Once the area or zones of failure are determined using analytical or simulation method, next
step towards stability of wellbore is the calculation of appropriate range of mud pressure
which could guarantee stable state of induced stress or at least minimal failure from Rock
Mechanics point of view.

As the drilling operation progresses high stress concentration occurs at the boundary of
circular well especially on the side walls. Rocks surrounding the boundary of vertical well
may yield due to high tangential stress concentration and negligible radial stress. As a result,
a plastic zone may develop around excavation boundary. In the plastic zone, stress
concentration is relaxed. For a geo-technical point of view it is imperative to estimate the
extent of the plastic zone around an excavation boundary so that judicious decision can be
made for designing the support structure requirement. For this purpose we assume uniform
hydrostatic far field stress condition. A uniform internal support pressure of pi will be
calculated which is to be applied at the boundary of the side walls of the well. The values of
the internal support pressure in this case should be such that there should not arise any region
of plastic failure.

In order to calculate the required internal pressure for minimizing the elastic plastic failure
radius following equations are used.
2
=
1 +
where
1 + sin
=
1 sin

2 cos
=
1 sin

= Angle of Internal Friction of Rock,

= Cohesion of fractured rock
= Compressive strength of rock
= External boundary load acting of circular well

18
 Table 11: Geotechnical data used in simulation analysis
Yield Slope Internal Pressure
Shmax Shmin Depth tan (slope)
Strength (m) (Pi)
Trenton 81 42 170 130 48.67 1.137074818 6.73338 4.137906144
Creek Dolomite 81 42 190 135 49.37 1.165484434 7.171302 3.304247043
Beekmantown 81 43 340 126 46.89 1.068249531 5.827872 5.272506499
Rose Run 81 35 390 240 25.97 0.4870846 2.17373 -24.57676365
Copper Ridge 81 48 590 335 52.58 1.306999916 10.22477 -15.41233847
Nolichoki 81 49 620 342 53.74 1.363328864 12.09233 -13.74851062
Upper Maryville 81 50 700 350 54.76 1.415491372 14.41445 -12.19634618
Lower Maryville 81 51 800 347 54.23 1.388065512 13.10573 -13.1152346

Table 13 above shows the boundary condition used on the geo-mechanical simulation of well
body with the calculated internal pressure. All the quantities required in the calculation of
internal pressure are shown on the table above.

Looking at the yield strength values it can be understood that rock layers at the top are
relatively weaker than the rock layers at the bottom. This difference is also huge as the
strength values at top are less than half of the layers at bottom. This is helpful in concluding
that rock layers at the top are more susceptible to failure then the rock at the bottom.

Important thing to notice here is that Shmax values have been used the same in every rock
layers. This is done for the simplicity in modelling of the simulation analysis but this might
be far away from the actual boundary condition for the surrounding walls of the wellbore.
These values have been selected for the same of simulation process only for this matter.

The final internal pressure values have been calculated from the above values using equation
as shown before. The internal pressure values positive for layers at top because of low
compressive strength and negative at bottom because of higher compressive strength at
bottom. Negative internal pressure practically means that there is no necessity of pressure at
the inner walls of the wellbore as they are already in stable condition. Infact, abnormal
application of mud pressure above a permissible limit may cause hydraulic fracturing in these
layers.

Therefore, calculation of internal pressure in meaningful only in the first three zones as they
are relatively weak and may require support pressure in this range for stability during drilling
operation. These values are used in the second case of simulation where internal pressure is
applied after identification of failure zones. The purpose of application of internal pressure
was to compare the reduction in plastic failure due by this pressure and verify that with the
theoretical expectation.

19
 6 Results
The solution of this simulation was performed by using a higher capacity server computer as
the number of meshes was exceeding the permissible limits of maximum numbers of
elements capable of being solved by a regular computer.

The interpretation of the results generated by ANSYS simulation needs understand of rock
mechanics concepts. Here we have used Drucker-Preger yield criterion (1952) is an
approximation of Mohr-Coulomb criterion and is derived using invariants of deviatoric stress.
Drucker-Prager yield surfaces resembles circle in deviatoric plane and are obtained by
coinciding outer and inner apices of Mohr-Coulomb hexagon as shown in Drucker-Prager
yield surfaces are circular conical pyramid and the distance of apex from the origin is also 3c

= 2 (2 + ) + ( 1) 2 coinciding with outer apices
3

= 2 (1 + 2 ) + ( 1) 2 coinciding with inner apices
3

Figure 10: Mohr Coulomb Yield Surface in Deviatoric Space

20
 Figure 11: Mohr Coulomb Yield Surface in Principal Stress Space

According to Drucker Prager Yield Criteria a rock mass fail if the value of the right hand side
of above two equations exceeds the left hand side. The two equations shown above are in
deviatoric form corresponding to outer and inner circle of Mohr Coulomb yield surface in
deviatoric space. The use of deviatoric stress relation is useful because the invariants of
deviatoric stresses do not change with the orientation of plane of analysis. This makes the
computational analysis easy.

Drucker Prager yield crietaria is based on only two materialistic properties of rock sample,
namely compressive strength and slope angle. These two values are can be seen in the table
of geotechnical data entered for simulation for all the 8 statigraphical rock layers.

The advantage of using the Drucker Prager Yield Criteria over conventional Mohr Coulomb
criteria its dependence on only two material properties. It avoids the necessity for providing
normal strength and comparison of respective stress values with strength values.

Before we move into the interpretation of ANSYS solution, we need to remember that the
underlying assumption of almost all vertical excavation stability analysis is that the principal
stresses are acting in vertical and horizontal plane only. Therefore the maximum value of
stress among all the values of vertical and horizontal stress becomes major principal stress on
isolated model. Therefore, we can restrict our normal stress examination along horizontal
direction only.
We are interested in only failure of formation rock mass in the vicinity of wellbore. There can
be two types of failure tensile failure or shear failure. Rock mass may experience tensile
failure when the induced cutting stress at the boundary of well is less than the fracture
pressure of rock. Shear failure may occur if induced pressure at bore face is more than the
collapse pressure.

21
6.1 Failure Analysis without Internal Pressure

In order to identity the zones of failure as computed in the numerical modeling of the ANSYS
simulation, attention should be focused on that part of body which has deformed in the plastic
region. The deformation in the plastic region is measured as equivalent plastic strain.

Figure 12: Part of the simulation body which has undergone failure
Figure 12 shows only that part of the simulation body which has undergone failure. That
failure is measured by equivalent plastic strain. Plastic deformation would be experienced by
any element after the body has failed. The values of equivalent plastic strain are shown in
color contours. Maximum plastic strain is shown show in region with red color. Whereas
minimum plastic strain is shown with dark blue color. The associated strain values
corresponding color contours can be seen on the left side of Figure 12

As the state of stress is symmetric around vertical axis, it would not be wrong to analyze
stress contours in a vertical plane cutting through the origin parallel to XZ plane.

The region of maximum equivalent plastic strain is at the tip of well where vertical
overburden pressure is acting normal to the top of simulation body. Figure 14 shows detailed
color contours on top surface. The elements in this layer have undergone failure just at the
wall of well and also at the boundary face normal to X-axis. This high value of plastic strain
is resulting on top surface because it is a free surface where direct overburden pressure is
acting over it. The tip of well has maximum value of plastic strain as it is free face from two
different direction. One from top vertical and another from horizontal direction. The
magnitude of plastic strain reduces as the distance of elements increases from periphery of
circular well.
Similarly, the magnitude of plastic strain is higher at the boundary of external face due to
application of vertical and horizontal pressure along its edges. Therefore, it would not to
wrong to conclude that plastic strain at the top surface is not because of wellbore failure but
because of available free surface and stress concentration from multiple directions.

22
 Figure 13: Plastic strain on the top surface of simulation body

All the elements which have undergone failure are represented in Figure 12 where it can be
observed that plastic strain concentration is high just at the boundary of the wellbore. The
failure zone as shown in fig 12 is only in the first rock layer (Trenton Limestone).

Equivalent Plastic Strain [m/m]

2.00E-02

1.50E-02

1.00E-02

5.00E-03

0.00E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Depth [m]
-5.00E-03

Figure 14: Equivalent Plastic strain values along depth of 200m

23
 In order to estimate the magnitude of failure across the walls of well, a graph of equivalent
plastic strain vs depth can be studied. Figure 14 shows such graph for plastic strain till depth
of 200m. This graph shows the strain values in first two layers of simulation body.

If the values at the end points of graph are excluded then the average values of strain is
0.005m/m. The strain is negligible after depth of 175m. This means that significant values of
strain are only present in first layer. Failure has occurred in first layer exclusively.

6.2 Effect of Internal Pressure

Once the zones of failure has been identified with measurable plastic strain, arrangement for
internal pressure on the sidewalls of the wellbore should be made such the internal support
pressure is sufficient to prevent plastic failure of formation rock.

One of the purpose of application of mud pressure is to provide internal support pressure to
prevent failure along the walls of wellbore. The required mud pressure is estimated from the
geo-mechanical properties of the formation rock and the induced state of stress, which is
represented by the boundary condition in this simulation analysis. Figure 16 shows the
specific part of simulation body in which the elements have undergone failure.

Figure 15: Simulation body which has undergone failure after application of internal
pressure

The component of overall simulation body as shown in figure 15 is quite less than the
previous case when no internal pressure was applied. The application of internal support
pressure has reduced the overall index of failure as compared to the previous case. Similar to
the previous case, all the failure has occurred in first layer only. This implies the magnitude
of mud pressure is in the pressure window such that it has not caused unexpected failure in
any other rock layer. Therefore, it can be concluded that the yielding stress of all other rock
layers is higher than the first layer. This is why failure has occurred only in the first layer.

24
Figure 16: Equivalent Plastic Strain at top surface after application of internal pressure

Similar to the previous results, highest values of plastic strain has occurred at the tip of
vertical well. The values of plastic strain in this case is even higher because free surface
elements at the top surface are have pressure acting from vertical as well as horizontal
direction. The red dot in figure above shows region of highest equivalent plastic strain. This
plastic failure is not due to the induced state of stress of drilling operation but because of
limitation of geo-mechanical model that direct overburden pressure is acting on free surface.

Contrary to the previous case, plastic failure at the walls of boundary surface opposite of
vertical wall has reduced. As discussed earlier, this failure is due to direct load acting on
boundary surface. But this failure has reduced as the equivalent stress has started acting from
opposite side after the application of internal pressure. The change in the equivalent plastic
strain at the boundary surface can be clearly noticed by comparing the relative figure in two
different cases. The reach of plastic failure at the periphery of circular well in the figure
above has reduced as can be noticed by comparison similarly.

The major purpose of application of mud pressure is to avoid plastic failure just at the walls
of wellbore from Rock mechanics and a drilling engineers point of view. The fulfillment of
this purpose can be verified by the comparison of equivalent plastic strain values vs depth
when no mud pressure is applied and with appropriate mud pressure being applied at the
inner walls of wells.

The values of internal support pressure were taken from Table 12 as discussed in previous
section. This analysis is done only for first layer as failure has occurred in that layer. That
would be helpful in calculating selecting a proper range of internal pressure values so that
predicted zones of failure may be stabilized and no extra layers of rock formation may fall in
failure condition.

25
 Equivalent Plastic Strain[m/m]
4.00E-02

3.50E-02

3.00E-02

2.50E-02

2.00E-02

1.50E-02

1.00E-02

5.00E-03

0.00E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Depth [m]
Figure 17: Equivalent plastic strain after application of internal support pressure
The graph of Equivalent Plastic Strain vs depth after the application of internal support
pressure is shown in figure 17 above. As per the theoretical assumption the magnitude of
plastic failure should be reduced due to application of internal support pressure. This is
because as the drilling operation starts, induced state of stress arises due to removal of rock
along the vertical column of wellbore. This induced state of stress is higher than the in-situ
condition and of major cause of wellbore failure. Internal support pressure acts against the
induced state of stress in its opposite direction due to which the overall state of stress on the
walls of wellbore gets somewhat relaxed. As a result, magnitude of plasticity caused failure
gets reduced.

The plastic strain values shown in graph above are quite less than the values shown in
previous graph of figure 17. This comparison verifies the theoretical expectation as discussed
earlier in paragraph above. Important observation to notice here is that magnitudes of plastic
strain at end points of zone of failure is higher when internal pressure is applied. This
abnormal increase in strain value is because end faces of zone of failure are a free surface
where direct application of pressure acts from multiple directions.

Therefore, it can be concluded from the two cases that calculated mud pressure is in the
appropriate mud pressure window such that targeted zones of failure are somewhat stabilized
and no extra layer/zone of rock formation in the vicinity of vertical well are fractured.

26
 7 Conclusion
Investigation of wellbore stability and advising a sensible plan before drilling require
identification of problematic regions and improving of drilling operation. The two important
elements needed in a wellbore stability model are the failure criterion and the constitutive
behaviour model. Wellbore drilling in a formation causes stress alteration around the
borehole due to removal of rock. This stress alteration is important, since it leads to an
increase in stress around the wall of the hole, therefore the induced stresses should be
adjusted by choosing proper mud pressure to stabilize wellbore.

This project is in the field of oil industry aimed at identifying the zones of failure of rock
formation and selects an appropriate range of internal mud pressure so as to stabilize
corresponding zones of failure.

The simulation modelling in ANSYS shows the induced state of stress just after drilling as
the support has been removed. It correctly shows uneven stresses along different zones of
rock formation some of which has very low value due to collapsing of rock at those regions.
The simulation modelling in FEM has ignored pore pressure of oil reservoir.

Simulation modelling in ANSYS shows a single zone of failure along full length of first rock
layer and higher fracture magnitude at its end points because of its free surface. The failure
magnitude was reduced by application of internal support pressure calculated from the
geological data of simulation body and applied boundary condition. The calculated values are
responsible in reducing the plastic failure and have not caused any damage in surrounding
rock whatsoever. Therefore, the mud pressure is in the controllable mud pressure window.

The results of the wellbore stability assessment were used to mitigate the consequences of the
instability. A wide variety of analytical and numerical models exist for prediction wellbore
stresses and modes of instability for nearly all possible loading conditions, well geometries,
rock properties and wellbore fluids. Dedicated laboratory tests and in-situ stress
measurements coupled with geo-mechanical theories are desirable to have more confidence
in predictions achieved with analytical or numerical modeling tools.

27
 8 References
1. Anderson, R. A., D. S. Ingram, and A. M. Zanier, 1973, Determining fracture
pressure gradients from well logs: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 25, p. 1259
1268. Brown, K. M., B. Bekins, B. Clennell, D. Dewhurst, and G. K.
2. Awal, M.R., Khan, M.S., Mohiuddin, M.A., Abdulraheem, A., Azeemuddin, M.
(2001): A New Approach to Borehole Trajectory Optimization for Increased Hole
Stability, paper SPE 68092 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, 17-20
March, Bahrain.
3. Baud, P., Coelho, L.C., Alves, J.L.D., Guevara Jr., N.O., Wong, T-F, Inelastic
deformation and strain localization in carbonate rocks: experimental data and
constitutive modeling. Proceedings of XXIX Iberian Latin American Congress on
Computational Methods in Engineering, Macei, 2008.
4. Baud, P., Klein, E., Wong, T-F., Compaction localization in porous sandstones: spatial
evolution of damage and acoustic emission activity. Journal of Structural Geology, 26:
603-624, 2004.
5. Bowes, C., Procter, R. (1997): Drillers Stuck Pipe Handbook, 1997 Guidelines &
Drillers Handbook Credits, Schlumberger, Ballater, Scotland.
6. Bradley, W. (1978): Bore Hole Failure Near Salt Domes, paper SPE 7503 presented at
the 53th Annual Fall Technical conference and Exibition of the SPE of AIME, 1-3
October, Houston, Texas
7. Bradley, W.B., Failure of inclined boreholes. Journal of Energy Resourses Technology,
101:232-239, 1979.
8. Chen, X., Tan, C.P., Haberfield, C.M. (1998): A Comprehensive Practical Approach for
Wellbore Instability Management, paper SPE 48898 presented at the 1998 SPE
International Conference and Exhibition in China, 2-6 November, Bejing
9. Coelho, L.C., Soares, A., Ebecken, N., Alves, J.L., and Landau, L., The impact of
constitutive modeling of porous rocks on 2-D wellbore stability analysis, Journal of
Petroleum. Science and Engineering, 46: 81-100, 2005.
10. Detournay, E. and Cheng, A.H-D, Fundamentals of poroelasticity, Chapter 5 in
Comprehensive Rock Engineering: Principles, Practice and Projects, Vol. II, Analysis
and Design Method: 113-171, ed. C. Fairhurst, Pergamon Press, 1993.
11. Ewy, R.T., Wellbore Stability Predictions Usina a Modified Lade Criterion. SPE
Eurorok 98, Trondhelm, Nonway, 08-10 July 1998.
12. Gaurina-Meimurec, N. (1994): Mechanical Factors of Wellbore Instability, Nafta 45
(3), Zagreb.
13. Gaurina-Meimurec, N. (1998): Horizontal Well Drill-In Fluids, Rudarsko-geoloko-
naftni zbornik, Vol. 10, Zagreb
14. Hawkes, C.D., McLellan, P.J. (1997): A New Model for Predicting TimeDependent
Failure of Shales: Theory and Application, paper 97-131 presented at the 48th Annual
Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society, 8-11 June, Calgary, Canada.
15. Martins, A.L., Santana, M.L., Goncalves, C.J.C., Gaspari, E., Campos, W., Perez,
J.C.L.V. (1999): Evaluating the Transport of Solids Generated by Shale Instabilities in

28
 ERW Drilling Part II: Case Studies, paper SPE 56560 presented at the 1999 SPE annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 October, Houston, Texas.
16. Maury, V.M., Sauzay, J-M. (1987): Borehole Instability: Case Histories, Rock
Mechanics Approach, and Results, paper SPE/IADC 16051, presented at the 1987
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, LA, March 15-18.

29