SPE 139280

Maximum Horizontal Stress and Wellbore Stability While Drilling: Modeling

and Case Study
S. Li and C. Purdy, Halliburton

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 1–3 December 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the 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 contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Maximum horizontal stress is a critical parameter used in drilling optimization and wellbore stability modeling. Current maximum
horizontal stress prediction from wellbore breakout was based on the maximum tangential stress on the wellbore wall to be equal
to the rock uniaxial compressive strength. We assume that the vertical, minimum and maximum horizontal stresses define a
specific relationship when the stresses in the formation are in equilibrium. Based on a generalized Hooke’s law with coupling the
equilibrium of stresses and pore pressure, the maximum horizontal stress can be solved using this relationship. This new technique
can reduce the uncertainty of in-situ stress prediction by narrowing the area of the conventional polygon of the in-situ stresses. We
also propose a new method of the maximum horizontal stress determination from analyses of drilling-induced near-wellbore
stresses and breakouts. The near-wellbore stresses are obtained from poroelastic equations. By using Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion, the maximum horizontal stress magnitude can be derived from these equations and from analysis of wellbore breakout
obtained from borehole caliper logs. The new technique is compared to the existing methods in an example from measured
borehole failures in a case study. These comparisons demonstrate that new technique provides a much better result than the current
available methods, because the wellbore failure is related with all of the near-wellbore stresses.
A case study has been conducted in a GOM oil field to predict pre-drill wellbore stability, where borehole instability was the
main cause of borehole trouble time in offset wells. Using the proposed in-situ stress method, an improved borehole stability
model was built to predict the pre-drill mud weight window. Applying this prediction, wellbore failures and drilling risks were
greatly reduced.

Introduction
Wellbore failures represent a significant portion of all drilling related non-productive time. Hence, maintaining wellbore stability is
an important and crucial step in the oil and gas industry. Wellbore stability has been studied extensively in different contexts (e.g.
Bradley, 1979; Wiprut, 2001; Zhang et al., 2008). However, challenges still exist such as accurate determination of in situ stresses,
which has become increasingly important for the oil and gas industry to reduce drilling trouble time and improve hydraulic
fracturing, particularty in unconventional reservoirs and plays.
The maximum horizontal stress can be estimated from the extended leak-off test (XLOT) with fracture reopening test
(Bredehoeft et al. 1976). This method was derived from the Kirsch solution for a circular hole subjected to an internal pressure in
an isotropic, homogenous, and linear elastic medium. The assumption in the derivation was that the reopening occurs when the
fluid pressure applied on the borehole wall is high enough to cancel out the minimum tangential stress on the wellbore wall. Using
elasticity theory and Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for slippage on the faults, Addis, et al. (1996) calculated the maximum
horizontal stress for normal faulting and thrust faulting regimes. Barton, et al. (1988) proposed a method for calculating the
maximum horizontal stress when rock strength is known utilizing observations of breakout width from vertical wells. They
assumed when the maximum tangential stress on the wellbore wall is greater than rock uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), then
the wellbore would fail. Basing on Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we extend this method. We also derive an additional method
to constrain maximum horizontal stress using Hooke’s law.
2 SPE 139280

Maximum horizontal stress from in situ stress configuration

It is commonly accepted that in situ stress of subsurface formations includes three mutually orthogonal principal stresses. They are
vertical stress, σ v ; maximum horizontal stress, σ H ; and minimum horizontal stress, σ h . The three principal stresses should
satisfy to Hooke’s law in order to keep the stress-strain equilibrium. According to Hooke’s Law, the minimum horizontal strain
can be written as the following form, when the stresses are expressed in effective stress forms:
σ h' − ν (σ v' + σ H' )
εh = (1)
E
where ε h is the strain in the minimum horizontal stress direction; E is the Young’s modulus; σ v' , σ H' and σ h' are the effective
vertical, maximum horizontal and minimum horizontal stresses, respectively. ν is the Poisson’s ratio.
Solve Eq.1 we have:
σ h' − Eε h
σ '
= − σ v' (2)
ν
H

Normally the formations extend very long in horizontal directions, therefore, the strain in the minimum horizontal direction is
much smaller than the strains in vertical and maximum horizontal stress directions. Particularly, when the formations of interest
are constrained by stiffer formations, the stress state is similar as the condition of uniaxial strain loading. In this extreme case, ε h
is close to zero. Therefore, the upper bound maximum horizontal stress can be expressed as:
σ h'
σ H' ≤ − σ v' (3)
ν
In porous media, the effective stress and total stress have the following relationship:
σ ' = σ − α B Pp (4)
where αB is the Biot’s coefficient; Pp is the pore pressure in the formations.
Combine Eqs. 3 and 4, we have the maximum horizontal stress as follows:
(σ h − α B Pp )
σH ≤ − σ v + 2α B Pp (5)
ν
From Eq. 5, if αB is equal to one, we can obtain the upper bound maximum horizontal stress:
(σ h − Pp )
σ UB = − σ v + 2 Pp (6)
H
ν
From Eq.5, the maximum horizontal stress can be estimated when we know the minimum horizontal stress, vertical stress, pore
pressure and Poisson’s ratio. The minimum horizontal stress can be obtained from the mini-Frac tests, LOT, and DFIT which are
normally available in exploration and production wells (Peng and Zhang, 2007). Vertical stress can be obtained by integration of
formation bulk density measured from wire-line logs.
Z
σ v = ρ w gZ w + ∫ ρ b ( z ) gdz (7)
Zw

where Zw is the water depth; ρw is the density of sea water; ρb is the bulk density as a function of the depth; Z is the true vertical
depth of the well.

Case verification for constitutive relationship of in situ stress and pore pressure
The proposed method (Eq. 5) is applied to estimate the maximum horizontal stress in an oil field - Field 1 of Visund Field in
Northern North Sea. We examine two wells (well 1 and well 3) in this field. The vertical stress, minimum horizontal stress, pore
pressure, and mud weight are available (Wiprut, 2001). Using Eq. 5, the maximum horizontal stress at different depths in two
wells are calculated by assuming αB=1 and ν=0.25. The calculated maximum horizontal stresses (σH proposed) are listed in Tables
1 and 2. The maximum horizontal stresses obtained by the proposed method are compared to Wiprut’s results. The data in Tables 1
and 2 are obtained from Wiprut (2001), except the σH proposed.
SPE 139280 3

Depth σH σV Pp σh σH σH proposed
(m TVD) azimuth (°) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

3450 79.1 ± 10.6 71.7 52.2 67.6 ± 1 92 + 11 94.3

3550 79.1 ± 10.6 73.9 52.8 70.4 ± 1 101 + 10 102.1

3650 79.1 ± 10.6 76.5 54.8 73.2 ± 1 106 + 9 107.1

3750 79.1 ± 10.6 79.2 58 76.2 ± 1 109 + 9 109.6

3850 79.1 ± 10.6 81.5 62.3 79.2 ± 1 109 + 8 110.7

Table 1: In-situ stress and pore pressure (Wiprut, 2001) and proposed σH in Well 1S of Field 1, Visund Field, Northern North Sea

Depth σH σV Pp σh σH σH proposed
(m TVD) azimuth (°) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
3320 91.9 ± 40 69 35.5 58.6 ± 1 87.5 ± 8.5 94.4

3529 77.6 ± 16.8 73.5 52.2 67 ± 1 87 ± 4 90.1

3610 77.6 ± 16.8 75.4 52.5 70 ± 1 90 + 20 99.6

3660 91.9 ± 40 77.1 47.7 66.4 ± 1 90 - 5 93.1

3727 77.6 ± 16.8 78.9 54.4 72.5 ± 1 94 + 20 102.3

Table 2: In-situ stress and pore pressure (Wiprut, 2001) and proposed σH in Well 3 of Field 1, Visund Field, Northern North Sea

Figures 1 and 2 show the comparison between σH magnitudes calculated from the proposed method and the one from Wiprut
(2001) in Visund Field of Northern North Sea. In Figs.1 and 2 the pore pressure, minimum horizontal stress, vertical stress and
maximum horizontal stress were obtained from Wiprut (2001). The proposed values of σH (shown with empty squares) are
calculated from the proposed method (Eq. 5 with Poisson ratio of 0.25 and Biot coefficient of 1). The results calculated from the
proposed method are consistent to Wiprut’s results.

Fig. 1: In-Situ Stress and pore pressure versus depth in Well 1S of Field 1, Visund Field, Northern North Sea.
4 SPE 139280

Fig. 2: In-Situ Stress and pore pressure versus depth in Well 3 of Field 1, Visund Field, Northern North Sea.

In-situ stress constraint from the proposed method in different stress regimes
The magnitudes and orientations of in situ stresses play very important roles in geological engineering. In normal faulting stress
regime, the vertical stress is the greatest principal stress which has the following relationship, σν≥σH≥σh. In the strike-slip faulting
stress regime, the vertical stress is the intermediate principal stress, i.e. σH≥ σν≥σh. In the reverse faulting stress regime, the
vertical stress is the least principal stress, σH≥σh≥ σν.
Assuming there are critically oriented faults constraining stress magnitudes, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion in faults can be
expressed as follows:
2C cosϕ f
σ 1' ≤ + q f σ 3' (8)
1 − sin ϕ f
where σ 1' is the maximum effective stress; σ 3' is the minimum effective stress; C is cohesive strength;
1 + sin ϕ f
qf =
1 − sin ϕ f
[ ]
2
= ( μ 2 + 1)1 / 2 + μ , ϕ f is the angle of internal friction of the fault, μ is the friction coefficient of the

fault.
For deep formations, the cohesion of the fault can be assumed to be zero. Therefore:
σ 1' ≤ q f σ 3' (9)
From Eq. 9, the in-situ stresses can be expressed as follows for different faulting stress regimes:
Normal faulting regime:
σ 1' σ v − Pp
= ≤ qf (10)
σ 3' σ h − Pp
Strike-slip faulting regime:
σ 1' σ H − Pp
= ≤ qf (11)
σ 3' σ h − Pp
Reverse faulting regime:
SPE 139280 5

σ 1' σ H − Pp
= ≤ qf (12)
σ 3' σ v − Pp

Hence, from Eqs. 10, 11 and 12, the lower bound of minimum horizontal stress is:
σ v − Pp + q f Pp
σ hLB = (13)
qf
In the strike-slip regime, it has:
σ H ≤ q f (σ h − Pp ) + Pp (14)
The upper bound of maximum horizontal stress is:
σ HUB = q f (σ v − Pp ) + Pp (15)
The coefficients of friction (μ) of 0.6 -0.7 work very well in most current stress field (Jaeger and Cook, 1979). The stress
polygon can be drawn based on the in-situ stress relationship in different stress regimes from Eqs. 10-15, as shown in Fig. 3 (with
μ=0.6). However, the polygon gives a wide range of stress values at depth. Therefore, to reduce the uncertainty of the stress
polygon, the in-situ stresses need to be constrained. The maximum horizontal stress calculated from proposed method in Eq. 5
gives reasonable constraints in the stress polygon (the red dash line in Fig. 3). In Fig. 3, the measured pore pressure, minimum
horizontal stress, vertical stresses at depth of 3850 m are as the following: σv = 81.5MPa, σh = 79.2MPa, Pp = 62.3MPa (Wiprut,
2001). Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 and Biot coefficient of 1 are applied to Eq. 5 to calculate the maximum horizontal stress. The
proposed maximum horizontal stress (red dash line) states the possible in-situ stress lying only in the stress polygon located in the
right hand side of this line. Therefore, the proposed maximum horizontal stress method can narrow the stress polygon and
constrain the stress state.

Fig. 3: Stress polygon at depth of 3850 m (TVD) in Well 1S of Field 1, Visund field, Northern North Sea.

Maximum horizontal stress from wellbore breakouts using Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
It is commonly assumed that when a vertical well is drilled, the in-situ stress around the wellbore includes three mutually
orthogonal principal stresses. That is, the vertical stress, σν; the maximum horizontal stress, σH; and the minimum horizontal
stress, σh. However, for the inclined borehole the in-situ stress needs to convert to a new coordinate system where one axis is in the
borehole axial direction, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, the in-situ stress (or far-field stress) for an inclined wellbore can be
expressed as follows:
6 SPE 139280

σ x0 = (σ H cos 2 α + σ h sin 2 α ) cos 2 i + σ v sin 2 i

σ y0 = σ H sin 2 α + σ h cos 2 α
σ z0 = (σ H cos 2 α + σ h sin 2 α ) sin 2 i + σ v cos 2 i
1
σ xy0 = (σ h − σ H ) sin 2α cos i
2
1
σ yz0 = (σ h − σ H ) sin 2α sin i
2
1
σ xz0 = (σ H cos 2 α + σ h sin 2 α − σ v ) sin 2i
2
where i is the inclination; α is the drilling direction of the borehole with respect to σH, as shown in Fig. 4.
When a borehole is drilled in the rock situated in the in-situ stress state, the stress redistribution (creating near-field stresses)
occurs near wellbore. The near-field stresses depend on in-situ stresses, mud pressure, and wellbore inclination. Bradley (1979)
derived the stress distribution around an inclined borehole located in an arbitrary stress field. The total normal stresses and shear
stresses near a wellbore can be expressed in the following forms:
⎧ (σ x0 + σ y0 ) ⎛ R 2 ⎞ (σ x − σ y ) ⎛
0 0
4 R 2 3R 4 ⎞
⎪σ r = ⎜⎜ 1 − 2 ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ 1 − 2 + 4 ⎟⎟ cos 2θ +
⎪ 2 ⎝ r ⎠ 2 ⎝ r r ⎠
⎪ ⎛ 4 R 2 3R 4 ⎞ R2
⎪σ xy0 ⎜⎜ 1 − 2 + 4 ⎟⎟ sin 2θ + p m 2
⎪ ⎝ r r ⎠ r
⎪
⎪σ = (σ x + σ y ) ⎛⎜ 1 + R ⎞⎟ − (σ x − σ y ) ⎛⎜ 1 + 3 R ⎞⎟ cos 2θ − σ 0 ⎛⎜ 1 + 3 R
0 0 0 0
2 4 2
⎞ R2
⎜ ⎟⎟ sin 2θ − p m 2
r 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜ r 4 ⎟⎠
xy ⎜
⎪ θ 2 ⎝ 2 ⎝ ⎝ r4 ⎠ r
⎪
⎪ 0 R
2
0 R
2
σ
⎨ z = σ 0
z − 2 ν ( σ 0
x − σ y ) 2
cos 2θ − 4νσ xy 2
sin 2θ
⎪ r r
⎪ ⎛ σ x0 − σ y0 ⎞⎛ 2 R 2 3R 4 ⎞
⎪σ rθ = ⎜⎜ sin 2θ + σ xy0 cos 2θ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ 1 + 2 − 4 ⎟⎟
⎪ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ r r ⎠
⎪
⎪σ = (σ 0 sin θ + σ 0 cos θ ) ⎛⎜ 1 − R ⎞⎟
2

⎪ rz yz xz ⎜ r 2 ⎟⎠
⎝
⎪
⎪ ⎛ R2 ⎞
⎪σ θ z = ( − σ xz sin θ + σ yz cos θ ) ⎜⎜ 1 + r 2 ⎟⎟
0 0

⎩ ⎝ ⎠

The stresses at wellbore wall can be obtained from the above equations. Therefore, the total normal stresses and shear stresses
at the wellbore wall for a deviated borehole in polar system ( r ,θ , z ) are defined by the following equations:
σ r = Pm
σ θ = σ x0 + σ y0 − 2(σ x0 − σ y0 ) cos 2θ − 4σ xy0 sin 2θ − Pm
σ z = σ z0 − ν [2(σ x0 − σ y0 ) cos 2θ + 4σ xy0 sin 2θ ]
σ θz = 2( −σ xz0 sin θ + σ yz0 cos θ )
σ rθ = σ rz = 0
SPE 139280 7

For a vertical well, the effective principal stresses around wellbore wall due to drilling can be simplified as follows, if the
thermal effect stress is considered:
σ θ' = σ H + σ h − α B Pp − Pm − 2(σ H − σ h ) cos 2θ − σ Δt (16)
σ r' = Pm − α B Pp (17)
σ z' = σ v − α B Pp − 2ν (σ H − σ h ) cos 2θ − νσ Δt (18)
where θ is defined starting at x axis (the maximum horizontal stress direction); σ θ' , σ r' and σ z' are the effective tangential stress,
radial stress, and axial stress at wellbore wall, respectively. Pm is the mud pressure; σ Δt is the thermal stress.
We define that the wellbore breakout angle is 2ß, which occurs first in the minimum horizontal stress direction, therefore,
2θ=180-2ß. Hence, the effective principal stresses around wellbore can be written as follows in terms of the breakout angle:
σ θ' = σ H + σ h − α B Pp − Pm + 2(σ H − σ h ) cos 2 β − σ Δt (19)
σ r' = Pm − α B Pp (20)
σ z' = σ v − α B Pp + 2ν (σ H − σ h ) cos 2 β − νσ Δt (21)
We assume that when a borehole fails, it follows Mohr-coulomb failure criterion, i.e.
σ 1' ≤ UCS + q f σ 3' (22)

Fig. 4: Stress transformation in Cartesian systems (x, y, z), (x’, y’, z’), and polar system (r, θ, z) in a cross-section of the wellbore.

Applying Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we can solve the minimum mud weight to maintain wellbore stability with breakout
angle of 2 ß. However, firstly we need to determine the maximum and minimum stresses. In shear failure condition, σ r' is always
the minimum stress ( σ 3 = σ r ). Therefore, two different cases, based on which one is larger between
' '
σ θ' and σ z , need to be
'

considered for maximum horizontal stress calculation through comparing σ θ with σ z .

' '
8 SPE 139280

Case I:
When σ θ' > σ z' > σ r' , this is the case with small breakout, i.e.
σ + σ h − σ v − Pm − (1 − ν )σ Δt
2β ≤ arccos[ H ] (23)
2(1 − 2ν )(σ H − σ h )
In this case, σ θ is the maximum principal stress ( σ 1' ), and σ r is the minimum principal stress ( σ 3' ). Substituting σ θ (Eq.
' ' '

19) and σ r' (Eq. 20) into the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we can obtain the minimum mud pressure with breakout angle of 2
ß:

(1 + 2 cos 2 β )σ H + (1 − 2 cos 2 β )σ h − σ Δt + α B ( q f − 1) Pp − UCS

Pm ≥ (24)
qf +1

This equation is the minimum mud pressure or shear failure pressure for the wellbore with a breakout angle of 2 ß. If wellbore
breakout angle is zero, the minimum mud pressure to maintain wellbore stability (avoiding shear failure) becomes:

3σ H − σ h + α B ( q f − 1) Pp − UCS − σ Δt
Pm ≥ (25)
qf +1

This is consistent with the derivation given in the references (Peng and Zhang, 2007). By knowing mud pressure and breakout
width of the wellbore, the maximum horizontal stress (σH) can be obtained from Eq. 24:

UCS + ( q f + 1) Pm − α B ( q f − 1) Pp − (1 − 2 cos 2 β )σ h + σ Δt
σH ≤ (26)
1 + 2 cos 2 β

If we assume that the wellbore is in uniaxial loading condition which is unusual case, then qf =0. In this case, Eq. 26 simplifies
to the following:

UCS + Pm + α B Pp − (1 − 2 cos 2 β )σ h + σ Δt
σH ≤ (27)
1 + 2 cos 2 β

This equation is the same to the one given by Barton, et al. (1988). Therefore, the method we propose in Eq. 26 is an improved
and extended form obtained by Barton et al. (1988).

Case II:
When σ r' < σ θ' < σ z' , this is the case that the wellbore has large breakouts, i.e.,
σ H + σ h − σ v − Pm − (1 − ν )σ Δt
2β ≥ arccos[ ] (28)
2(1 − 2ν )(σ H − σ h )
In this case, σ z is the maximum principal stress, and σ r σ z' σ r' to Mohr-
' '
is the minimum principal stress. Substituting and
Coulomb failure criterion, we can solve the minimum mud weight with breakout angle of 2 ß:

σ v − α B Pp + ν ( 2(σ H − σ h ) cos 2 β − σ Δt + q f αPp − UCS

Pm ≥ (29)
qf
This is the wellbore minimum mud pressure with large breakout angle of 2 ß. From Eq. 29 by knowing mud pressure and
wellbore breakout width (2 ß), we can calculate the maximum horizontal stress:
SPE 139280 9

UCS + q f Pm − α B ( q f − 1) Pp − σ v + 2νσ h cos 2 β + σ Δt

σH ≤                                                                       (30) 
       2ν cos 2 β

Case study
In this section, a deepwater well drilled in the Gulf of Mexico is examined as one of the offset wells of the proposed well. The
maximum horizontal stress is analyzed by using the proposed method (from Eq. 26) and compared to the one obtained from the
available method (Barton et al., 1988). The wellbore shear failures using the maximum horizontal stresses calculated from the two
methods are also analyzed and compared.
In order to predict the minimum mud weight needed to prevent wellbore shear failure (wellbore collapse), it needs the
following data for the wellbore stability (shear failure) analysis (Zhang et al., 2008):
· overburden stress
· minimum and maximum horizontal stresses
· pore pressure
· in-situ stress orientation
· wellbore trajectory
· relevant rock-strength data
Shear failure analysis results can be expressed either as shear failure gradient (SFG) or shear failure pressure (SFP). The SFG
is also the minimum mud weight required to prevent shear failure in the wellbore.
Figure 5 shows the basic inputs for the wellbore stability in a deepweter well in the Gulf of Mexico. This is a post-well
analysis for verifying our maximum horizontal stress method. Firstly, the overburden stress, pore pressure, minimum horizontal
stress, and rock strength are analyzed for wellbore stability analysis, as shown in Fig. 5. Secondly, the maximum horizontal
stresses are calculated using different methods - the proposed method from Eq. 26 and the one from Barton et al. (1988). Then, the
shear failure gradients are modeled based on the two different maximum horizontal stresses, as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5: Postdrill analysis in a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico. Pore pressure, minimum horizontal stress, and rock strength are
plotted as the inputs of wellbore stability analysis.
10 SPE 139280

In Fig. 6 the left track plots caliper logs and bit size; the shaded area between caliper and bit size is the wellbore over-gauge or
breakouts. The right track shows the maximum horizontal stress curves calculated by the proposed method from Eq. 26 (blue
curve) and by the method presented by Barton et al. (1988) (green curve). In the middle track, the shear failure gradients (SFG) are
calculated by using the two different maximum horizontal stresses as inputs. The other inputs for the shear failure gradient
calculations remain the same. The shear failure gradient calculations use Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, and the rock strengths
are obtained from sonic transit time based on the industry standard approaches (refer to Fig. 5).

Fig. 6: The maximum horizontal stress and shear failure gradient calculations in a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico. Two calculation
methods for the maximum horizontal stress (the proposed method in this paper and the available method in publications) are used and
their results are compared.

Figure 6 indicates that our proposed method gives larger maximum horizontal stress magnitudes. For a higher maximum
horizontal stress, it should need a higher mud weight to maintain wellbore stability. Corresponding to the shear failure gradient,
higher SFG (blue curve in the middle track) in the most sections are given using the input of the maximum horizontal stress
proposed by our method. Comparing SFG to mud weight and wellbore breakouts, the SFG calculated by the proposed method
gives a better result to predict wellbore failure. Also, the proposed wellbore stability model can better calibrate the failure events in
this wellbore. For instance, at the depths from 15,000 to 15,500 ft and from 17,800 to 18,300 ft, the used mud weight was less than
the calculated SFG, where the wellbore had breakouts (refer to Fig. 6).

Conclusions
It has long been recognized that the maximum horizontal stress is the most difficult component to determine accurately. We
proposed two methods to calibrate and determine maximum horizontal stress. The first method is based on a generalized Hooke’s
law with coupling the equilibrium of three in-situ stress components and pore pressure. The new technique can reduce the
uncertainty of in-situ stress prediction by narrowing the area of the conventional polygon of the in-situ stresses. We also propose a
new method of the maximum horizontal stress determination from analyses of drilling-induced near-wellbore stresses and
breakouts by using Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. A case study demonstrates that our proposed method provides better results in
wellbore stability analysis.

Nomenclature
UCS Uniaxial/unconfined compressive strength (psi or MPa)
E Young’s modulus
XLOT Extended LOT
SPE 139280 11

σH Maximum horizontal in-situ stress (psi or MPa)

σh Minimum horizontal in-situ stress (psi or MPa)
σr Radial stress in the near-field (psi or MPa)
σθ Tangential stress in the near-field (psi or MPa)
σV Vertical in-situ stress (psi or MPa)
σz Axial stress in the near-field (psi or MPa)
ν Poisson’s ratio
ρ Density (g/cm3)
σ Effective stress (psi or MPa)
Pp Pore pressure (ppg)
pm Shear failure pressure (ppg)
εh Strain in minimum horizontal stress direction
αB Biot’s coefficient
Zw Water depth
Z True vertical depth
C Cohesive strength
φf Angle of internal friction
μ Friction coefficient of the fault
σ hLB Lower bound of minimum horizontal stress
σ HUB Upper bound of maximum horizontal stress
i Well inclination
α Drilling direction with respect to σH
θ Orientation of the stress around the wellbore circumference and measured from the x axis

Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank the management of Halliburton for permission to publish this paper.

References
Addies M. A., Last, N.C., and Yassir, N.A. 1996. Estimation of horizontal stresses at depth in faulted regions and their relationship to pore
pressure variations. SPE 28140-PA Formation Evaluation 48 (3): 11-18
Barton, C.A., Zoback, M.D. and Burns, K.L. 1988. In-situ stress orientation and magnitude at the Fenton geothermal site, New Mexico,
determined from wellbore breakouts. Geophys Res Lett, 15(5) 467-70.
Bradley, W.B., 1979. Failure of inclined boreholes, Trans. ASME, 101, 232-239.
Bredehoeft, J. D., Wolff, R. G., Keys, W. S. and Shuter, E. 1976. Hydraulic fracturing to determine the regional in situ stress field in the Piceance
Basin, Colorado. Geol Soc Am Bull 87:250-258.
Jaeger, J. C. and Cook, N.G.W. 1979, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons.
Peng, S. and Zhang, J. 2007, Engineering Geology for Underground Rocks.
Wiprut, D., 2001. Stress, borehole stability, and hydrocarbon leakage in the Northern North Sea, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, pp51-
62.
Zhang, J., Standifird, W. and Lenamond, C., 2008. Casing ultra deep, ultra long salt sections in deep water: a case study for failure diagnosis and
risk mitigation in record-depth well, Paper SPE 114273 presented at 2008 SPE Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib.Denver, Colorado.