Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

SPE/IADC 67780

A Practical Method for Evaluating Effects of Fracture Charging and/or Ballooning When
Drilling High Pressure, High Temperature (HPHT) Wells
Ole A. Helstrup, SPE, M.K. Rahman, SPE, M.M. Hossain, SPE and Sheik S. Rahman, SPE, School of Petroleum
Engineering, University of New South Wales.

Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

the driller to suspect breakout/fracturing in the absence of any
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in analytical guidance. Thus, the paper has presented a novel
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February1 March 2001.
approach to analyse such a suspected situation during well
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following drilling at HPHT conditions, and the information presented
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the will assist engineers to avoid confusion and manage the well
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their efficiently in such a situation.
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Introduction
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must Volumetric changes, both positive and negative, in the mud
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write system during drilling operation is commonly termed
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
ballooning. The change in volume, or ballooning volume, can
be quite large depending on the well in question, and might as
Abstract such give a false impression on the surface that the well is
Fluctuations in the returned mud volume have often been either taking a kick or that there is a lost circulation scenario.
observed when drilling HPHT wells. There are several To address this problem, especially in High Pressure High
contributing factors for this, out of which increased wellbore Temperature (HPHT) wells where the safety margins are often
volume due to elastic deformation and mud taken by natural quite small, various studies have been conducted in the past to
fractures are considered in this paper. These effects are be able to quantify the ballooning volume. It is commonly
significant in HPHT wells as a result of the high mud pressure accepted that the potential causes for ballooning is mud
required to control the well. This, however, can give the driller expansion or contraction due to both temperature and pressure
the misimpression that the extra mud volume is lost to the variations, deformation of borehole and casing and loss of
formation due to wellbore breakout and/or fractures. When the mud to natural fractures.
mud weight is reduced to prevent such a suspected mud loss, Bjrkevoll et al1 and Aadny2, based on the same two
the formation quickly regains its original volume and the example wells, conducted a study into the effects of both mud
lost mud is returned. This might again be misunderstood as expansion and contraction and the deformation of both
a kick and the mud weight is increased immediately to prevent borehole and casing by both numerical and analytical means.
the suspected kick. The repetition of this process a few times From these studies it was concluded that the mud ballooning
might eventually lead to an actual wellbore failure. was by far the most significant effect, with only minor
This paper presents a method to estimate the volumetric contribution coming from the deformation of borehole and
expansion of wellbores as a function of wellbore pressure. The casing. Further works on the subject of mud ballooning were
wellbore near-breakout/fracture pressure, which is of interest carried out by Krstad and Aadny3-9. However, the method
for this analysis, is established by considering different failure used in these works to calculate the effects of elastic
modes including helical shear, elongated shear and tensile deformation is based on the change in well pressure, without
fracture. The increases in wellbore volume are estimated at any consideration of in-situ stresses. In addition they were
this pressure as a limit below which the driller should not be considering fairly hard formation types, with E moduli of 30
fooled by the suspected breakout/kick situation and thus avoid GPa and 10 GPa. Combining this with open hole radii of
it leading to wellbore failure. 12.25 and 8.5 respectively, the total deformed volume is
The method to estimate the volumetric expansion is based small, whereas, using the same input data, the method
on analytical and numerical approaches. Analyses show that proposed in this paper estimates a higher deformed volume.
the diametric expansion of the wellbore may be in the range of Another cause of ballooning is the existence of natural
centimetres at a critical pressure, and thus a deep well may fractures or faults in the formation itself. When a mud fluid is
consume a significant number of extra mud barrels before injected in a borehole during drilling, some of the fluid can
actual breakout occurs. This might be alarming enough to lead

enter into the natural fractures. The extra volume of mud to be Analytical Method of Borehole Deformation
taken by natural fracture depends on well pressure, local in- A closed-form analytical formula for radial displacement of
situ stresses, mechanical properties of the formation and the wellbore wall has been developed by superimposing two
fracture parameters such as geometry, size and orientation. cases:
This phenomenon is termed as fracture charging, and can have
a noticeable contribution on the overall borehole ballooning
Fluid filled wellbore without in-situ stresses.
effect. Temperature effects are believed to further influence In-situ stressed wellbore without any internal fluid
rock mechanical properties and near wellbore stress pressure.
distribution. Analytical and experimental works are in
progress to incorporate the temperature effect in the overall The solution of the first case is obtained according to E.
ballooning model. This effect is not however, included in this Fjr et al.11 starting with a vertical borehole in a linear elastic
paper because it is currently at an inconclusive stage. formation with isotropic horizontal stresses (i.e. H = h) it is
This paper presents an alternate approach to investigate the assumed that there are no shear forces acting on the surfaces.
effect of borehole ballooning due to elastic deformation using The body forces are also neglected and all quantities are
a Finite Element Method (FEM) and closed-form analytical independent of circumferential position of the wellbore () and
method. The effect of natural fracture charging is also taken its depth (z).
into account in this study based on fracture mechanics. Result The radial deformation of the wellbore for such a case is
of a sensitivity analysis are presented and discussed. A finally derived as:
systematic approach for predicting fracture charging volume
P h R 2 h
and sample case studies using the proposed method are u1 = w r .(1)
presented. 2G r 2( + G )
where and G are elastic moduli known as Lams parameters
Elastic Deformation of Borehole by FE Analysis
E 2 G
Finite element modelling and analysis of borehole deformation and can be expressed as G = and = in
are performed using a package, ANSYS (ANSYS users 2(1 + ) (1 2 )
manuals10). The well is considered to be vertical in a linear which h is the minimum horizontal stress; Pw is wellbore
elastic formation. The analysis is performed based on the pressure; R is wellbore radius; r is an arbitrary radius; E is
plane strain condition as the deformation in the vertical Youngs modulus and is Poissons ratio.
direction is ignored. The in-situ horizontal stresses can be Using a criterion of no in-situ stress (h = 0), Eq. 1 can be
both isotropic and anisotropic. The 3D geometry of a quarter reduced to
model with the dimensions used in this study is shown in Fig.
1. Only a quarter of the wellbore is modelled by taking the P R2
u1 = w .(2)
advantage of double symmetry. A block with dimensions 4.5 x 2G r
4.5m is used for the quarter model. The model thickness is At the wellbore wall, r = R where Eq. 2 can be rewritten as:
considered to be very small compared to other dimensions, so
an equivalent pseudo 2D FEM analysis could be performed P (1 + )
u1 = w R .(3)
instead. Boundary conditions and number of elements of the E
FEM model are shown in Fig. 2. The model is meshed using
SHELL 93 elements, which are suitable for a curved wellbore Note that Eq. 3 gives outward deformation, which is assumed
wall (ANSYS users manual, volume III, Elements). Each as positive.
node in these elements has six degrees of freedom where The radial diametrical displacement for the second case is
translations are considered in the nodal x, y and z directions given by Vutukuri et al.12 for a biaxial stress field and the
and rotations are about the nodal x, y and z axes. plane strain condition as:
To reflect symmetry, nodal deformations on line AB are
allowed only in the x-direction, while nodal deformations on u2 =
( )
1 2 [( H + h ) + 2( H h )cos 2] (4)
line ED are only allowed in the y-direction, as depicted in
Fig. 2. where H is the maximum horizontal in-situ stress and is the
Note that with the pseudo 2D model, one cannot apply angle measured anticlockwise from the positive H direction to
pressures directly on any of the sides of the model (Fig.2). the h direction. Note that Eq. 4 gives inward deformation
Instead, in-situ stresses and pressures can be applied as surface with compressive in-situ stresses as positive. However, this
loads or line pressures in the pseudo 2D model. Therefore, deformation is made negative to be consistent with the
the wellbore pressure Pw and the horizontal stresses, H and assumption of positive outward deformation in Eq. 3.
h, are converted to line pressures (Pwl , PHl , PHl) by Superimposing these two cases ( u = u1+u2) we get
multiplying by the model thickness (t = 0.01m) and applied as
shown in Fig. 2. Further, the model is defined so that the u=
[ ( ) ]
Pw (1 + ) 1 2 {( H + h ) + 2( H h )cos 2} (5)
major horizontal stress, H , is parallel with the x-axis ( = 0).

Finally, considering the effective stress concept, ' = Ppf , be implemented. If the mud pressure is decreased enough, the
where is the Biot constant; and Ppf is the pore fluid pressure. lost mud will be returned to the wellbore due to the fracture
Eq. 5 can then be written as: closing. However, the mud might have picked up
hydrocarbons from the formation as well as being stripped of
[ ( ) ]
Pw (1 + ) 1 2 {(H + h ) + 2(H h ) cos 2} (6) weighting materials. This means that the returned mud is
lighter than it was originally. This, being coupled with the
fact that the mud weight was decreased on the surface to
Volume of Elastically Deformed Wellbore counter-act suspected lost circulation, might result in an actual
Under the influence of anisotropic horizontal stresses, the well kick. Even if this is not the case, it might be interpreted
transverse cross-section of a borehole becomes elliptic with this way on the surface, and the mud weight will again be
increasing axes as a function of depth. The volume of such a increased to prevent or contain the kick. This again will lead
deformed depth interval from the wellbore can be estimated by to the fractures being filled with mud, and again there will be
assuming a cone with elliptical cross-sections as shown in Fig. an observed loss of mud at the surface. As we can see from
3. The area of an elliptically deformed wellbore cross-section this type of scenario, one will end up with a chain of events
can be estimated as: which might in the end lead to either a kick or a real lost
circulation case, due to the formation being weakened as a
A = a b....(7)
result of the repeated opening and closing of the fractures.
where a and b are the major and minor radii of the deformed This type of problem is especially dangerous in HPHT
wellbore which are calculated using result from Eq. 6, such wells where the margin between upper and lower bounds of
that a = R + u at =90o and b = R + u at =0o. The volume of a safe mud weight is small, leaving little room for error. In
circular cone (i.e. a = b) with its top removed (Fig. 4), can be addition, the elevated pressures can lead to more severe
expressed as: blowouts, as well as altering the rheology of the drilling mud.

[ ]
In order to be able to continue drilling without being
h 2
V= a + a i a i +1 + a i2+1 .(8) misled by this process, it is necessary to estimate a critical
3 i pressure for fracture propagation and the extra volume of mud
For the elliptical cone in Fig. 3, we have to be absorbed at a wellbore pressure by all the fractures
intersecting the wellbore. Only then can one maintain the
a i2 = a i b i wellbore pressure below the critical pressure such that the well
is not damaged by natural fracture propagation, or continue
a i2+1 = a i +1 b i +1 ..(9) drilling at a slightly higher well pressure, if necessary, without
panic until the apparent loss of mud value exceeds the
a i a i +1 = a i b i a i +1 b i +1
estimated extra mud volume.
Based on works by Hossain et al.13 and Rahman et al.14, an
and the volume of the elliptical cone becomes analytical approach to approximate the fracture charging
volume has been formulated. Input parameters are the in-situ
[ ]
a i b i + a i b i a i +1 b i +1 + a i +1 b i +1 (10) stresses, well trajectory (considered vertical), rock mechanical
properties and the number and orientation of the fractures for a
given section of well. In addition, one will have to know a
Further, if h , H , Pw and Ppf are linear in the depth interval
priori the shape and length of the fractures. A step-by-step
in question, displacement will also be a linear function of
approach for finding the fracture volume for a penny shaped
depth (Fig 4), and as such, one will only have to calculate the
crack is given below:
top and bottom values for displacement. However, it implies
that in intervals with rapidly changing gradients, one will have
(i). From the in-situ stresses and the pore pressure, calculate
to choose h with care to stay within a reasonable accuracy.
the principal stresses 1, 2 and 3 as well as determine
Summation of volumes of such depth interval will result in the
the mud weight range (Pw,min to Pw,max) for an intact
total volume of the open hole interval.
formation by any of the well-documented procedures.
(iii). Based on the type of formation and rock properties one
Fracture Charging
can calculate the fracture propagation pressure, Pfprop, as:
Fracture charging, also known as super charging, is the
process where natural fractures in the formation are opened by K Ic
the well pressure and filled with drilling mud. Depending on Pfprop = + n ...(11)
size, number and direction of fractures, as well as in-situ stress
conditions and the well pressure, there will be a perceived loss where KIc is the formation toughness; n is the stress
of mud on the surface. Depending on the observed lost normal to the fracture surface called closer stress, which
volume, this might be interpreted as a lost circulation scenario can be calculated as a function of in-situ stresses and
and the standard response of decreasing the mud weight might location of the fracture. Note that Pfprop is the minimum

pressure at which a fracture will start propagation. This 4.1610-5m while for case 2 the change is from 1.1410-3m to
means that one has to choose a mud weight in the range 1.6410-3m. Well pressure and Poissons ratio follow a similar
Pw,min < Pw < Pw,max and Pw < Pfprop to avoid fracture trend. It should also be noted that these values are only
propagation. representative for the conditions specified. From Figs. 8 and
(iii). The volume of a fracture, Vfrac of a given fracture size 9, it can also be observed that a change in E modulus will
can be calculated as: greatly alter the total displacement. For instance, for R =
0.10795m, = 0.30 and =45, displacements for E = 0.1 GPa,

Vfrac = COD L2 ..(12) E = 1.0 GPa, E = 10 GPa and E =100 GPa are 3.210-3m,
3 3.210-4m, 3.210-5m and 3.210-6m, respectively. These
results also clearly show that the total displacement is
2 +1 L approaching zero with increasing values of E. For the sake of
COD = KI .(13)
G 2 this sensitivity study, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
have been varied independently, which may not be true in a
K I = C L (Pf n ) ...(14)
real situation. However, the objective of the current study is to
find the independent effects of different parameters on elastic
where L is the fracture length; C is a constant depending deformation.
on the fracture geometry and is equal to 2/ for a penny As illustrated in the above paragraphs, and also referring to
shaped crack15 and Pf is the fracture fluid pressure, which the data in Tables 3 and 4 and the volumes derived from these
is a function of well pressure Pw. For the purpose of this displacements (Table 5), one can see that the deformation and
analysis Pf is assumed to be equal to Pw. and = 3 - 4 resulting volumetric change is insignificant for hard
for a plane strain condition. materials, like steel pipe, while for softer formations
(iv). Sum up all the volumes calculated using Eq. 12 for all deformations becomes more and more significant with
fractures intersecting the wellbore. increasing values of wellbore radius, well pressure and
Poissons ration and a decrease in Youngs modulus. Of the
Results and discussion factors considered in Eq. (6) for deformation, there are only
Results of finite element (numerical) analysis have been used two of which can be controlled, namely well pressure and
to verify the analytical method proposed for elastic borehole radius.
deformation of bore holes. Rock properties, borehole data and The most important task in the estimation of the fracture
in-situ stresses are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Calculated charging volume is the characterization of natural fractures for
radial displacements are summarised in Tables 3 and 4 at given in-situ stresses, and mechanical properties of the
depths 1100m and 1200m TVD. DN, max and DA, max are the formation. Characterization of natural fractures includes
maximum numerical (finite element) and analytical identifying fractures geometry (shape and size), as well as
displacements which occur at = 90 while DN,min and DA,min position and orientation at any depth for a given formation.
are the minimum displacements at = 0. Calculations have The orientation and density of natural fractures at a given
been performed for two different radii, R1 and R2. Obviously, depth can usually be predicted from a combined analysis of
the depth interval considered is a short length compared to the Formation Micro-Scanner (FMS) and Dipole Sonic Imager
possible total open hole section of a well, which can be more (DSI) logs analysis16. Natural fracture characterisation is
than 100 m. It can, however, clearly be seen from the data in beyond the scope of this study. However, a set of hypothetical
Tables 3 and 4 that analytical results are good approximation natural fractures is considered to demonstrate the calculation
of borehole radial displacements and for soft formation (low of fracture charging volume.
values of E) there will be a considerable deformation leading The fracture propagation pressures, Pfprop are calculated
to a significant loss of mud. Using radial displacements, the using Eq. (11) with fracture toughness, KIc = 1.0 MPam,
volumetric changes due to elastic deformation are presented in Youngs modulus, E = 0.40 GPa and Poissons ratio, = 0.30.
Table 5 for various rock properties. It can be seen that the Results are plotted in Fig. 10. It can be seen from this figure
change in volume ranges from 1.964 10-4 m3 to 0.234 m3 for that fractures at = 0o propagate at relatively low pressures
the 100m interval of well considered. unless they are very short. With increasing , fractures require
From Figs. 59 it is observed that the wellbore higher pressures for propagation. Irrespective of positions,
displacement is a linear function of wellbore radius, well extremely short fractures require very high pressures for
pressure and Poissons ratio and is inversely proportional to propagation. For given in-situ stress gradients, wellbore
Youngs modulus. Further, displacements for wellbore radius pressure and formation properties, the variation of fracture
and Poissons ratio change along the circumference () of the volume as a function of fracture length and orientation is
wellbore. For instance, for the two sets of rock properties shown in Fig. 11. Fracture volume generally increases with
(Case 1: E = 10 GPa; = 0.15 and Case 2: E = 0.4 GPa; = fracture length up to its orientation = 30o beyond which the
0.30), and with =45, it is found that for a change in wellbore volume approaches to zero indicating that these fractures is
radius from 0.10795m (8.5 hole) to 0.15558m (12.25 hole), not opened by the wellbore pressure. To demonstrate the
displacement for case 1 changes from 2.8910-5m to calculation of fracture charging volume, a set of hypothetical

arbitrary fractures are considered, as presented in Table 6. paper. For more direct inclusion of temperature effects on
Propagation pressures, Pfprop for each fracture is calculated and elastic borehole deformation and fracture charging volume, the
presented in column 4 in Tables 6. Then the well pressure current authors are carrying out further analytical and
gradient, 16.82 kPa/m is applied, which has been used for experimental studies, the results of which will be reported
calculation of elastic wellbore deformation. Column 5 in elsewhere in the future.
Table 6 contains wellbore pressures at fracture depths for
which fracture volumes are calculated and presented in
E = Youngs modulus
column 6. It is found that some of the fractures propagate,
= Poissons ratio
some have been taken mud without propagating and the rest
G = shear modulus
have remained unaltered. Fracture propagation is not
conducted as part of this study and therefore volumes = Lame's parameter
calculated for fractures, which would propagate, are due to H = maximum horizontal stress
their initial lengths as presented in Table 6. It is, however, H = minimum horizontal stress
clear that these fractures would take an extra mud volume of v = vertical stress
10.44 m3 (summation of all fractures volume) on top of the n = closure stress normal to the fracture surface
extra volume due to elastic deformation. The extra volume due 1,2,3 = maximum, intermediate and minimum principal
to elastic deformation of the well with R = 0.16193m, E = 0.4 stress on the borehole wall
GPa and = 0.30 is calculated before as 0.234m3. The total Pw = well pressure
extra mud volume, which would seem to be lost, is thus PH = maximum horizontal line pressure
10.674m3. Therefore, one should expect such a significant PH = minimum horizontal line pressure
volume of apparent mud loss, at the least if extra volume due Pwl = well line pressure
to slight fracture propagation is ignored, particularly where a Pw,min = lower bound of safe wellbore pressure
long fracture intersects the well close to = 0o. The mud loss Pw,max = upper bound of safe wellbore pressure
due to fracture charging, however, can be avoided altogether Ppf = formation pore pressure
by adjusting the well pressure such that the it does not exceed Pfprop = fracture propagation pressure
the critical pressure required to open the fracture that Pf = fracture fluid pressure
propagates with a minimum pressure, Pfprop among all the t = formation thickness for ANSYS modelling
fractures. Theoretically, this critical pressure can be calculated z = true vertical depth
from COD = 0, i.e., KI = 0. For the above-mentioned critical u = radial displacement for the borehole
fracture, if the pressure gradient in the well is adjusted for this R = wellbore radius
condition, the fracture charging volume becomes zero in r = arbitrary radius
Table 7. In this case, the extra mud volume would be due to a, b = deformed maximum and minimum wellbore radii
the elastic deformation only, which is definitely less than DN,max = maximum displacement (numerical)
0.234m3 due to the lower wellbore pressure. DN,min = minimum displacement (numerical)
DA,max = maximum displacement (analytical)
Conclusion DA,min = minimum displacement (analytical)
The study can be concluded as: T = thermal expansion coefficient
1. The analytical formulation proposed in this paper for Tf = original formation temperature
elastic deformation gives reasonably accurate results. KI = stress intensity factor
2. The elastic deformation of boreholes becomes KIc = formation toughness
significant in soft formations with larger borehole diameters. L = fracture length
3. Natural fractures parallel to the H direction ( = 0) are C = constant depending on fracture geometry
more likely to open at a representative wellbore pressure and COD = crack opening displacement
consequently take a considerably extra volume of mud. Vfrac = fracture volume
4. The procedure for calculating fracture charging volume = angle around the borehole measured anticlockwise
has been demonstrated considering a set of hypothetical from the x axis
natural fractures and it has been found that any longer fracture FEM = Finite Element Method
located close to = 0 takes an alarming volume of mud. TVD = True Vertical Depth
5. Fracture charging can be avoided altogether by adjusting HPHT = High Pressure High Temperature
the wellbore pressure below a critical pressure, the estimation FMS = Fomration Micro-Scanner
of which is explained in this paper. DSI = Dipole Sonic Imager
6. Results of temperature effects are not included in this References:
paper. However, a change in temperature changes the rock 1. Bjrkevoll, K. S., Vefring, E. H., Rommeltveit, R. and Aadny,
mechanical properties and near-wellbore stresses17-23. The B. S.: Changes in Active Volume Due to Variations in Pressure
sensitivity analysis for rock properties is included in this and Temperature in HPHT wells, presented at the 1994 Drilling
Conference, Kristiansand, Norway, 1994.

2. Aadny, B.S.: Evaluation of Ballooning in Deep Wells, 20. Somerton, W.H.: Thermal properties and temperature-related
Modern Well Design, Appendix B, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam behaviour of rock/fluid systems, Developments in Petroleum
Bookfield, 1996. Science 37, ELSEVIERS Science Publishers B.V. 1992.
3. Krstad, E. and Aadny, B.S.: Analysis of Temperature 21. Tan, C.P. and Willoughby, D.R.: Critical Mud Weight and
Measurements During Drilling, SPE paper 38603, presented at Risk Contour Plots for Designing Inclined Wells, SPE paper
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San 26325 presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference of the
Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October, 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October,
4. Krstad, E. and Aadny, B.S.: Density Behaviour of Drilling 1993.
Fluids During High Pressure High Temperature Operations, 22. Wang, Y. and Papamichos, E.: Thermal effects on fluid flow
IADC/SPE paper 47806, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific and hydraulic fracturing from wellbores and cavities in low-
Drilling Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia, 7-9 September, 1998 permeability formations, International Journal for Numerical
5. Krstad, E. and Aadny, B.S.: Temperature model provides and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, p.1819-1834, 1999.
information for well control, SPE paper 38603, Oil & Gas 23. Wong, R.C.K. and Helwan, A.M.: Geomechanical Response of
Journal, 14. September 1998. the Shale in the Colorado Group Near a Cased Wellbore Due to
6. Krstad, E.: Analysis of Ballooning Effects During Drilling of Heating, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 39 ( 8),
High Pressure High Temperature Wells, presented at the SPE August 2000.
paper 52066, presented at the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October, 1998.
7. Krstad, E. and Aadny, B.S.: Optimization of Mud TABLE 1 -STATIC ROCK MECHANICAL
Temperature and Fluid Models in Offshore Applications, SPE
paper 56939, presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Conference, PROPERTIES
Aberdeen, UK, 7-9 September, 1999.
8. Krstad, E.: Effects of Riser, Hydraulics and Rotation on Material Youngs Modulus E [GPa] Poissons Ratio
Temperature Measurements and Modelling, presented at the Sandstone 0.1 30 0 0.45
SPE European Student Paper Contest, Aberdeen, UK, 10. Clay 0.06 0.15 ~ 0.40
September, 1999.
9. Krstad, E.: Time-Dependent Temperature Behaviour in Rock Shale 0.4 70 0 0.30
and Borehole, PhD Thesis, Stavanger University College and High Porosity Chalk 0.5 5 0.05 0.35
Aalborg University, 1999.
Low Porosity Chalk 5 30 0.05 0.30
10. ANSYS users manual, volume I-IV, Swanson Analysis
Systems Inc., 2000. Steel 200 0.28
11. Fjr, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P. and Raaen, A.M. and Risnes,
R. : Petroleum Related Roc Mechanics, Developments in
Petroleum Science 33, ELSEVIERS Science Publishers B.V., TABLE 2 - BOREHOLE AND IN-
12. Vutukuri, V.S., Aydan, ., Ito, Y. Katsuyama, K., Seto, M.,
Mizuta, Y., Sugawara, K and Tanaka, S.: Introduction to Rock R1 [m] 0.10795
Mechanics, Industrial Publishing & Consulting Inc, Tokyo,
R2 [m] 0.16193
p.151-154, 1994.
13. Hossain, M.M., Rahman, M.K. and Rahman, S.S.: Hydraulic Biots Constant 0.75
fracture initiation and propagation: roles of wellbore trajectory, h [kPa/m] 15.182
perforation and stress regimes, Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 27, p. 129-149, 2000. H [kPa/m] 20.445
14. Rahman, M.K., Hossain, M.M. and Rahman, S.S: An Pw [kPa/m] 16.818
analytical method for mixed-mode propagation of pressurized Ppf [kPa/m] 12.727
fractures in remotely compresses rocks, International Journal
of Fracture, 103, p. 243-258, 2000.
15. Rice, J.R.: Mathematical Analysis in the mechanics of TABLE 3 - RADIAL BOREHOLE DISPLACEMENTS
fracture, Fracture, An Advanced Treatise 2, H. Liebowitz, H.
(editor) , Academic Press, New York and London, p191-311, AT THE DEPTH OF 1100m
16. Schlumberger, Website, http:\\www.connect.slb.com E DN,max DN,min DA,max DA,min
17. Baidyuk, B. V.: Mechanical Properties of Rocks at High [GPa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Temperatures and Pressures, translated from Russian by J.P. R1 200 0.28 0.00896 -0.00342 0.00893 -0.00455
Fitzimmons, Consultants Bureau, New York, 1967
18. Choi, S.K. and Tan, C.P. : Modelling of Effects of Drilling R2 200 0.28 0.01343 -0.00502 0.01340 -0.006821
Fluid Temperature on Wellbore Stability, SPE/ISRM paper R1 10 0.15 0.15303 -0.09338 0.15670 -0.098934
47304, presented at Eurock' 98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July
R2 10 0.15 0.22603 -0.13771 0.23506 -0.148406
19. Guenot, A. and Santarelli, F.J.: Influence of mud temperature R1 0.4 0.30 4.57781 -1.61167 4.54607 -2.266760
on deep borehole behaviour, Rock at great Depth, V. Maury & R2 0.4 0.30 6.87596 -2.36371 6.81932 -3.400250
D. Fourmaintraux (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, p 809-817, 1989.


E DN,max DN,min DA,max DA,min
[GPa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
R1 200 0.28 0.00977 -0.00373 0.00975 -0.00496
R2 200 0.28 0.01465 -0.00547 0.01462 -0.00744
R1 10 0.15 0.16693 -0.10187 0.17097 -0.10794
R2 10 0.15 0.24661 -0.15023 0.25646 -0.16191
R1 0.4 0.30 4.99375 -1.75803 4.95983 -2.47310
R2 0.4 0.30 7.50191 -2.57875 7.43997 -3.70977


Numerical Analytical
m3 bbls m3 bbls
-4 -3 -4
V1 (R1, E =200, = 0.28) 1.964 x 10 1.235 x 10 1.555 x 10 9.781 x 10-4
V2 (R2, E =200, = 0.28) 4.474 x 10-4 2.814 x 10-3 3.499 x 10-4 2.201 x 10-3
V3 (R1, E =10, = 0.15) 2.110 x 10-3 1.327 x 10-2 2.043 x 10-3 1.384 x 10-2
-3 -2 -3
V4 (R2, E =10, = 0.15) 4.687 x 10 2.948 x 10 4.597 x 10 2.891 x 10-2
V5 (R1, E =0.4, = 0.30) 0.103 0.648 0.077 0.484
V6 (R1, E =0.4, = 0.30) 0.234 1.472 0.174 1.094


TVD L Pfprop Pw Vfrac Comment TVD L Pfprop Pw Vfrac Comments
[m] [] [m] [MPa] [MPa] [m3] [m] [] [m] [MPa] [MPa] [m3]
1100 0 0.5 17.954 18.500 0.0012 Propagates 1100 0 0.5 17.954 16.700 0
1100 30 4 18.591 18.500 0.1232 1100 30 4 18.591 16.700 0
1120 45 1 20.837 18.836 0.0000 1120 45 1 20.837 17.004 0
1120 225 2 20.578 18.836 0.0000 1120 225 2 20.578 17.004 0
1130 0 10 17.436 19.005 10.099 Propagates 1130 0 10 17.436 17.155 0
1150 15 3 18.376 19.341 0.2177 Propagates 1150 15 3 18.376 17.459 0
1160 60 5 22.586 19.509 0.0000 1160 60 5 22.586 17.611 0
1180 15 0.25 18.644 19.845 0.0001 1180 15 0.25 18.644 17.815 0

Wellbore Displacement = 0
0.01 m 4.5
m = 45
= 90
D B -1.00E-04
1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
E A Depth [m]

Fig. 4- Displacement as a function of depth with regard to in-situ

Fig. 1- A 3D view of the model and model dimensions stresses and well pressure.
=0, Case 1
14 E lem ents Borehole Radius =45, Case 1
P hl =90, Case 1
=0, Case 2
D C 5.00E-02 =45, Case 2
4.00E-02 =90, Case 2
18 Elements

14 Elements

y P Hl 0.00E+00


E 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1


Borehole Radius [m]

P wl B
18 E lem ents

Fig. 5- Displacement as a function of borehole radius.

Fig. 2- Pressures and constraints applied to the model, as well as (Case 1 has E = 10 GPa , = 0.15; Case 2 has E = 0.4 GPa , =
the number of elements on each line. 0.30).
= 0, Case 1
= 45, Case 1
Well Pressure = 90, Case 1
= 0, Case 2
= 45, Case 2
= 90, Case 2


b i+ 1
a i+ 1
0 5 10 15 20
Well Pressure [MPa]
Fig. 6- Displacement as a function of well pressure (Case 1 has E
= 10 GPa , = 0.15 and r = R1; Case 2 has E = 0.4 GPa , = 0.30
Fig. 3 Volume of an elliptical cone section. and r = R1)

= 0, E=10 GPa = 0
= 45, E=10 GPa Fracture Propagation Pressure = 15
Poisson's ratio = 90, E=10 GPa = 30
= 0, E=0.4 GPa = 45
= 45, E=0.4 GPa 50 = 60
= 90, E=0.4 GPa = 75
0 .0 0 6 40 = 90
Pw = 20.2 MPa
0 .0 0 4 30 Pw = 18.2 MPa
0 .0 0 2 20
0 10
-0 .0 0 2 0
-0 .0 0 4 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 Fracture Lenght [m]
P o is s o n ' s R a tio
Fig. 10- Fracture propagation pressure for fractures of lengths
Fig. 7- Displacement as a function of Poissons ratio. 0.0 m < L < 10.0 m at TVD = 1200m.

= 0, =0.15
Low Range E modulus
= 45, =0.15
= 90, =0.15 Fracture Volume
0.150 = 0, =0.30

Fracture Volume [m3]

0.100 = 45, =0.30 = 0
0.050 = 90, =0.30 = 15
0.000 8
= 30
-0.050 6
= 45
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0
E Modulus [GPa] 0 5 10
Fracture Lenght [m]
Fig. 8- Displacement as a function of low range Youngs modulus.

Fig. 11- Fracture volume as a function of length at TVD = 1200m.

High Range E Modulus
= 0, =0.15
0.0008 = 45, =0.15
= 90, =0.15
0.0006 = 0, =0.30
0.0004 = 45, =0.30
0.0002 = 90, =0.30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
E Modulus [GPa]

Fig. 9- Displacement as a function of high range Youngs