energies

Article
Numerical Simulation on Borehole Instability Based on
Disturbance State Concept
Daobing Wang 1,2, * , Zhan Qu 1 , Zongxiao Ren 1 , Qinglin Shan 3 , Bo Yu 2 , Yanjun Zhang 1 and Wei Zhang 2

1 The Key Laboratory of Well Stability and Fluid & Rock Mechanics in Oil and Gas of Shaanxi Province,
Xi’an Petroleum University, Xi’an 710065, China
2 School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing 102617, China
3 School of Energy and Mining Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology,
Qingdao 266510, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-81292036

Abstract: This paper carries out a study on the numerical simulation of borehole instability based
on the disturbance state concept. By introducing the disturbance damage factor into the classical
Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion, we establish a finite element hydro-mechanical coupling model of
borehole instability and program the relevant field variable by considering elastic–plastic deformation
in borehole instability, the distribution of the damage disturbance area, the variation of porosity and
permeability with the disturbance damage factor, etc. Numerical simulation shows that the borehole
stability is related to the action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore, stress anisotropy, the internal
friction angle of rock, and borehole pressure. A higher horizontal stress difference helps suppress
shear instability, and a higher rock internal friction angle enhances shear failure around the borehole
along the maximum horizontal principal stress. When considering the effect of the internal friction
angle of rock, the rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain show
fluctuation characteristics. Under the high internal friction angle of rock, a strong equivalent plastic
strain area and disturbance damage area occur in the direction of the maximum horizontal principal
stress. Their cloud picture shows the mantis shape, where the bifurcation corresponds to the whiskers
Citation: Wang, D.; Qu, Z.; Ren, Z.; of the shear failure area in borehole instability. This study provides a theoretical basis for solving the
Shan, Q.; Yu, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W. problem of borehole instability during drilling engineering.
Numerical Simulation on Borehole
Instability Based on Disturbance Keywords: borehole stability; disturbance state concept; elastic–plastic deformation; finite element
State Concept. Energies 2022, 15, 6295.
method; numerical simulation
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176295

Academic Editor: Carlo Roselli

Received: 5 July 2022

1. Introduction
Accepted: 23 August 2022
Published: 29 August 2022
In the oil and gas industry, 50–80% of exploration and development costs are spent on
drilling. The downhole accidents such as wellbore shrinkage, sticking, formation collapse,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
and leakage caused by borehole instability lead to an increase in the drilling cycle, the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
damage of downhole equipment, and an increase in the cost, which has restricted oil
published maps and institutional affil-
and gas exploration and development [1–3]. The core of high-quality, safe, efficient, and
iations.
low-cost drilling is to evaluate the downhole surrounding rock environment, study the
mechanism of borehole instability, and control the borehole instability, and it is of great
theoretical and practical significance [4–6].
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The disturbance state concept (DSC) was proposed by Desai in 1974 in the United
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. States [7], and a relatively complete theoretical system was formed. The DSC has been
This article is an open access article applied in metal, welding material, soil, rock, oil sand, concrete, and electronic packaging
distributed under the terms and materials. Research on the DSC started from the material mechanical response, hierarchical
conditions of the Creative Commons single surface model, and numerical simulation method. In 1992, Desai et al. established a
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// DSC-based unified constitutive model for study on the static behavior of rock joints and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ interfaces [8]. In 1995, Katti et al. established a DSC-based clay constitutive model for
4.0/). the prediction of the response of stress–strain and pore pressure of undrained saturated

Energies 2022, 15, 6295. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176295 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 6295 2 of 18

clay under cyclic loading, as well as the response of soil under earthquake [9]. Desai et al.
introduced the viscoplastic constitutive relation into the DSC to describe the response of
the material in the relatively intact state [10]. In 1996, Desai et al. established a constitutive
model based on stress–strain and non-destructive behavior and used DSC to describe the
crack density [11]. In 1998, Desai et al. used the DSC-based numerical simulation method
to establish the governing equation, disturbance function, and finite element equation of
the relatively complete state and fully adjusted state [12]. In 1996, Pal integrated DSC and
computer methods to describe the mechanical behavior of the solid and contact face [13].
In 2016, Fan et al. established a general compression model of metal-rich clay based on
the general DSC compression model [14]. In 2017, Ouria et al. used the DSC function to
describe the coefficient of compressibility of structural soil [15]. In 2018, Ghazavi Baghini
et al. applied DSC to simulate the behavior of the pile under the axial load [16].
In China, some research progress has been made on DSC since 2000. Wu et al. applied
the DSC to establish the nonlinear constitutive model and elastic–plastic constitutive model
of rock [17]. Zheng et al. developed the method of describing the triaxial compression
response of rock and the stress anisotropic response of soil based on DSC [18] and proposed
a evolution equation of the disturbance factor through a mesoscopic analysis of the DSC
established by the hardening model [19]. Zhang et al. established a creepage model of
structural soft soil based on DSC [20]. Fu et al. proposed two methods of disturbance
factor evolution based on the conventional triaxial test curve and the volumetric strain
threshold, and the limit state of deviator strain energy [21]. Yang et al. applied the
DSC hardening parameters to establish a structural clay boundary surface model [22].
Huang et al. established a creepage disturbance factor model with time as an independent
variable [23]. Zou et al. established a stress–strain model of hydrated soil with the DSC
method to describe the process of the failure of the cement structure [24]. The application
of the DCS method in borehole stability is still not reported [25–27].
In previous mechanical theory, it was supposed that the cracks and damage inside
the borehole rock have no strength [27–40]. In the DCS, it is proposed that the cracks
and damaged parts are caused by the continuous merging and integration of defects in
the internal complex microstructure, and they still have a certain strength and reflect
softening and weakening caused by the propagation of crack and failure and hardening
and strengthening caused by continuous compression. The DCS reveals the mechanism of
the mechanical response of the borehole wall. Moreover, the DCS suggests that various
forces cause the disturbance of the material microstructure, and the self-adjustment of the
material internal microstructure includes relative motion that leads to damage, softening,
or compression hardening of the material and macroscopically obvious disturbance. A
description of disturbance through macroscopic observation provides the method of a cross-
scale analysis of the micro-response of internal complex microstructure and the macroscopic
behavior of yield failure in borehole rock. In the DCS, the material is considered as a random
mixture under the relatively intact stage and the fully adjusted state, which correspond
to the undamaged part and the damaged part in previous models. Material deformation
and failure caused by disturbance is a process of transition from a relatively intact state to a
fully adjusted state through self-adjustment and self-organization.
To overcome the defects and limits of conventional methods such as fracture mechanics,
damage mechanics, and configuration mechanics, we carried out a numerical simulation of
borehole instability based on the DSC by considering microscopic to macroscopic effects and
the multi-regional response of borehole rock. We revealed the mechanism and evolution of
borehole instability and developed a system for DSC-based study on borehole stability.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the mechanical theories and
methods of borehole stability, including the mechanical equilibrium equation, seepage equa-
tion, the theory of borehole instability in a disturbed state, and model verification. Section 3
introduces the finite element model for borehole instability, mesh division, boundary con-
ditions, and secondary development of subroutine. Section 4 discusses the numerical
simulation results and analyzes the effects of action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore;
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 3 of 18

stress anisotropy; internal friction angle; and borehole pressure on the equivalent plas-
tic strain, permeability, borehole wall stress, and disturbance damage factor. The main
conclusions of this study are summarized in the last section.

2. Theory and Method

2.1. Mechanical Equilibrium Equation
According to rock mechanics, the mechanical equilibrium equation of rock borehole
stability is expressed as [41–43]:
σij,j + Xi = 0 (1)
where σij is the stress tensor component; Xi is the body force vector component.
Assuming small rock deformation, the geometric equation of borehole stability is
expressed as:
1

ε ij = ui,j + u j,i (2)
2
where εij is the strain tensor component; ui is the displacement vector component.
According to the effective stress of porous media, we have [44]:

σij0 = σij − αpδij = Cijkl : ε kl (3)

where Cijkl is the stiffness tensor component; p is the pore pressure; α is the Biot constant;
σij0 is the effective stress tensor component; δij is the Kronecker symbol, which is 0 when
i = j and 0 when i 6= j.

2.2. Seepage Equations

According to the theory of seepage mechanics, the fluid seepage equation in the
borehole surrounding rock is expressed as [45]:
 
k 1 ∂p ∂ε v
∇· ∇p = −α (4)
µ M ∂t ∂t

where k is the permeability tensor; εV is the volumetric strain component; M is the Biot
modulus; and t is the time of the drilling fluid action on the borehole wall.

2.3. Theory of DSC Borehole Instability

The basic principle of the DSC is to consider the material under stress disturbance
as a random mixture in an undisturbed state and a completely disturbed state, and its
mechanical response is determined by a weighted average of the mechanical response
of the part in an undisturbed state and the part in a completely disturbed state. The
undisturbed state refers to that the material is at the idealized state or the undisturbed
and little disturbance state which is defined subjectively. For example, a stable material
with a hardening response is in an undisturbed state. The completely disturbed state
refers to the limit of the material under stress disturbance. According to the DSC principle,
the basic elements include the undisturbed state, the completely disturbed state, and the
disturbance function.
The establishment of the model requires a definition of the basic elements, where
the undisturbed state corresponds to the non-crack (non-damaged) part in the damage
mechanics constitutive model, and the completely disturbed state corresponds to the
damaged part; the disturbance function corresponds to the damage function. The crack
(damage) part has no strength; the completely disturbed state part has specific stress–strain
and strength; and the disturbance function characterizes softening (damage), strengthening,
and hardening.
Damage to the rock affects the effective shear strength parameters c∗ and φ∗ , which
are the function of the disturbance state. Under the action of disturbance and pore pressure,
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 4 of 18

the Mohr–Coulomb criterion of rock failure is expressed by effective stress, pore pressure,
and effective shear strength as follows:

τn σn + Dpw
= c∗ + tan φ∗ (5)
1−D 1−D
where D is the disturbance damage factor; τn is the shear stress; and pw is the pore pressure.
Assuming that the rock’s uniaxial compressive strength is σc and the uniaxial compres-
sive strength of the damaged rock is σc∗ = (1 − D )σc , the relationship between the shear
strength and uniaxial compressive strength is expressed as

2c∗ cos φ∗
σc∗ = (1 − D )σc = (1 − D ) (6)
1 − sin φ∗

By solving the above two equations, the effective shear strength parameters c∗ and
φ∗ are expressed as a function of stress σn and τ n on the failure surface, the compressive
strength σc of non-damaged rock, and disturbance damage factor D.
When the equivalent plastic strain of a rock element exceeds the limit plastic strain
ε pmax , plastic deformation and failure occur. The relationship between the disturbance
damage factor and the equivalent plastic strain satisfies the first-order exponential decay
function, and the equivalent plastic strain is normalized as:

D = A0 e−ε pn /a + B0 (7)

where ε pn is the normalized equivalent plastic strain and the material parameter a is
1 1
a constant, which is equal to 0.2 in the simulation. A0 = e−1/a −1
and B0 = − e−1/a −1
.
The parameter a reflects the rate of the disturbance damage factor evolution with the
plastic strain.
In the hydro-mechanical coupling system, the solid phase is expressed as S = Un + Da ,
where Un is the undamaged phase, Da is the damaged solid phase, and L is the liquid phase.
The Da component cannot support the shear load, and the Un component can support the
shear stress and hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, the load capacity of the rock is reduced,
i.e., damage has occurred. Assuming that the volume of the porous medium is V, the
damaged volume is expressed as:

VD = V (1 − n) D (8)

where n is the rock porosity and D is the disturbance damage factor.

According to the cubic law of seepage [44], the rock permeability coefficient is evolved
as follows:
pF 3
 
k = (1 − D )k M + Dk D 1 + ε v (9)

where kM and kD are the permeability coefficients of non-damaged and fractured rock,
pF
respectively, and ε v is the plastic volumetric strain of the damage phase.
Assuming that no damage occurs during the elastic deformation of the rock, and
pF
plastic deformation and damage occur simultaneously, ε v is expressed as:
pF p
ε v = Dε v (10)
p
where ε v is the plastic volume strain.

2.4. Model Validation

According to rock mechanics, there is an analytical solution for the stress field around
the borehole in the homogeneous formation. The analytical solution and finite element
solution of the stress field component Sxx are calculated by setting the bottom hole pressure
as 30 MPa, 40 MPa, and 50 MPa [41,45] (Table 1 and Figure 1a), and the solutions have
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 5 of 18

a good agreement, which verifies the reliability of the finite element solution under the
hydro-mechanical coupling conditions.
Energies 2022, 15, x 5 of 19

Table 1. Input parameters.

Parameters
where kM and Value
kD are the permeability coefficients of non-damaged and fractured rock,
and  v is the plastic volumetric strain of the0.05
pF
Porosity/decimal
respectively, defect phase.
Poisson’s ratio/decimal
Assuming that no damage occurs during the elastic 0.25
deformation of the rock, and
plastic Elastic modulus/GPa
deformation and damage occur simultaneously,  vpF34.5is expressed as:
Rock density/kg/m3 2500
 vpF = D vp (10)
Rock permeability/mD 0.001
 v isstrength/MPa
p
where Tensile the plastic volume strain. 6.04
Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa 100
2.4. Model Validation
Internal friction angle of rock/◦ 33.7
According to rock mechanics, there is an analytical solution
Element damage evolution factor/decimal 2
for the stress field around
the borehole in the homogeneous formation. The analytical solution and finite element
Fluid density/kg/cm3 1020
solution of the stress field component Sxx are calculated by setting the bottom hole pres-
Fluidas
sure compression
30 MPa, 40 coefficient/1/Pa
MPa, and 50 MPa [41,45] (Table 1 and 10−10 1a), and the solutions
2 × Figure
have aFluid
goodviscosity/mPa
agreement, which
·s verifies the reliability of the 1.8
finite element solution under
theInitial
hydro-mechanical coupling
formation pressure/MPa conditions. 28
To validate our DCS theory, we compare the numerical results with experimental
Maximum horizontal principal stress/MPa 40
results, as shown in Figure 1b. The cohesive force is 30.7 MPa and the friction angle is 27
Minimum
degrees. horizontal
The bulk principal stress/MPa
and shear modulus rock sample are 22 GPa 30 and 16 GPa, respectively.
The initial fracture
Borehole toughness is equal to 12 MPa·mm . We
radius/m 0.5 0.1observe that the numerical
results have a good agreement
Injection time/s with the experimental results, 60which indicate that our DSC
model are reliable.

12
Experimental result
Numerical simulation results
10

8
Stress (10 Pa)
7

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
Strain (10 )

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 1. Validation
1. Validation examples:
examples: (a) numerical
(a) numerical solution solution and analytical
and analytical solution ofsolution of component;
Sxx stress Sxx stress compo-
nent; (b) comparison of numerical simulation and experimental
(b) comparison of numerical simulation and experimental results. results.

Table
To 1. Input
validate ourparameters.
DCS theory, we compare the numerical results with experimental
results, as shown in Figure 1b. Parameters
The cohesive force is 30.7 MPa and the friction angle is
Value
27◦ . The bulk and shear modulus of rock sample
Porosity/decimal are 22 GPa and 16 GPa, respectively.
0.05 The
initial fracture toughness isPoisson’s 12 MPa·mm0.5 . We observe that the numerical
equal to ratio/decimal results
0.25
have a good agreement withElastic
the experimental
modulus/GPa results, which indicate that our DSC model
34.5
are reliable. Rock density/kg/m3 2500
Rock permeability/mD 0.001
Tensile strength/MPa 6.04
Uniaxial compressive strength/MPa 100
Internal friction angle of rock/° 33.7
Element damage evolution factor/decimal 2
Fluid density/kg/cm3 1020
Fluid compression coefficient/1/Pa 2 × 10−10
 Fluid viscosity/MPa·s 1.8
Initial formation pressure/MPa 28
Maximum horizontal principal stress/MPa 40
Minimum horizontal principal stress/MPa 30
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 6 of 18
Borehole radius/m 0.1
Injection time/s 60

3.3. Finite
FiniteElement
ElementModel
Model
A
A2D2D2020mm×× 20 m m finite
finite element
element model
model is is established,
established, and and aa borehole
borehole with
withaaradius
radius
of
of 0.1m
0.1m is
is drilled in the
drilled in the middle
middle of ofthe
themodel
model(Figure
(Figure2).2).TheThe model
model is meshed
is meshed withwith
the
the structured
structured gridgrid of the
of the plane
plane strain
strain quadrilateral
quadrilateral elements
elements (CPE4P)
(CPE4P) coupled
coupled withwith
the the
de-
degree
gree ofoffreedom
freedomofofthethepore
porepressure.
pressure. ToTo simulate
simulate the the stress
stress concentration
concentration around
around the the
borehole,
borehole, the meshes near the borehole are refined locally. The mesh size of thedirectional
the meshes near the borehole are refined locally. The mesh size of the directional
quadrilateral
quadrilateral elements
elements away
away from
from the
theborehole
boreholeincreases
increasesgradually.
gradually. The
The finite
finite element
element
model
model of borehole stability includes a total of 9024 nodes and 8928 CPE4Pquadrilateral
of borehole stability includes a total of 9024 nodes and 8928 CPE4P quadrilateral
elements.
elements.The Thebasic
basicinput
inputparameters
parametersare arelisted
listedin inTable
Table2.2.

Figure2.2.Schematic
Figure Schematicof
ofthe
thefinite
finiteelement
elementmodel
modelof
ofborehole
boreholestability
stabilityand
andmesh
meshdivision.
division.

Table 2. Input parameters in finite element simulation of rock borehole instability (Base case).
Table 2. Input parameters in finite element simulation of rock borehole instability (Base case).
Parameters Value
Parameters Value
Rock elastic modulus/Pa 3 × 108
Rock elasticPoisson’s
modulus/Pa
ratio/decimal 3 × 108 0.25
Rock permeability/m
Poisson’s ratio/decimal 2
0.25 3 × 10−12
Porosity/decimal
Rock permeability/m2 3 × 10−12
0.16
Maximum horizontal principal stress/Pa 2.75 × 106
Porosity/decimal 0.16
Minimum horizontal principal stress/Pa 1.75 × 106
Maximum horizontal principal stress/Pa 6
2.75 × 10 3.5 × 106
Vertical stress/Pa
Rock cohesion/Pa
Minimum horizontal principal stress/Pa 1.75 × 106 3 × 10
5

Rock internal friction angle/° 18

Vertical stress/Pa 3.5 × 106
Dilation angle in rock/° 0
Rock cohesion/Pa
Initial pore pressure/Pa 3 × 105 1.5 × 106
Internal friction
Material of rock/◦a/decimal
angleparameter 18 0.2
Dilation angle of rock/◦ 0
Initial pore pressure/Pa 1.5 × 106
Material parameter a/decimal 0.2

This finite element simulation of borehole stability is completed in two steps. The
first is to establish the stress balance equation, which provides the initial stress field for the
DSC-based numerical simulation of borehole instability. The second is to carry out a finite
element simulation of borehole instability, and it is operated in a Soils hydro-mechanical
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 7 of 18

coupling solver in ABAQUS. The solver numerically discretizes the time derivative term
through an implicit algorithm. The time step is adaptive. The initial time step is 0.1 s. The
minimum and maximum are 1 × 10−9 s and 86,400 s. The elastic–plastic deformation of
the borehole wall rock is simulated by the Mohr–Coulomb plastic yield criterion. The rock
internal friction angle and the dilation angle of rock are listed in Table 1.
As shown in Figure 1, the boundary conditions of this finite element model are set as
follows: the normal displacement constraint of the outer boundary is 0, that is, the roller
boundary condition is satisfied, and pore pressure is applied to the outer boundary and the
inner boundary of the borehole. It is noted that the PORMECH keyword in the ABAQUS
input file converts pore pressure into surface force and applies it to the borehole wall to
simulate the force of the mud column pressure on the borehole wall.
Based on Section 2.3 of this paper, “Theory of Borehole Instability in Disturbed State”,
the secondary development is carried out on the commercial finite element software
ABAQUS platform, and the USDFLD subroutine is used to realize the porosity, permeability
coefficient, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic stress (PEEQ). In this program,
the relationships of the permeability coefficient and equivalent plastic stress with the
disturbance damage factor are coded by using Equations (8) and (9). The evolution of other
parameters is used to obtain the instability process of rock borehole.

4. Results and Analysis

The effects of the action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore, stress anisotropy, internal
friction angle of rock, and borehole pressure on borehole stability are simulated with the
parameters listed in Table 1. In the cloud picture of equivalent plastic deformation and
disturbance damage factor, the horizontal direction is set as the x axis, and the vertical
direction is set as the y axis.

4.1. Effect of Action Time of Drilling Fluid on the Wellbore

During drilling, the borehole is filled with the drilling fluid, and the action time of the
drilling fluid on the wellbore affects the borehole instability. Here, the effects of the action
time of the drilling fluid on the wellbore (i.e., t = 0.675 s, t = 5.126 s, t = 667.2 s, and t = 2210
s) are simulated.
The cloud picture of equivalent plastic strain under different action times of drilling
fluid on the wellbore is shown in Figure 3. At the initial stage of the action time of the
drilling fluid, the equivalent plastic strain is concentrated around the borehole in the
maximum principal stress direction. As the drilling operation continues, the equivalent
plastic strain region gradually expands to the periphery of the borehole, showing a typical
symmetrical bifurcated feature, which is due to rock shear damage.
The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor of borehole instability under
different action times of drilling fluid on the wellbore is shown in Figure 4. Initially,
the rock damage region is concentrated around the borehole in the maximum principal
stress direction. Then, the rock damage region develops as the equivalent plastic strain
region. The disturbance damage factor gradually expands to the periphery of the borehole
and shows symmetrical bifurcation characteristics, indicating the dominant mechanical
mechanism of borehole instability as a shear failure.
The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain with
different distances from the borehole are shown in Figure 5. The node extraction path is
shown in Figure 5d. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock permeability,
disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain value gradually decrease. As the
action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore increases, the rock permeability, disturbance
damage factor, and plastic strain area increase slightly. At a distance of 0.3 m from the
borehole, the permeability, disturbance damage factor, and plastic strain change abruptly,
indicating serious damage.
Energies 2022, 15,Energies
6295 2022, 15, x 8 of 18 8

(a) t = 0.675 s (b) t = 5.126 s

(a) t = 0.675 s (b) t = 5.126 s

(c) t = 667.2 s (d) t = 2210 s

Figure 3. Evolution of equivalent plastic strain region (SVD1 represents equivalent plastic strain)

The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor of borehole instability under d
ferent action times of drilling fluid on the wellbore is shown in Figure 4. Initially, the ro
damage region is concentrated around the borehole in the maximum principal stress d
rection. Then, the rock damage region develops as the equivalent plastic strain region. Th
disturbance
(c) t = 667.2damage
s factor gradually expands to the (d)periphery
t = 2210 s of the borehole and show
symmetrical bifurcation characteristics, indicating the dominant mechanical mechanis
Figure 3. Evolution of3.equivalent plastic strain region (SVD1 represents equivalent plastic strain).
of Figure
borehole Evolution of as
instability equivalent
a shear plastic
failure.strain region (SVD1 represents equivalent plastic stra

The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor of borehole instability under
ferent action times of drilling fluid on the wellbore is shown in Figure 4. Initially, the
damage region is concentrated around the borehole in the maximum principal stres
rection. Then, the rock damage region develops as the equivalent plastic strain region.
disturbance damage factor gradually expands to the periphery of the borehole and sh
symmetrical bifurcation characteristics, indicating the dominant mechanical mechan
of borehole instability as a shear failure.
Energies 2022, 15, x 9 o

(a) t = 0.675 s (b) t = 5.126 s

(a) t = 0.675 s (b) t = 5.126 s

(c) t = 667.2 s (d) t = 2210 s

Figure 4. Evolution
Figure of damage region
4. Evolution (SVD3region
of damage represents
(SVD3disturbance
representsdamage
damagefactor).
factor).

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain w
different distances from the borehole are shown in Figure 5. The node extraction path
shown in Figure 5d. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock permeabil
disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain value gradually decrease. As
action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore increases, the rock permeability, damage f
tor, and plastic strain area increase slightly. At a distance of 0.3 m from the borehole,
permeability, damage factor, and plastic strain change abruptly, indicating serious da
 different distances from the borehole are shown in Figure 5. The node extraction pa
shown in Figure 5d. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock permeab
disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain value gradually decrease. A
action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore increases, the rock permeability, damage
tor, and plastic strain area increase slightly. At a distance of 0.3 m from the borehole
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 permeability, damage factor, and plastic strain change abruptly, indicating9 of 18serious d
age.

3.2x10
-9 1.0

-9 t=0.675 s t=0.675 s
2.8x10 t=5.126 s
t=5.126 s
0.8 t=667.2 s
-9 t=667.2 s
2.4x10 t=2210 s
t=2210 s
-9

permeability (m )
2.0x10 0.6

damage factor
2
-9
1.6x10
-9 0.4
1.2x10
-10
8.0x10
0.2
-10
4.0x10

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m) distance (m)

(a) Rock permeability (b) Disturbance damage factor

0.30
t=0.675 s
0.25 t=5.126 s
t=667.2 s
equivalent plastic strain (%)

t=2210 s
0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m)

(c) Equivalent plastic deformation (d) Node extraction path

Figure 5. Rock permeability, disturbance

Figure 5. Rock damage
permeability, factor, and
disturbance equivalent
damage plastic
factor, and strain with
equivalent different
plastic strain with diff
distances from
distances from the borehole. the borehole.

4.2. Effect of Stress

4.2. Anisotropy
Effect of Stress Anisotropy
The rock yield The
failure is yield
rock related to itsisstress
failure state,
related and
to its the state,
stress in situand
stress
theaffects
in situ borehole
stress affects bore
stability during drilling.
stability The effects
during ofThe
drilling. the effects
horizontal
of thestress difference
horizontal of difference
stress 0 MPa, 5 MPa,
of 0 MPa, 5 M
7.5 MPa, and 10 MPa are simulated.
7.5 MPa, and 10 MPa are simulated.
The cloud picture of equivalent plastic strain around the borehole under various
horizontal stress differences is shown in Figure 6. Under the isotropic stress (the stress
difference of 0 MPa), the equivalent plastic strain area occurs around the borehole and
shows the symmetrical distribution on the x axis and y axis. As the stress anisotropy is
enhanced, the equivalent plastic strain region grows in a narrow region in the x direction
and grows longer in the y direction. The shape of the equivalent plastic strain cloud picture
in Figure 6b,c is similar to the cockroach, and the bifurcation is similar to the whiskers.
Under the low stress anisotropy, there are multiple bifurcations on the equivalent plastic
strain region, indicating several shear failures. Under the stress anisotropy of 10 MPa, only
one bifurcation occurs in the y direction, shear failure is significantly reduced, and the
plastic strain zone occurs along the 45◦ direction. As the stress anisotropy increases, the
shear failure area is reduced.
The cloud picture of damage factor distribution around the borehole under different
stress anisotropy is shown in Figure 7. As the stress anisotropy is enhanced, the rock
damaged area in the x axis is narrowed and elongated in the y axis. As the stress anisotropy
reduces, the bifurcation increases. Under the strong stress anisotropy of the stress difference
of 10 MPa, only one bifurcation occurs in the y axis, and the shear damage zone is generated
along the 45◦ direction.
 longer in the y direction. The shape of the equivalent plastic strain cloud picture in Figure
6b,c is similar to the cockroach, and the bifurcation is similar to the whiskers. Under the
low stress anisotropy, there are multiple bifurcations on the equivalent plastic strain re-
gion, indicating several shear failures. Under the stress anisotropy of 10 MPa, only one
bifurcation occurs in the y direction, shear failure is significantly reduced, and the plastic
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 10 of 18
strain zone occurs along the 45° direction. As the stress anisotropy increases, the shear
failure area is reduced.

(a) Δσ = 0 MPa (b) Δσ = 5 MPa

Energies 2022, 15, x (c) Δσ = 7.5 MPa (d) Δσ = 10 MPa 11 of 19

Figure 6.of
Figure 6. Evolution Evolution of equivalent
equivalent plastic
plastic strain withstrain with the
the stress stress difference.
difference.

The cloud picture of damage factor distribution around the borehole under different
stress anisotropy is shown in Figure 7. As the stress anisotropy is enhanced, the rock dam-
aged area in the x axis is narrowed and elongated in the y axis. As the stress anisotropy
reduces, the bifurcation increases. Under the strong stress anisotropy of the stress differ-
ence of 10 MPa, only one bifurcation occurs in the y axis, and the shear damage zone is
generated along the 45° direction.

(a) Δσ = 0 MPa (b) Δσ = 5 MPa

(c) Δσ = 7.5 MPa (d) Δσ = 10 MPa

Figure 7.of
Figure 7. Evolution Evolution of disturbance
disturbance damage
damage factor factor
with with different
different stress differences.
stress differences.

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain with
the distance from the borehole during the borehole instability along the direction of the
nodal path are shown in Figure 8. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock
permeability, disturbance damage factor, and plastic strain generally show a decreasing
trend. Under the low stress anisotropy, the permeability, disturbance damage factor, and
plastic strain show fluctuation characteristics, corresponding to multiple bifurcations in
 (c) Δσ = 7.5 MPa (d) Δσ = 10 MPa
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 11 of 18
Figure 7. Evolution of disturbance damage factor with different stress differences.

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain with
The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain with
the distance from the borehole during the borehole instability along the direction of the
the distance from the borehole during the borehole instability along the direction of the
nodal path are shown in Figure 8. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock
nodal path are shown in Figure 8. As the distance from the borehole increases, the rock
permeability, disturbance
permeability, disturbance damage
damage factor,
factor, and
and plastic
plastic strain
strain generally
generally show
show aa decreasing
decreasing
trend. Under the low stress anisotropy, the permeability, disturbance
trend. Under the low stress anisotropy, the permeability, disturbance damage factor,damage factor, and
and
plastic strain show fluctuation characteristics, corresponding to multiple bifurcations
plastic strain show fluctuation characteristics, corresponding to multiple bifurcations in in
Figure 7.
Figure 7. As
As the
the shear
shear damage
damage increases,
increases, the
the damage
damage region
region increases.
increases. Under
Under the
the higher
higher
stress anisotropy, the rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent
stress anisotropy, the rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic plas-
tic strain fluctuate at a relatively low level, which is consistent with the condition
strain fluctuate at a relatively low level, which is consistent with the condition of one of one
bifurcation in the y direction in Figure
bifurcation in the y direction in Figure 7d. 7d.

3.5x10
-9 1.2

0 MPa 0 MPa
-9
3.0x10 5 MPa 1.0 5 MPa
7.5 MPa 7.5 MPa
2.5x10
-9
10 MPa 10 MPa
0.8
permeability (m )
2

damage factor
-9
2.0x10
0.6
-9
1.5x10

-9
0.4
1.0x10

5.0x10
-10 0.2

0.0 0.0
Energies 2022, 15, x 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 12 of 19
distance (m) distance (m)

(a) Rock permeability (b) Disturbance damage factor

1.6
0 MPa
5 MPa
7.5 MPa
1.2
equivalent plastic strain (%)

10 MPa

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m)

(c) Plastic deformation (d) Node extraction path

Figure
Figure8. 8.
Variation of rock
Variation of permeability, damage
rock permeability, factor, and
damage equivalent
factor, plastic strain
and equivalent withstrain
plastic different
with
distance.
different distance.

4.3.Effect
4.3. Effectofofthe
theInternal
InternalFriction
FrictionAngle
AngleofofRock
Rock
Theinternal
The internalfriction
friction angle
angle of of rock
rock is aiskey
a key parameter
parameter in Mohr–Coulomb
in the the Mohr–Coulomb yield
mechan-
criterion
ical forfor
criterion borehole
boreholestability. TheThe
stability. effect of the
effect internal
of the friction
internal angle
friction of rock
angle of◦13°,
of 13
of rock , 18◦ ,
◦
23 23°,
, andand ◦
28 28°
on on
borehole instability is simulated.
18°, borehole instability is simulated.
Thecloud
The cloudpicture
pictureofofthe
theequivalent
equivalentplastic
plasticstrain
strainaround
aroundthe theborehole
boreholeunder
underdifferent
different
internal friction angles of rock is shown in Figure 9. As the internal friction
internal friction angles of rock is shown in Figure 9. As the internal friction angle increases, angle increases,
theequivalent
the equivalentplastic
plasticstrain
strainarea
areaincreases,
increases,and andthe
thebifurcation
bifurcationisisenhanced.
enhanced.Under
Underthe the
internalfriction
frictionangle
angleofof28°, ◦
28 a, astrong
strongplastic
plasticstrain
strainarea
areaoccurs
occursininthe
the y direction, a ‘mantis’
internal y direction, a ‘mantis’
shapeoccurs
shape occurs(Figure
(Figure7b,c),
7b,c),and
andthethebifurcation
bifurcationcorresponds
correspondstotothe thewhisker,
whisker,which
whichisisthe
the
shearfailure
shear failurearea.
area.Under
Underthe thelowlowinternal
internalfriction
frictionangle
angleofofrock,
rock,thetheequivalent
equivalentplastic
plastic
strainarea
strain areashows
showsa achaotic
chaoticfeature,
feature,withwitha aweak
weakelongated
elongatedplastic
plasticstrain
strainarea
areaalong
alongthe
the
diagonal direction.
diagonal direction.
The cloud picture of the damage factor around the borehole under different internal
friction angles of rock is shown in Figure 10. As the internal friction angle, the damage
area increases, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhanced. Under the friction angle of
 4.3. Effect of the Internal Friction Angle of Rock
The internal friction angle of rock is a key parameter in the Mohr–Coulomb mechan-
ical criterion for borehole stability. The effect of the internal friction angle of rock of 13°,
18°, 23°, and 28° on borehole instability is simulated.
The cloud picture of the equivalent plastic strain around the borehole under different
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 internal friction angles of rock is shown in Figure 9. As the internal friction angle increases,
12 of 18
the equivalent plastic strain area increases, and the bifurcation is enhanced. Under the
internal friction angle of 28°, a strong plastic strain area occurs in the y direction, a ‘mantis’
shape occurs (Figure 7b,c), and the bifurcation corresponds to the whisker, which is the
28◦ , an obvious bifurcation occurs in the y direction, and the damage degree approaches
shear failure area. Under the low internal friction angle of rock, the equivalent plastic
1, indicating
strainshear collapse
area shows failurefeature,
a chaotic aroundwith
the aborehole. Underplastic
weak elongated the low internal
strain frictional
area along the
angles, adiagonal
narrow direction.
and long damaged area occurs in the sub-diagonal direction.

(a)  = 13° (b)  = 18°

Energies 2022, 15, x 13 of 19

Figure 9. Evolution of equivalent plastic strain region.

The cloud picture of the damage factor around the borehole under different internal
friction angles of rock is shown in Figure 10. As the internal friction angle, the damage
area increases, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhanced. Under the friction angle
(c)  =an23°
of 28°, (d)  =and
obvious bifurcation occurs in the y direction, 28° the damage degree approaches
1, indicating shear collapse failure around the borehole. Under the low internal frictional
Figure 9. Evolution of equivalent plastic strain region.
angles, a narrow and long damaged area occurs in the sub-diagonal direction.

(a)  = 13° (b)  = 18°

(c)  = 23° (d)  = 28°

Figure 10. Evolution of disturbance damage factor with the internal friction angle of rock.
Figure 10. Evolution of disturbance damage factor with the rock internal friction angle.

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain along
the nodal path are shown in Figure 11. As the distance from the borehole increases, the
rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain show a de-
creasing and fluctuation trend, indicating the heterogeneous damage features.
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 13 of 18

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain along
Energies 2022, 15, x the nodal path are shown in Figure 11. As the distance from the borehole increases, the
14 rock
of 19
permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain show a decreasing
and fluctuation trend, indicating the heterogeneous damage features.

3.2x10
-9
1.2
13° 13°
-9
2.8x10 18° 1.0 18°
23° 23°
-9
2.4x10 27° 28°
-9
0.8
permeability (m )

2.0x10
2

damage factor
1.6x10
-9
0.6

-9
1.2x10
0.4
-10
8.0x10
-10
0.2
4.0x10

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m) distance (m)

(a) Rock permeability (b) Disturbance damage factor

1.8
13°
1.5 18°
23°
equivalent plastic strain (%)

28°
1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m)

(c) Plastic deformation (d) Node extraction path

Figure 11. Variation

Figure of of
Variation rock permeability,
rock damage
permeability, factor,
damage and equivalent
factor, plastic strain
and equivalent plasticwith different
strain with
distance.distance.
different

4.4.
4.4. Effect
Effect of
of Borehole
Borehole Pressure
Pressure
During
During drilling, the
drilling, the drilling
drilling fluid
fluid within
within the
the borehole
borehole generates
generates hydrostatic
hydrostatic pressure
pressure
on the borehole wall and causes compression stress on
on the borehole wall and causes compression stress on the borehole wall.the borehole wall.
TheThe effect
effect of
of the
the borehole
borehole pressure
pressure of 3.5ofMPa,
3.5 MPa,
4 MPa, 4 MPa,
4.5 MPa,4.5 and
MPa, and 5onMPa
5 MPa on borehole
borehole instability
instability is simu-
is simulated.
lated.
The
The cloud
cloud picture
picture of of equivalent
equivalent plastic
plastic strain
strain around
around the
the borehole
borehole under
under drilling
drilling fluid
fluid
static
static pressure is shown in Figure 12. As the hydrostatic pressure increases, the equivalent
pressure is shown in Figure 12. As the hydrostatic pressure increases, the equivalent
plastic
plastic strain
strain area
area is
is enlarged,
enlarged, andand the
the bifurcation
bifurcation characteristics
characteristics are
are enhanced.
enhanced. When
When thethe
hydrostatic pressure is 5 MPa, several bifurcated plastic strain regions occur in the yy axis.
hydrostatic pressure is 5 MPa, several bifurcated plastic strain regions occur in the axis.
Under
Under thethe low
low borehole
borehole pressure,
pressure, the
the bifurcation
bifurcation occurs
occurs only
only inin the
the yy direction,
direction, and
and shear
shear
failure occurs along the y axis.
failure occurs along the y axis.
The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor around the borehole under drilling
fluid column pressure is shown in Figure 13. As the drilling fluid static pressure increases,
the damaged area is enlarged, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhanced. When the
drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure is 5 MPa, multiple bifurcated damage zones occur in the
y direction, indicating that increasing the drilling fluid density promotes shear damage
near the borehole and borehole instability.

(a) Pp = 3.5 MPa (b) Pp = 4 MPa

 lated.
The cloud picture of equivalent plastic strain around the borehole under drilling fl
static pressure is shown in Figure 12. As the hydrostatic pressure increases, the equival
plastic strain area is enlarged, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhanced. When
hydrostatic pressure is 5 MPa, several bifurcated plastic strain regions occur in the y a
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 14 of 18
Under the low borehole pressure, the bifurcation occurs only in the y direction, and sh
failure occurs along the y axis.

Energies 2022, 15, x 15 of

Energies 2022, 15, x 15 of

(a) Pp = 3.5 MPa (b) Pp = 4 MPa

(c) Pp = 4.5 MPa (d) Pp = 5 MPa

Figure 12. Evolution of equivalent plastic strain.

The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor around the borehole under dr
ing fluid column pressure is shown in Figure 13. As the drilling fluid static pressure
creases, the damaged area is enlarged, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhance
(c)When the
Pp = 4.5 drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure is(d)
MPa 5 MPa,
Pp = 5 multiple
MPa bifurcated damage zon
occur in the y direction, indicating that increasing the drilling fluid density promotes she
Figure 12.ofEvolution
Figure 12. Evolution ofplastic
equivalent equivalent plastic strain.
strain.
damage near the borehole and borehole instability.
The cloud picture of the disturbance damage factor around the borehole under dri
ing fluid column pressure is shown in Figure 13. As the drilling fluid static pressure i
creases, the damaged area is enlarged, and the bifurcation characteristics are enhance
When the drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure is 5 MPa, multiple bifurcated damage zon
occur in the y direction, indicating that increasing the drilling fluid density promotes she
damage near the borehole and borehole instability.

(a) Pp = 3.5 MPa (b) Pp = 4 MPa

(a) Pp = 3.5 MPa (b) Pp = 4 MPa

(c) Pp = 4.5 MPa (d) Pp = 5 MPa

Figure 13.
Figure 13. Evolution ofEvolution of damage
damage factor factor with
with borehole borehole pressure.
pressure.

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and plastic strain area with d
tance from the borehole along the direction of the node path are shown in Figure 14.
the distance from the borehole increases, the permeability, disturbance damage fact
and plastic strain gradually decrease. Under the low hydrostatic pressure of drilling flu
 Energies 2022, 15, 6295 15 of 18

The rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and plastic strain area with distance
from the borehole along the direction of the node path are shown in Figure 14. As the
distance from the borehole increases, the permeability, disturbance damage factor, and
Energies 2022, 15, x 16 of 19
plastic strain gradually decrease. Under the low hydrostatic pressure of drilling fluid,
the rock permeability, disturbance damage factor, and equivalent plastic strain fluctuate
slightly, and the damage position is determined. Under the high borehole pressure, the
rock
rockpermeability, disturbance damage
permeability, disturbance damagefactor,
factor,and
and plastic
plastic strain
strain area
area fluctuate
fluctuate signifi-
significantly.
cantly. The degree of damage varies in different locations, corresponding to multiple
The degree of damage varies in different locations, corresponding to multiple bifurcation bi-
furcation positions on the cloud
positions on the cloud picture. picture.

3.2x10
-9 1.2
3.5 MPa 3.5 MPa
-9
2.8x10 4 MPa 1.0 4 MPa
-9
4.5 MPa 4.5 MPa
2.4x10 5 MPa 5 MPa
0.8
-9
permeability (m )

2.0x10

damage factor
2

1.6x10
-9 0.6

-9
1.2x10
0.4
-10
8.0x10
-10
0.2
4.0x10

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m) distance (m)

(a) Rock permeability (b) Disturbance damage factor

1.8
3.5 MPa
1.5 4 MPa
4.5 MPa
equivalent plastic strain (%)

5 MPa
1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
distance (m)

(c) Plastic deformation (d) Node extraction path

Figure
Figure14.14.
Variation of rock
Variation permeability,
of rock damage
permeability, factor, and
damage equivalent
factor, plastic strain
and equivalent withstrain
plastic different
with
distance.
different distance.

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
Basedon
Based onthe
theDSC,
DSC,we wecarried
carriedout
outa afinite
finiteelement
elementhydro-mechanical
hydro-mechanicalcoupling
couplingmodel
model
of borehole instability by introducing the disturbance factors into
of borehole instability by introducing the disturbance factors into the Mohr–Coulombthe Mohr–Coulomb
yieldcriterion
yield criterionand
andwriting
writingthethe subroutine for
subprograms for the
the field
field variables. Themodel
variables. The modelconsiders
considers
elastic–plastic deformation, the damage distribution area, and the variation of rockporosity
elastic–plastic deformation, the damage distribution area, and the variation of rock poros-
and
ity andpermeability
permeability with
withthe disturbance
the disturbance area inin
area borehole
boreholeinstability. The
instability. Thefollowing
followingconclu-
con-
sions can
clusions bebe
can drawn:
drawn:
(1) The
(1) Thefinite
finiteelement
elementnumerical
numericalsimulation
simulationresults
resultsshow
showthat
thatborehole
boreholestability
stabilityisisrelated
related
to the action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore, stress anisotropy, internal
to the action time of drilling fluid on the wellbore, stress anisotropy, internal friction friction
angleofof
angle rock,
rock, and
and borehole
borehole pressure.
pressure. Excessive
Excessive drilling
drilling fluid
fluid density
density and
and long
long action
contact
time between the drilling fluid and the borehole should be avoided. Under the small
time between the drilling fluid and the borehole should be avoided. Under the small
stress anisotropy, shear failure occurs often around the borehole. A high horizontal
stress anisotropy, shear failure occurs often around the borehole. A high horizontal
stress difference restricts shear instability around the borehole. The high internal
stress difference restricts shear instability around the borehole. The high internal fric-
friction angle of rock enhances shear failure around the borehole in the direction of
tion angle of rock enhances shear failure around the borehole in the direction of the
the maximum horizontal principal stress.
maximum horizontal principal stress.
(2) The equivalent plastic strain zone has a good agreement with the borehole instability
disturbance damage zone, and they show the same characteristics. A high internal
friction angle of rock, low stress anisotropy, and long action time of the drilling fluid
on the wellbore enlarge the plastic zone and disturbance damage zone around the
borehole.
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 16 of 18

(2) The equivalent plastic strain zone has a good agreement with the borehole instability
disturbance damage zone, and they show the same characteristics. A high internal
friction angle of rock, low stress anisotropy, and long action time of the drilling
fluid on the wellbore enlarge the plastic zone and disturbance damage zone around
the borehole.
(3) The model of borehole stability considers the variation of rock permeability, rock
porosity, and equivalent plastic strain with the disturbance damage factor. Under
the large borehole pressure and the low stress anisotropy, the rock permeability,
the disturbance damage factor, and the equivalent plastic strain show fluctuation
characteristics, which is due to the different damage magnitudes. When considering
the internal friction angle of rock, the rock permeability, disturbance damage factor,
and equivalent plastic strain area show fluctuation characteristics.
(4) Under the large internal friction angle of rock, a strong equivalent plastic strain zone
and a disturbance damage zone occur in the direction of the maximum horizontal
principal stress, and they correspond to the mantis shape. The bifurcation corresponds
to the whisker, which is the shear failure area. Under the low internal friction angle
of rock, the equivalent plastic strain and disturbance damage region show chaotic
features, and an elongated equivalent plastic strain region occurs along the diagonal.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.Q. and B.Y.; methodology, D.W. and Q.S.; software;
validation, W.Z.; data curation, Y.Z. and Z. R; writing—original draft preparation, D.W.; writing—
review and editing, D.W. and Z.R.; supervision, Z.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to give their sincere gratitude to the Beijing Natural Science
Foundation Project (No. 3222030); the National Natural Science Foundation Project (No. 51936001,
No. 51974255 and No. 51804258); the Scientific Research Project of Beijing Educational Committee
(KZ202110017026); and The Key Laboratory of Well Stability and Fluid & Rock Mechanics in Oil and
Gas of Shaanxi Province (No. WSFRM20210201002) for their financial support.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Datasets related to this article can be found by contacting the corre-
sponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yu, M.; Chen, G.; Chenevert, M.E.; Sharma, M.M. Chemical and Thermal Effects on borehole stability of Shale Formations. In
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 September–3 October 2001.
2. She, H.; Hu, Z.; Qu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, H. Determination of the Hydration Damage Instability Period in a Shale Borehole Wall
and Its Application to a Fuling Shale Gas Reservoir in China. Geofluids 2019, 2019, e3016563. [CrossRef]
3. Han, Q.; Qu, Z.; Ye, Z. Research on the Mechanical Behaviour of Shale Based on Multiscale Analysis. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018,
5, 181039. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Freij-Ayoub, R.; Tan, C.; Clennell, B.; Tohidi, B.; Yang, J. A borehole stability Model for Hydrate Bearing Sediments. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 2007, 57, 209–220. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, J.; Bai, M.; Roegiers, J.-C. Dual-Porosity Poroelastic Analyses of borehole stability. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2003,
40, 473–483. [CrossRef]
6. Salehi, S.; Hareland, G.; Nygaard, R. Numerical Simulations of borehole stability in Under-Balanced-Drilling Wells. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 2010, 72, 229–235. [CrossRef]
7. Desai, C.C. A Consistent Finite Element Technique for Work-Softening Behavior; University of Texas: Austin, TX, USA, 1974.
8. Desai, C.S.; Ma, Y. Modelling of Joints and Interfaces Using the Disturbed-State Concept. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
1992, 16, 623–653. [CrossRef]
9. Katti, D.R.; Desai, C.S. Modeling and Testing of Cohesive Soil Using Disturbed-State Concept. J. Eng. Mech. 1995, 121, 648–658.
[CrossRef]
10. Desai, C.S.; Samtani, N.C.; Vulliet, L. Constitutive Modeling and Analysis of Creeping Slopes. J. Geotech. Eng. 1995, 121, 43–56.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 17 of 18

11. Desai, C.S.; Toth, J. Disturbed State Constitutive Modeling Based on Stress-Strain and Nondestructive Behavior. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 1996, 33, 1619–1650. [CrossRef]
12. Desai, C.; Park, I.; Shao, C. Fundamental yet Simplified Model for Liquefaction Instability. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
1998, 22, 721–748. [CrossRef]
13. Pal, S.; Wathugala, G.W. Disturbed State Model for Sand-Geosynthetic Interfaces and Application to Pull-out Tests. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech. 1999, 23, 1873–1892. [CrossRef]
14. Fan, R.-D.; Liu, M.; Du, Y.-J.; Horpibulsuk, S. Estimating the Compression Behaviour of Metal-Rich Clays via a Disturbed State
Concept (DSC) Model. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 132–133, 50–58. [CrossRef]
15. Ouria, A. Disturbed State Concept–Based Constitutive Model for Structured Soils. Int. J. Geomech. 2017, 17, 04017008. [CrossRef]
16. Ghazavi Baghini, E.; Toufigh, M.M.; Toufigh, V. Analysis of Pile Foundations Using Natural Element Method with Disturbed
State Concept. Comput. Geotech. 2018, 96, 178–188. [CrossRef]
17. Wu, G.; Zhang, L. Analysis on post-failure behaviors of rock in uniaxial compression using disturbed state concept theory. Chin. J.
Rock Mech. Eng. 2004, 10, 1628–1634. [CrossRef]
18. Zheng, J.; Ge, X.; Sun, H. Application of disturbed state concept to issues in geotechnical engineering. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng.
2006, 25, 3456–3462.
19. Zheng, J.; Ge, X.; Sun, H. Meso analysis for rationality of disturbed state concept theory on utilization of hardening model for
softening response depiction. Rock Soil Mech. 2007, 28, 127–132.
20. Zhang, X.; Wang, C. Study of creep constitutive model of structural soft soil based on the disturbed state concept. China Civ. Eng.
J. 2011, 44, 81–87.
21. Fu, P.; Chu, X.; Yu, C.; Xu, Y.; Qu, W. Simulation of Strain Localization of Granular Materials Based on Disturbed State Concept. J.
South China Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 2014, 42, 59–69+76.
22. Yang, J.; Yin, Z.; Huang, H.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, D. Bounding surface plasticity model for structured clays using disturbed state
concept-based hardening variables. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2017, 39, 554–561.
23. Huang, M.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, S.; Deng, T. Identification of the creep model and its paramters of soft rock on the basis of disturbed
state concept. Chin. J. Solid Mech. 2017, 38, 570–578.
24. Zou, Y.; Wei, C.; Chen, H.; Zhou, J.; Wan, Y. Elastic-plastic model for gas-hydrate-bearing soils using disturbed state concept. Rock
Soil Mech. 2019, 40, 2653–2662.
25. Cao, W.; Deng, J.; Liu, W.; Yu, B.; Tan, Q.; Yang, L.; Li, Y.; Gao, J. Pore Pressure and Stress Distribution Analysis around an Inclined
borehole in a Transversely Isotropic Formation Based on the Fully Coupled Chemo-Thermo-Poroelastic Theory. J. Nat. Gas Sci.
Eng. 2017, 40, 24–37. [CrossRef]
26. Liang, C.; Chen, M.; Jin, Y.; Lu, Y. borehole stability Model for Shale Gas Reservoir Considering the Coupling of Multi-Weakness
Planes and Porous Flow. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2014, 21, 364–378. [CrossRef]
27. Kang, Y.; Yu, M.; Miska, S.Z.; Takach, N. Borehole Stability: A Critical Review and Introduction to DEM. In Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–7 October 2009.
28. Chen, G.; Chenevert, M.E.; Sharma, M.M.; Yu, M. A Study of borehole stability in Shales Including Poroelastic, Chemical, and
Thermal Effects. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2003, 38, 167–176. [CrossRef]
29. Zeynali, M.E. Mechanical and Physico-Chemical Aspects of borehole stability during Drilling Operations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2012,
82–83, 120–124. [CrossRef]
30. Gao, L.; Shi, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, X. Simulation-based three-dimensional model of wellbore stability in fractured formation using
discrete element method based on formation microscanner image: A case study of Tarim Basin, China. J. Nat. Sci. Eng. 2022,
97, 104341. [CrossRef]
31. Ma, T.; Zhang, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z. Effect of parameter correlation on risk analysis of wellbore instability in deep igneous
formations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109521. [CrossRef]
32. Cao, W.; Liu, W.; Liu, H.; Lin, H. Effect of formation strength anisotropy on wellbore shear failure in bedding shale. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 2022, 208, 109183.
33. Liu, D.; Deng, H.; Zhang, Y. Research on the Wellbore Instability Mechanism of Air Drilling Technology in Conglomerate
Formation. Fresen. Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 600–606.
34. Liu, H.; Cui, S.; Meng, Y.; Li, Z.; Yu, X.; Sun, H.; Zhou, Y.; Luo, Y. Rock mechanics and wellbore stability of deep shale during
drilling and completion processes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 205, 108882. [CrossRef]
35. Aslannezhad, M.; Kalantariasl, A.; Keshavarz, A. Borehole stability in shale formations: Effects of Thermal-Mechanical-Chemical
parameters on well design. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2021, 88, 103852. [CrossRef]
36. AlBahrani, H.; Morita, N. Risk-Controlled Wellbore Stability Criterion Based on a Machine-Learning-Assisted Finite-Element
Model. SPE Drill. Completion 2022, 37, 38–66. [CrossRef]
37. Li, J.; Qiu, Z.; Zhong, H.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Z.; Huang, W. Effects of water-based drilling fluid on properties of mud cake and wellbore
stability. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109704. [CrossRef]
38. Liu, W.; Lin, H.; Liu, H.; Luo, C.; Wang, G.; Deng, J. Numerical Investigation of Wellbore Stability in Deepwater Shallow
Sediments. Geofluids 2021, 2021, 5582605. [CrossRef]
39. Cui, S.; Liu, H.; Meng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, X. Study on fracture occurrence characteristics and wellbore stability of
limestone formation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 204, 108783. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 6295 18 of 18

40. Ding, Y.; Liu, X.; Luo, P. Investigation on influence of drilling unloading on wellbore stability in clay shale formation. Pet. Sci.
2021, 17, 781–796. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, D.; Zhou, F.; Ding, W.; Ge, H.; Jia, X.; Shi, Y.; Wang, X.; Yan, X. A Numerical Simulation Study of Fracture Reorientation
with a Degradable Fiber-Diverting Agent. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 25, 215–225. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, D.; Zlotnik, S.; Díez, P. A Numerical Study on Hydraulic Fracturing Problems via the Proper Generalized Decomposition
Method. CMES Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 2020, 122, 703–720. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, D.; Ge, H.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Sun, D.; Yu, B. Complex Fracture Closure Pressure Analysis During Shut-in: A Numerical
Study. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2022, 40, 014459872210773. [CrossRef]
44. Wang, D.; Dong, Y.; Sun, D.; Yu, B. A Three-Dimensional Numerical Study of Hydraulic Fracturing with Degradable Diverting
Materials via CZM-Based FEM. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2020, 237, 107251. [CrossRef]
45. Jaeger, J.C.; Cook, N.G.W.; Zimmerman, R. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.