See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245351431

New Model to Analyze Nonlinear Leak-Off Test Behavior

Article  in  Journal of Energy Resources Technology · June 1999

DOI: 10.1115/1.2795064

CITATIONS READS
2 183

4 authors, including:

Gursat Altun
Istanbul Technical University
18 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Modeling of Surge Pressure and Its Sensitivity Analysis for Conduits Containing Non-Newtonian Drilling Fluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gursat Altun on 01 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Application of a New Model
To Analyze Leak-Off Tests
G. Altun, SPE, Istanbul Technical U.; J. Langlinais, SPE, Louisiana State U.;
and A.T. Bourgoyne Jr., SPE, Bourgoyne Enterprises Inc.
Summary
A leak-off test (LOT), commonly known as a formation-pressure-
integrity test, is a verification method to estimate the fracture pressure
of exposed formations. After cementing each casing string, a LOT is
run to verify that the casing seat can withstand the wellbore pressure
required to drill safely to the next casing setting depth. Fracture
pressure determined from this test is used as the maximum pressure
that may be imposed on that formation. Critical drilling decisions for
subsequent casing setting depths are based on LOT results.
Although a LOT is a simple and inexpensive test, its interpreta-
tion is sometimes difficult, particularly in formations that give non-
linear relationships between the pumped volume and the observed
pump pressure. Ideally, a straight line is obtained that reflects the
total system compressibility (i.e., the drilling fluid, the casing
expansion, and the wellbore expansion.) Nonlinear LOT behavior
is thought to be caused by gas in the system, by borehole failure,
or by leakage of drilling fluid into the cemented casing/borehole
annulus. There is, however, no mathematical model explaining
nonlinear LOT behavior.
In this study, a mathematical model is derived to assist in ana-
lyzing nonlinear LOT behavior. The model has been used to pre-
dict the observed nonlinear behavior of field examples. In some
cases of a nonlinear LOT, the model can be used to predict the
maximum fracture pressure of the formation.
Introduction
Safety concerns indicate that wellbore pressure at any depth must
be kept between naturally occurring formation pore pressure and
the maximum wellbore pressure that the formation can withstand
without losing integrity. Knowledge of fracture pressure, which
varies with depth, is as important as knowledge about formation
pore-pressure variation with depth. When abnormal formation
pressure is encountered, the density of the drilling fluid must be
increased to maintain the overbalance to prevent possible fluid
flow from permeable formations. However, there is a maximum
limiting drilling-fluid density that can be tolerated to avoid fracture
in the exposed shallow and weak zones below the casing shoe. This
means that there is a maximum safely drillable depth into an abnor-
mally pressured zone without running another casing string.
Fracture pressure is defined as the pressure at which an
exposed formation will rupture and accept whole drilling fluid
from the wellbore. Lost circulation, or lost returns, is the conse-
quence of fractured formations. Formation fracture resistance is
related directly to the weight of the formation overburden, also
called the geostatic load, at a given depth of burial, the intergran-
ular pressure of the formations, and the formation type. Thus,
knowledge of formation-fracture pressure as a function of depth is
an imperative requirement to plan today’s deep wells in onshore
and offshore environments.
Methods for determining formation-fracture pressure fall into
two groups: predictive methods and verification methods. Initial
well planning requires formation-fracture data based upon predic-
tive methods, generally empirical correlations such as the Eaton
correlation, the Hubbert and Willis equation, the Christman corre-
lation, etc.1 Well-design results from predictive methods must be
Copyright © 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 72061) was revised for publication from paper SPE 56761 first presented
at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
Original manuscript received for review 31 January 2000. Revised manuscript received 31
August 2000. Paper peer approved 27 March 2000.
108
confirmed by a verification method while drilling a well. Because
the primary objective of this study is LOT analysis, which is a
verification method, predictive methods will not be covered.
The usefulness of this model lies in its ability to indicate to the
engineer that an apparent fracturing (increased pump volume with-
out pressure increase) may simply be a flow channel through the
cement, and remedial operations could possibly repair the problem.
It also indicates that nonlinear behavior is caused by a flow path of
some sort, which may or may not warrant remedial efforts. The
model does not identify the fracture point, but rather predicts the
maximum attainable pressure for a nonlinear LOT, which is more
a question of the magnitude of the flow path and its response to
increased pressure. With the loss of drilling fluid during the test, it
is obvious that a fracture has occurred, either at the casing shoe, or
at a shallower depth by means of a path behind pipe. It is still an
engineering judgment to decide whether the formation at the shoe
actually has been fractured.
Fracture-Pressure Verification Method
Fracture pressures are verified by closing the well at the surface
using a blowout preventer and pumping mud at constant rates into
the closed well. This procedure is continued until a predetermined
pressure value is reached or the well begins to take whole mud,
indicating a significant departure from the straight-line pressure
trend. The pump is stopped then, and the pressure is observed for
at least 10 minutes to determine the pressure-decline rate. Because
sand is weaker than shale, it is a common practice in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM) to run the test in the first sand below the casing
shoe. Estimated fracture pressure from the test is used as the max-
imum pressure that may be imposed on the formation.
A typical LOT plot for a well with a short openhole section is
shown in Fig. 1. Early test data fall on a relatively straight line,
resulting from constant pressure increase for incremental drilling
fluid pumped. The straight-line trend continues until Point A where
the formation grains begin to lose integrity and allow mud to enter
the formation. Pressure at the departure point from the straight line
at Point A is the leak-off pressure (LOP) and is used to calculate the
formation-fracture gradient. However, in some cases, pumping is
continued until a maximum test pressure is observed. Pumping is
stopped then at Point B, and the well is shut in to observe the pres-
sure decline caused by mud or mud-filtrate loss.
Some of the main factors influencing the LOT are pre-existing
cracks and faults, cement channels, plastic behavior of formations,
casing expansion, test equipment, pressure gauges, injection rates,
and pump efficiency.2, 3 LOT behavior is examined and interpreted
based on experience, but it does not provide analytical or numeri-
cal models to support these interpretations.3 It is concluded that if
observed data points in a LOT depart significantly from the mini-
mum volume line (MVL), a cement channel is suspected.3
Conversely, a computer program that predicts LOT behavior of the
formations is proposed.2 However, this computer model requires
several parameters that are not easily obtained. Ref. 4 presents a
LOT procedure and considers the effects of mud gel strength on a
LOT. It suggests obtaining this value from field-circulation data
instead of a viscometer. However, this work does not consider the
nonlinear LOT behavior. Wellbore compressibility is calculated
along with drilling-fluid compressibility from the LOT.5 This work
considers an elastic borehole-deformation effect, but not the leak
effect and casing expansion. Hazov5 does not provide any model to
calculate borehole-expansion volume due to elastic deformation
and also does not consider nonlinear LOT behavior.
June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion
 3,000 separation of the formation from the cement, due to the applied
2,800 pressure. Our work has shown that a low-volume leak through a
2,600 B
highly viscous narrow flow channel will yield a nonlinear LOT,
2,400 up to the point where fracture occurs.
Injection Pressure, psi A
2,200
Fig. 2 shows each component of the system, including the gen-
2,000
eral case. The model also allows investigating the effect of each
1,800
individual component of the compressible system. In other words,
1,600
the volume pumped in must be equal to the summation of the four
1,400
component volumes at any time during the test. General assump-
1,200
1,000
tions for the model are a homogenous compressible system, isother-
800
mal nonpenetrating drilling fluid, cylindrical borehole and casing
600
expansion, no end effects at the bottom of the hole, isotropic and
400
elastic rock, and one principal stress parallel to the borehole axis.
200 The derivation of the model equations is given in the Appendix.
0 The resultant material balance equation is
0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
Volume Pumped, bbl Time, min æ Volume ö = æ Volume ö + æ Volume ö + æ Volume ö ,
ç Pumped ÷ ç to Mud ÷ ç to Casing ÷ ç to Leaks ÷
è ø è ø è ø è ø
Fig. 1—Typical leak-off behavior.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
In some environments, particularly in shallow marine sedi-
P é Ro2 + Ri2 ù
ments in the GOM, it is difficult to define the endpoint of the
straight-line trend because of the nonlinear LOT behavior of the
or V = cVo P + 2π hcsg Ri2 ê 2
E ë Ro − Ri 2 ( ) (
1− ν2 + ν + ν2 ú )
û
formations. At times, a straight-line section is not observed
because previously mentioned factors mask it. Although a LOT is
a simple and inexpensive test, interpretation is not always easy, é æDö æDö
2
æDö
3
ù
particularly in formations showing nonlinear relationships between + êcVo ç ÷ P 2 + cVo ç ÷ P 3 + cVo ç ÷ P 4 + ...ú
êë èqø èqø èqø úû
the observed pump pressure, P, and the pumped volumes, V. Some
companies have operational rules of thumb. For a given LOT plot, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
some choose the highest-pressure value reached, and others select
some smaller pressure value based on the rate of decrease in slope. In Eq. 2, the first term accounts for mud compression, the sec-
We believe that a mathematical model and reasonable assumptions ond term accounts for casing expansion, and the last term accounts
are needed to assist in interpretation. This would also enable the for leaks. Nonlinearity is caused by the last term, leak volume. Eq.
engineer to understand better the possible reasons for nonlinear 2 also represents the approximate solution for the overall com-
behavior in LOT’s. pressible system. A more exact solution can be written in the form
Mathematical Model é æ D öù
A mathematical model using the well-known compressibility (
V = êVo ecP − 1 ) ç1 − P ÷ ú + 2πhcsg Ri
2 P

equation together with the material balance concept will be given ëê è q ø ûú E

to analyze nonlinear LOT behavior. Before obtaining the general
é Ro2 + Ri2 ù
solution, the compressible system is decomposed as: (1) compres-
sion of drilling fluid, (2) expansion of casing string, (3) openhole
ê 2
R − R 2 ( ) (
1− ν2 + ν + ν2 ú . ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
ë o i û
expansion, and (4) fluid leakage. With a small section of open hole
at the time of a LOT, calculations have indicated that fluid loss to In Eq. 3, the first term on the right side represents drilling-
filtration for a reasonable mud system is a very small volume, par- fluid compression and fluid leaks, and the second represents
ticularly in the time frame of a LOT. Thus, filtration losses are not casing expansion.
considered. Leakage is modeled by considering an arbitrary annu- With the assumption that all obvious opportunities for leaks, such
lar channel to provide a nonlinear component. Such a channel as surface equipment, pumps, etc., have been eliminated, the volume
could be the result of poor cement placement or, as recently pos- attributable to mud, casing, and hole expansion is subtracted from the
tulated by investigators such as Zhou,6 a channel caused by the volume pumped. This is done at each data point, and the difference is

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 2—Possible subsystems for modeling leak-off test: (a) closed system (mud compression); (b) casing expansion; (c) borehole
expansion; (d) leak; and (e) general solution case.

June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion 109

 TABLE 1—BASIC WELL DATA FURNISHED WITH LOT DATA
A-2 U-2 U-3
Location GOM Montana Trinidad
Date June 98 November 88 NA
Mud weight, lbm/gal 14.4 8.45 8.5
Pump rate, bbl/min 0.25 0.25 0.25
Casing OD, in. 95/8 20 20
TVD casing, ft 8,773 1,765 1,029
TVD well, ft 8,782 1,780 1,044
Openhole length, ft 15* 15* 15*
Water depth, ft 65* 0 196
Rotary Kelly Bushing, ft 100* 30* 86
Number of test points 28 29 26
Volume pumped, bbl 6.75 7.5 7
Maximum observed pressure, psi 1,621 1,350 380
* Assumed

attributed to a leak of some sort. By assuming a leak-path length
value, L, then a consistent value of path width, W, is found by forcing
the same value for all data points. Thus a flow path is obtained that
generates the appropriate leak flow and frictional pressure loss to
predict each data point. Assuming a different length initially will
calculate a different width, which in turn generates the appropriate
leak flow and friction losses. The actual leak path is unknown and
cannot be measured; only the effects of such a leak are needed.
The model requires calculation of each component in Eq. 1,
using either Eq. 2 or 3. The pumped volume and the observed
pump pressure are known parameters during the test. In addition,
the mud-compression and the casing-expansion terms are easy to
determine from the casing, drilling-fluid, and well geometry data.
Thus, the leak volume is the only parameter to be evaluated by dif-
ference. Strictly speaking, the leak constant, D, shown in Eqs. 2
and 3 is required to be determined. A leak is modeled by
Poiseuille’s law, which is used to model flow through channels. D
is a function of the channel’s width, area, length, and drilling-fluid
viscosity, and its equation form is given by Eq. A-29. Once D is
evaluated using the early part of the data, the behavior of the LOT
at any P and V can be determined by extrapolation.
Verification of Model Using Field Data
Three nonlinear LOT behaviors observed from three different
wells were used to verify the model. Reasonable assumptions or
approximations had to be made when data were unknown. These
assumptions are indicated in the tables. Basic properties of the ana-
lyzed wells supplied with the LOT data are listed in Table 1.
Observation of nonlinear LOT behavior was the main characteristic
of the tests. These three wells, one in the GOM, one in Montana,
and another offshore Trinidad, were selected for presentation
because the model results indicated that each was distinctly different
from the others; the differences will be explained later.
Table 2 lists the additional required input parameters to imple-
ment the model. The formation Young’s modulus of the tested for-
mations was calculated from Lama and Vutukuri’s7 correlation.
Vertical stress is assumed equal to the confining stress when cal-
culating the formation Young’s modulus. Because Young’s modu-
lus is used to calculate borehole expansion, which is negligible,8 its
accuracy is less important. Also, determination of the drilling-mud
compressibility requires a knowledge of mud composition (solid
and liquid fraction) and density. These fractions can be obtained
directly from charts or equations. Using the data in Tables 1 and 2,
additional model parameters are calculated, such as overburden
pressure, pore pressure, vertical stress, mud compressibility,
Young’s modulus, etc., and are tabulated in Table 3. A 30-ft-long
microannulus was used as the default-assumed condition in Table
2. A slot approximation of this geometry was used to allow a ficti-
tious channel width, W, to be determined. If the calculated W con-
verges to a constant value, a channel leak is indicated as the cause
of the nonlinear behavior. Once the input data are prepared, the
model is applied by using spreadsheet software.

TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL INPUT DATA TO IMPLEMENT THE MODEL

Parameter Value Unit
Water fraction of mud function of mud weight fraction
Oil fraction of mud function of mud weight fraction
Solid fraction of mud function of mud weight fraction
–6
Compressibility of water 3.00 ×10 1/psi
–6
Compressibility of oil 5.00 ×10 1/psi
–7
Compressibility of solids 2.00 ×10 1/psi
7
Casing Young’s modulus 3.00 ×10 psi
Casing Poisson’s ratio 0.3 dimensionless
Formation Young’s modulus function of depth psi
Mud viscosity 30* cp
Channel length 30* ft
Channel length in lateral plane 1* fraction
Overburden gradient 1* psi/ft
Pore pressure 0.465* psi/ft
Horizontal/vertical stress ratio 1* dimensionless
Formation type Stockton shale* —
*Assumed

110 June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion

 4 1,500
TABLE 3—CALCULATED PARAMETERS AND
MODEL CONSTANTS
1,200

Volume Pumped, bbl

A-2 U-2 U-3 3

Pump Pressure, psi

Sediment depth, ft 8,617 1,750 762
900
Overburden, psi 8,647 1,750 853
2
Pore pressure, psi 4,037 763 445
600
Vertical stress, psi 4,610 987 408
6 5 5
Young’s modulus, psi 1.24×10 8.51×10 6.40×10 1
300
–6 –6 –6
Mud compressibility, 1/psi 2.27×10 2.78×10 2.89×10
Wellbore volume, bbl 666 632 371 0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Equivalent Channel Width, in.
The mud-compression volume using either Eq. A-3 or A-6 and Width-volume Width-pressure
the casing-expansion volume using Eq. A-17 are calculated and
subtracted from V to determine the leak volume for each data Fig. 3—Well A-2 equivalent channel width variation during the test.
point. The MVL is determined from mud compressibility and well-
bore volume calculations. Then, D is calculated from Eq. 3.
Finally, the fictitious or equivalent W is calculated from Eq. A-29 however, the channel width converged to a constant value at the end
and simultaneously plotted against volume and pressure as shown of the test. It also indicates very high fluid losses (large cement
in Figs. 3 through 5. When convergence is observed, an addition- channel), i.e., the pumping rate was not sufficient to build pressure
al three or four data points are processed to ensure that W did fast enough in the well. Table 4 summarizes the determined W and
indeed converge. It was observed in the plots that the W value was D values from the model for the tests.
larger in the early phase of the test because the system was more Using the leak constant value and other relevant data in Eq. 3,
compressible as a result of trapped air or formation gases in the test data for the three wells were regenerated at observed pump
wellbore. W converged to a constant value with continued pump- pressures for both used and unused data points of the test. Then
ing, as in Well A-2, shown in Fig. 3, and in Well U-3, shown in Fig. these calculated data from the model were plotted together with the
5. However, W in Well U-2 initially tended to converge, but failed observed data shown in Figs. 6 through 8. Accurate extrapolation
to stabilize, and then increased. Because the cement is strong compared to observed behavior was obtained for Wells A-2 and U-3
enough and no large erosion is possible in such a small time peri- in Figs. 6 and 8, respectively. The fracture pressure predicted from
od, it was postulated that naturally occurring fractures were the the model is in good agreement with the observed data. Lack of
cause of this behavior shown in Fig. 4. In other words, a squeeze channel-width stabilization for Well U-2, shown in Fig. 7, is the
cementing will not solve the problem in the presence of naturally cause of unsuccessful extrapolation. It would require pumping 4.75
occurring fractures just below the casing shoe. Fig. 5 shows that the bbl of mud to observe 1,350 psi instead of 7.5 bbl if there were no
model behavior of Well U-3 followed a smooth stabilization path; naturally occurring fractures in Well U-2.

June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion 111

 4 1,200 7 400

6 350

Pump Pressure, psi

Volume Pumped, bbl
Pump Pressure, psi
Volume Pumped, bbl
3 900 300
5
250
4
2 600 200
3
150
2
1 300 100

1 50

0 0 0 0
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030
Equivalent Channel Width, in. Equivalent Channel Width, in.
Width-volume pumped Width-pressure Width-volume Width-pressure

Fig. 4—Well U-2 equivalent channel width variation during the test. Fig. 5—Well U-3 equivalent channel width variation during the test.

Because the trapped air or formation gases in the system affect e= exponential
the early portion of the recorded data, their effect should be elimi- E= Young’s modulus, m/Lt2, psi
nated or subtracted from the recorded data. Figs. 3 through 8 show h= openhole length, L, ft
that this effect is insignificant on Well A-2, moderate on Well U-2, hcsg = casing length, L, ft
and very high on Well U-3. Note that trapped air volume (0.5 bbl L= channel length, L, ft
for Well U-2 and 0.75 bbl for Well U-3) was subtracted from the
n= number
observed data before the analysis. The trapped air or formation
gases affect the variation of the equivalent channel width as if the o= initial
channel width were larger. However, this effect will be negligible P= pressure, m/Lt2, psi
with continued mud pumping until the air or gas compressibility Pi = inner-casing pressure, m/Lt2, psi
equals the mud compressibility in the well. Po = outer-casing pressure, m/Lt2, psi
MVL and maximum volume line, which is half the slope value q= injection rate, L3/t, bbl/min
of MVL, as shown in Figs. 6 through 8 are a quality indicator for ql = leak rate, L3/t, bbl/min
a LOT. Ideally, it is expected that the data points would be r= displacement, L, in.
observed to fall on the MVL as shown in Fig. 1. Departure from ro = initial wellbore radius, L, in.
this line is a direct indication of fluid leakage. This behavior is com- Ri = inner-casing radius, L, in.
mon for the analyzed tests and is severe in Well U-3. Model calcu-
Ro = outer-casing radius, L, in.
lations revealed that the leak volume was accounting for approxi-
mately 35% in Well A-2, 40% in Well U-2, and 85% in Well U-3 t= time, t, min
of the pumped volume throughout the test. T= temperature, T, °F
V= volume pumped, L3, bbl
Conclusions Ve = borehole-expansion volume, L3, bbl
A mathematical model for nonlinear LOT behavior has been Vec = casing-expansion volume, L3, bbl
developed and applied using field data. Mud compression, casing Vf = leak volume, L3, bbl
expansion, and leak volumes are the major factors affecting LOT Vo = system volume, L3, bbl
behavior. Leak volume was found to be a plausible source of non- W= channel width, L, in.
linear LOT behavior. The degree of nonlinearity increases with x= variable
increasing leak volume. However, borehole expansion volume
z= direction
was found to be negligible. The model also makes it possible to
observe the individual effects on the nonlinear LOT behavior. D= difference
The model postulates the existence of naturally occurring ¶= partial differential
fractures from the analysis of test behavior. This behavior is e= strain, L/L, in./in.
determined by the leak model, which indicates progressive equivalent ¥= infinity
channel size development throughout the test phase. m= fluid viscosity, m/Lt, cp
The model requires a precise record of mud-volume pumped n= Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
and observed pump-pressure data because the model relies on only p= constant, 3.141592654
these observed records. More data points make the analysis easier
and more reliable using this model. 2,000

Nomenclature 1,800

1,600
Pump Pressure, psi

Axs = cross-sectional area of channel, L2, in.2

1,400
c = compressibility, Lt2/m, 1/psi
1,200
d = differential operator
D = leak constant, L4t/m
1,000

800

600

400
TABLE 4 — STABILIZED DUMMY VARIABLES OBTAINED
FROM THE MODEL 200

0
A-2 U-2 U-3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Channel width, W, in. 0.0253 0.0121 0.0333 Volume Pumped, bbl
Channel area, Axs , in.2 0.7659 0.7529 2.0913 Observed data Min. volume line Max. volume line Model prediction Used data
–5 –5 –4
Leak constant, D 8.00×10 3.50×10 7.50×10
Fig. 6—Extrapolated prediction from the model for Well A-2.

112 June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion

 1,800 500

1,600 450

Pump Pressure, psi

1,400 400

Pump Pressure, psi

1,200 350

1,000 300
250
800
200
600
150
400
100
200
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
Volume Pumped, bbl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Volume Pumped, bbl
Observed data Min. volume line Max. volume line
Model prediction Used data Corrected for trapped air Observed data Corrected for trapped air
Min. volume line Max. volume line Model prediction

Fig. 7—Extrapolated prediction from the model for Well U-2.

Fig. 8—Extrapolated prediction from the model for Well U-3.
s= stress, m/Lt2, psi
sr = radial stress, m/Lt2, psi Appendix—Derivation of Model Equations
sq = tangential or diametral stress, m/Lt2, psi
Presented here is the derivation of the total system compressibility
sz = vertical stress, m/Lt2, psi
equation using the material balance concept, which is the mathe-
Acknowledgments matical model for an observed physical phenomenon from a LOT
for the following subcases and general solution.
This study was supported by the Minerals Management Services
(MMS). Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and Behavior of System Allowing Fluid Compression
not the MMS. The authors express their appreciation, not only to
The basic equation used to calculate annular-pressure response
MMS for making this work possible, but also to Unocal and
due to an applied hydrostatic pressure change is the isothermal-
Amoco for providing the LOT data.
compressibility equation. The system in this case is assumed as a
References totally closed or isolated borehole, indicating that throughout the
LOT, the system boundary is essentially rigid and fixed. The pressure
1. Bourgoyne, A.T. et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook
change is obtained by pumping the drilling fluid into the system
Series, Richardson, Texas (1991) 2.
steadily. This situation consists of only drilling-fluid compression in
2. Almeida, A-M.: “Computer-Aided Analysis of Formation Pressure
the well. The fluid compressibility is calculated from the well-known
Integrity Tests Used in Oil Well Drilling,” PhD dissertation, Louisiana
compressibility equation1 in differential form,
State U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana (1986).
3. Postler, D.P.: “Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation,” paper SPE 37589 1 æ ∂V ö
c=− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
Vo çè ∂P ÷øT
presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
4–6 March.
4. Chenevert, M.E. and McClure, L.J.: “How to run casing and open-hole
In Eq. A-1, the minus sign indicates an inverse relationship
pressure tests,” Oil & Gas J. (1978) 6 March, 66.
between the pump pressure and the pumped volume. It tells that if
5. Hazov, V.A. and Hurshudov, V.A.: “Leak-off tests help determine well
the volume of the drilling fluid in the system is decreased due to
bore compressibility,” Oil & Gas J. (1993) 29 November, 71.
injection, the pressure of the drilling fluid increases. Because the
6. Zhou, D.: “Well Integrity Mechanism, Failure, and Testing in Shallow
decrease in fluid volume due to compression is essentially equal to
Marine Sediments,” PhD dissertation, Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge,
the volume pumped, the minus sign in the equation is cancelled
Louisiana (2000).
out. The subscript T will be dropped while deriving the following
7. Gidley, J.L. et al.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE,
model equations with the understanding that temperature is held
Richardson, Texas (1989) 1.
constant in the system during the LOT. Separating variables and
8. Altun, G.: “Analysis of Non-linear Formation Fracture Resistance Tests
integrating Eq. A-1 gives
Obtained During Oil Well Drilling Operations,” PhD dissertation,
Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana (1999). V
9. Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, sec- cP = ln(1 + ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
ond edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1976). Vo
10. Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J.: Constitutive Laws for Engineering
An exact solution of Eq. A-2 is obtained in terms of pumped volume as
Materials with Emphasis on Geologic Materials, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1984).
V=Vo (ecP-1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
11. Craft, B.C., Hawkins, M., and Terry, R.E.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, second edition, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Eq. A-3 is not the familiar form of the compressibility equation.
Jersey (1991).
The more useful form is known as the approximate solution
and is obtained using the relationship of series expansion of
logarithmic function,
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl ´ E - 01 = m3 x 2 x3 x 4
cp ´
1.589 873
1.0* E - 03 = Pa×s
ln(1 + x) = x −
2
+ − + −.... x < 1 .
3 4
( ) . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
ft ´ 3.048* E - 01 = m
ft2 ´ 9.290 304* E - 02 = m2 Using Eq. A-4 in Eq. A-2 gives
ft3 ´ 2.831 685 E - 02 = m3 2 3 4
V æV ö æV ö æV ö
in. ´ 2.54* E + 00 = cm cP = − ç ÷ + ç ÷ − ç ÷ + −.... . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
psi ´ 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa Vo è Vo ø è Vo ø è Vo ø
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEDC Because V/Vo are small, their squared terms will be even smaller.
Thus, the approximate solution is written by keeping the first term,

June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion 113

 Diametral strain on a casing is equal to the tangential or the radial
strain. The diametral strain, eq, caused by a change in inside pres-
σθ sure is obtained from Hooke’s law,
Po σr 1
εd = εθ = é ∆σθ − ν ( ∆σr + ∆σ Z ) ùû . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-12)
Eë

The radial and tangential stresses vary with radial location in the
Pi casing wall thickness. The radial and the tangential stresses on
inner-casing wall can be calculated from Eqs. A-9 and A-10 by
replacing r with Ri. Then, the radial stress, tangential stress, and
vertical stress become

Ri ∆σr = ∆P , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-13)

∆σθ = −
(R 2
o + Ri2 ) ∆P , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-14)
r R − Ri2
2
o

Ro é Ro2 + Ri2
and ∆σ z = ν ∆P ê1 − 2
( ) ùú , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-15)
ê Ro − Ri2 ú
ë û
Fig. A-1—Stresses acting on a casing string. respectively. Diametral strain, eq, is calculated from Eq. A-12. Once
the diametral strain on the inner-casing wall is determined, the casing-
expansion volume is calculated from the following equation.
V=cVo P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Ve−c = π h é( Ri + ∆r ) − Ri2 ù , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-16)
2
Eq. A-6 is the well-known compressibility equation written for V. ë û
Behavior of System Allowing Only
or Ve−c = π h Ri éë 2εθ + εθ ùû .
2 2
Casing Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-16a)
Stresses acting on a uniform casing shown in Fig. A-1 will cause
strain or displacement and will result in volume change. Because of Substituting Eqs. A-13, A-14, A-15, and A-12 in Eq. A-16, the casing-
symmetry, casing keeps its cylindrical shape when applied pressure expansion volume related to observed pump pressure is obtained as
displaces all points of the casing wall by the same amount. Thus, no
shearing stresses can take place on transverse planes. The principal ù
P é Ro2 + Ri2
stresses are radial, sr, tangential or hoop, sq, and vertical or longi- Ve−c = 2πhRi2 ê−
E ë Ro2 − Ri2
( ) (
1 − ν 2 − ν + ν 2 ú . . . . . . (A-17))
tudinal, sz. Vertical stress is calculated from the condition of plain- û
strain case, indicating no strain in the vertical direction. The sign
convention is that compression and contraction are positive while Note that because eq is small, its square will be even smaller.
tension and elongation are negative. Because the change in pressure Therefore, the square term of eq in Eq. A-16a was neglected while
and stress is of interest rather than the absolute value of these deriving Eq. A-17. Negative volume is obtained from Eq. A-17
parameters, the radial and the tangential stresses are written9 as because the casing expansion is caused by tension stresses whose
sign convention was assumed as negative. Therefore, the casing-
Ri2 ∆Pi − Ro2 ∆Po R 2 R 2 (∆P − ∆P ) æ 1 ö expansion volume is taken as positive as in Eqs. 2 and 3. The vol-
∆σ r = − + i o 2 i 2 o ç 2 ÷ , . . . . . (A-7) ume needed to compress the volume created by casing expansion
Ro − Ri
2 2
Ro − Ri èr ø
is obtained by substituting Vec from Eq. A-17 instead of Vo in Eq.
A-7. Then, it becomes
Ri2 ∆Pi − Ro2 ∆Po Ri2 Ro2 (∆Pi − ∆Po ) æ 1 ö
and ∆σθ = − − ç r 2 ÷ , . . . . (A-8)
Ro2 − Ri2 Ro2 − Ri2 è ø V=cVecP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-18)

respectively. Behavior of System Allowing Only

In addition, if no pressure change occurs outside of the casing, the Borehole Expansion
outer pressure, DPo, is dropped. Also, the pressure change in the casing, Borehole expansion caused by loading is examined in this special
DPi, can be represented as DP. Then, Eqs. A-7 and A-8 are rewritten as case. Although the system is closed, the system boundary is not
constant but expands; i.e., the overall system volume, Vo, changes
Ri2 ∆P R 2 R 2 (∆P ) æ 1 ö with time during the loading and increases a new value, Vo+Ve. The
∆σ r = − + i 2 o 2 ç 2 ÷ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9) volume increment, Ve, is the volume increment or variable volume
Ro − Ri
2 2
Ro − Ri è r ø of the system is due to the borehole expansion caused by the pump
pressure. The strain relationship for an elastic material is given10 as
Ri2 ∆P Ri2 Ro2 (∆P) æ 1 ö
and ∆σθ = − − , . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-10) r + ∆r
Ro2 − Ri2 Ro2 − Ri2 çè r 2 ÷ø ε= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19)
r

respectively. dr
The equations predicting the change in the vertical or longitudinal or d ε = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19a)
r
stress can be derived using Hooke’s law, which relates the principal
stresses and strains to each other using the linear-elasticity concept. Using Hooke’s law for an elastic perfectly plastic rock-constitutive
This relationship for sz with plain-strain case, ez=0, is model shown in Fig. A-2, relationships between the strain and the
stress, including well-radius change (enlargement) due to the pump
Dsz=n (Dsr+Dsq). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-11) pressure, are written as

114 June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Casing losses. The leak volume, Vf, can be modeled using different flow
models, but the leak volume vs. the observed pump pressure rela-
tionship is the same in all models. The only difference is the constant
term, which has different parameters because of the different
geometry assumptions. The general relationship for the leak volume is
P
dVf =DDPdt, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-27)

or Vf =DDPt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-27a)
Py
Time, t, in Eq. A-27 is the ratio of pumped volume to flow rate and
h is written as
ro
E dV
dt = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-28)
q

ro+∆r V
or t = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-28a)
ε q
The constant D in Eqs. A-27 and A-27a takes various forms
depending on the leak model. In this study, leak is modeled by
Poiseuille’s law, which is used to model flow through channels. If
Fig. A-2—Borehole expansion and constitutive rock model.
the channel shape is considered as rectangular form, the constant
dP=Ede, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-20) D becomes11
ro +∆r 2

( ) WµLA
p
dr D = 8.7 109 xs
or ò dP = E
0
ò
ro
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-20a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-29)

In Eq. A-29 W=the width of the fracture; Axs=the cross-sectional

Integration of Eq. A-20 relates the wellbore displacement with the area of the fracture, which equals the product of W and the lateral
pump pressure as extent of the fracture. Note also that D in Eq. A-29 is in field units.
If the system allows only leak and drilling-fluid compression, the
æ P ö pumped volume is calculated as
∆r = ro çç e E − 1÷÷ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-21)
è ø
V=cVo P+Vf +cVf P, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-30)
The expansion volume increment, Ve, owing to expansion can be
calculated easily using borehole geometry and Eq. A-21. Assuming The last term on the right side is very small and will be neglected.
cylindrical borehole enlargement, Substituting leak volume in Eq. A-30 and solving for V gives

V
Ve = π h é( ∆r + ro ) − ro2 ù . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-22)
2
V = cVo P + DP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-31)
ë û q

Using Eq. A-22 together with Eq. A-21, the exact solution of the Solving for V, it yields
borehole enlargement volume is calculated as
cVo P
V= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-32)
é 2P ù D
Ve = π hro2 êe E − 1ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-23) 1− P
ë û q

The approximate solution for the borehole enlargement volume is The term DP/q is less than one. Thus, we can use the relationship,
obtained by a series form of exponential function. The exponential
∞
function is given by 1
= å x n = 1 + x + x 2 + x3 + ... x < 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-33)
1 − x n =0
x 2 x3 x 4
ex = 1 + x + + + + .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-24)
2! 3! 4! Using Eq. A-33 in Eq. A-32 gives the approximate solution as

Applying Eq. A-24 in Eq. A-23 and ignoring the cubic powered é æDö æDö
2
ù
P/E terms and later terms, the borehole volume expansion becomes V = cVo P + êcVo ç ÷ P 2 + cVo ç ÷ P 3 + ...ú . . . . . . . (A-34)
êë èqø èqø úû
é P æ P ö2 ù
Ve = 2π hro2 ê + ç ÷ ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-25) The exact solution is obtained by substituting Eq. A-4 for the first
ëê E è E ø ûú term in Eq. A-30.

The volume needed to compress the volume created by the bore- Vo (ecP − 1)
V= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-35)
hole expansion is obtained by substituting the volume term Ve from D
1− P
Eq. A-25 in place of Vo in Eq. A-6 to give q
V=cVe P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-26)

Behavior of System Allowing Only Behavior of Whole System (General Solution)

Leak (Filtration) The general solution of the total system is the summation of all
The system is closed in this case; i.e., the system volume is constant, subsystems’ solutions. Total system solution can be written in
or the system boundary is fixed. However, the system wall allows fluid material balance equation form as

June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion 115

 æ Volume ö = æ Volume ö + æ Volume ö sion volume fluid, and the volume to compress the leakage volume
ç Pumped ÷ ç to Mud ÷ ç to Casing ÷
è ø è ø è ø given in Eqs. A-36 or A-37 are negligible and ignored. These terms
account for less than 1% of the volume pumped into the system,
even in extreme cases.8 Then, Eq. A-37 is reduced to Eq. 2. The
+ æç Volume to Compress ö÷ + ( Volume to Expand Borehole ) exact solution form of the Eq. A-37 is obtained by substituting Eqs.
è Casing Expansion Volume ø A-3, A-17 and A-35, and is given in Eq. 3.
è ø
æ ö + Volume to Leaks
÷ ( )
+ç Volume to Compress
è Borehole Expansion Volume ø
SI Metric Conversion Factors
+ æç Volume to Compress ö÷ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-36) bbl ´ 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3
è Leaks Volume ø ft ´ 3.048* E - 01 = m
ft2 ´ 9.290 304* E - 02 = m2
Substituting Eqs. A-6, A-17, A-18, A-25, A-26, and A-34 on the
right side of Eq. A-36, the desired solution for the total system °F ´ (°F - 32)/1.8 = °C
behavior in approximate form is obtained as gal ´ 3.785 412 E - 03 = m3
in. ´ 2.54* E + 00 = cm
P é Ro2 + Ri2 ù in.2 ´ 6.451 6* E + 00 = cm2
V = cVo P + 2 π hcsg Ri2 ê−
E ë Ro2 − Ri2
( ) (
1− ν2 − ν + ν2 ú ) lbm ´ 4.535 924 E - 01 = kg
û psi ´ 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
æ
2 *Conversion factor is exact. SPEDC
P é Ro2 + Ri2 ùö
+ cP ç π hcsg Ri2
ç ê 2
E ë Ro − Ri 2 ( ) (
1− ν 2 + ν + ν 2 ú ÷
÷ )
è ûø
Gursat Altun is an assistant professor at Istanbul Technical U.,
Turkey. e-mail: galtun@itu.edu.tr. Altun holds an MS degree
P é Pù é æ P öæ P öù from Istanbul Technical U. and a PhD degree from Louisiana
+2π hro2 ê1 + ú + cP ê 2π hro2 ç ÷ç1 + ÷ ú
E ë Eû ë è øè
E E øû State U., both in petroleum engineering. Julius Langlinais is a
professor of petroleum engineering and Associate Dean for
the College of Engineering, Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge,
é æDö æDö
2
æDö
3
ù Louisiana. e-mail: eglang@eng.lsu.edu. He was employed by
+ êcVo ç ÷ P 2 + cVo ç ÷ P 3 + cVo ç ÷ P 4 + ...ú . Conoco and Superior Oil companies. Langlinais holds a PhD
êë èqø èqø èqø úû degree in physics from Louisiana State U. Adam T. Bourgoyne
Jr. is Professor Emeritus of petroleum engineering and former
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-37) Dean of the College of Engineering, Louisiana State U., Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. e-mail: ted@BourgoyneEnterprises.com.
After sensitivity analysis, it was found that the terms of the vol- Currently he is a petroleum industry consultant. Bourgoyne
ume to compress the casing-expansion-volume fluid, the volume to holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the U. of
expand the borehole, the volume to compress the borehole expan- Texas, Austin, Texas.

116 June 2001 SPE Drilling & Completion

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s