Lecture 4

Obtaining a Comprehensive Geomechanical Model

Elastic parameters in terms of wave velocities (C) and
bulk density (ρ)
Bulk modulus (incompressibility) K = ρ( Cp2 - 4Cs2 / 3 )

Compressibility β=1/K

Young’s modulus E = 2Cs2ρ ( 1 + σ )

Poisson’s ratio (transv. / long. Strain) σ = ( 3E - ρCp2 ) / ( 3E + 2ρCp2 )

Shear modulus (rigidity) G = ρCs2

Lame’s constant λ = ρ( Cp2 - 2Cs2 )

Where CP and CS are compressional and

shear velocities respectively
The bulk modulus (K or B) of a substance is a measure of how
resistant to compression that substance is. It is defined as the ratio of
the infinitesimal pressure increase to the resulting relative decrease
of the volume.
Components affecting formation stresses
The virgin stress state (primary stress state) in the earth’s crust is
predominantly produced or influenced by the following components:
▪ Tectonic forces (plate tectonics).
▪ Gravitational forces.
▪ Topography.
▪ Residual stresses (e.g. overconsolidation).
▪ Thermal stresses.
▪ Induced stresses due to inhomogeneities and anisotropies.
▪ Swelling pressures.
▪ Water pressures
The important of formation stresses
Formation stresses play an important role in geophysical prospecting
and development of oil and gas reservoirs. The direction and
magnitude of these stresses are required in:

(1)Planning for borehole stability during directional drilling.

(2)Hydraulic fracturing for enhanced production.

(3)Selective perforation for prevention of sanding during production.

Principal Stresses
σ1, σ2 and σ3 are called principal stresses. Therefore, the complete
stress state is given by either the 9 or 6 (in case of equivalent shear
stresses according to the Boltzmann axiom) elements of the stress
tensor or the 3 principal stresses and the corresponding orientations.
Often, in a simplified manner the stress field is expressed by a
vertical principal stress component (SV) and quasi-horizontal major
(SH) and minor (Sh) principal stress components. In most cases, at
least at greater depths, the vertical stress component corresponds to
the overburden weight of the overlying rock masses:
The formation stress state is characterized by the magnitude and
direction of the three principal stresses. Generally, the overburden
stress yields the principal stress in the vertical direction. The
overburden stress Sv is reliably obtained by integrating the
formation mass density from the surface to the depth of interest.
Consequently, estimating the other two principal stresses (SHmax
and Shmin) in the horizontal plane is the remaining task necessary to
fully characterize the formation stress state.
Horizontal Stresses Magnitude Estimation
In an isotropic and tectonic relaxed area such as the red sea, the
minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are about the same in
magnitude. Typically the horizontal stresses are not equal where
major faults or active tectonics exist. Of the two stresses, the
minimum horizontal stress is more straightforward to determine
and, with proper measurements, reasonable accuracy can be
obtained. The maximum horizontal stress can be more difficult to
determine. Because no direct measurement is available, one can only
estimate its magnitude from modelling. It can be seen that the
predominant fault regime in the area of interest is normal fault stress
regime (the overburden stress is the maximum in-situ stress and the
minimum horizontal stress is the minimum in-situ)
Stress Direction
Stress direction analysis is an important part of geomechanical
analysis. Available wireline methods for identifying stress direction
include borehole breakout orientation (image and caliper logs),
hydraulic fracture orientation and shear sonic anisotropy
Compressional and Tensile Wellbore Failure
Determined the Maximum Stress Direction
Natural Fractures, Drilling Induced Fractures and
Drilling Enhanced Fractures
Drilling induced tensile fracture
Tensile Fractures in Vertical Wells Generally Imply a
Strike-Slip Faulting Environment
Tectonic setting
• Tectonic setting in the region can affect relationship of the stresses
of the earth according to the fault regime in the region; the stresses
differ in magnitude in case of normal fault regime than reverse
fault regime than strike slip fault regime.

• The Pore Pressure supports a portion of the total applied stress in

a rock and the mechanisms that cause the overpressure which
could be loading, unloading and uplift mechanisms.
Anderson Classification of Relative Stress Magnitudes
Shmax direction in VISUNED FIELD
The regional Maximum Horizontal Stress orientation
from World stress map (WSM)
• The World Stress Map (WSM) is the global compilation of
information on the present-day tectonic stress field in the Earth's
crust. It is a collaborative project of university, industry and
governmental organizations that aims at understanding the sources
of stress in the Earth's crust.
• The project was initiated in 1986 under the auspices of the
International Lithosphere Program under the leadership of Mary
Lou Zoback. Since 1995 the WSM is a research project of the
Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and is located at
the Geophysical Institute of the University of Karlsruhe in
Germany.
The WSM database release contains 13,853 data sets derived from a
wide range of shallow to deep stress indicators, including earthquake
focal mechanism solutions, well bore breakouts, drilling-induced
fractures, hydraulic fracturing, strain relief measurements, and
young (Quaternary) geological indicators. To integrate stress data
from different sources into one common database, standardized
quality-ranking procedures have been developed for all stress
indicators. This quality ranking guarantees reliability and global
comparability of the stress data.
• The WSM is now a key resource for scientists and engineers in
both university and industry useful for understanding geodynamic
processes, assessing seismic hazards and the stability of tunnels,
and also for improving hydrocarbon production, safe subsurface
disposal of waste and greenhouse gases, as well as geothermal
power production.
• Further detailed information is available at http://www.world-
stress-map.org. The WSM web site also includes regional stress
maps, software, stress interpretation guidelines.
The world stress maps display the orientations of the maximum
horizontal compressive stress SH. The length of the stress symbols
represents the data quality, orientations of each stress record is
assigned a quality between A and E, with A being the highest quality
and E the lowest. A-quality data indicate the maximum horizontal
stress orientation (SHG) to be accurate to within ± 15°, B-quality
data accurate to within ± 20°, C-quality to within ± 25°, and D-
quality to within ± 40°. E-quality indicates data with insufficient or
widely scattered stress information (Zoback, 1992; Sperner et al.,
2003.
For the visualization of the WSM database the orientation of
maximum horizontal compressional stress is displayed in stress
maps. Data selected for the World map are from the WSM 2005
release from all depth (0-40 km) and all A-C quality data records
except single focal mechanism solutions labelled in the database as
Possible Plate Boundary events (PBE) or within 200 km distance to
oceanic spreading ridges. The tectonic regimes are NF for normal
faulting, SS for strike-slip faulting, TF for thrust faulting, and U for
an unknown regime.
Fracture Gradient
Minimum Stress Method (Long Cracks)
Minimum stress methods assume significant mud losses will occur
when the wellbore pressure equals the minimum in-situ stress and
considers the near wellbore effects negligible, which is what would be
expected with longer cracks.
The minimum stress methods developed by Hubbert and Willis
(1957), Matthews and Kelly (1967), Pennebaker (1968), Eaton (1969),
and others are based on the following equation attributed to Hubbert
and Willis (1957).
Hubbert and Willis minimum stress
FG=K∙(OBG-PPG)+PPG
Where:
FG = Fracture gradient
OBG = Overburden gradient
PPG = Pore pressure gradient
K = Effective stress ratio, also termed the matrix stress coefficient
Differences among the methods are due to the way the effective
stress ratio is determined. K can be locally calibrated with fracture
gradients measured in leak-off tests using the relation:
Effective stress calibrated with fracture gradient
K=((FG-PPG)/(OBG-PPG))
Poro-Elasitc Model for Minimum Horizontal Stress
The Poro-Elastic Horizontal Strain model (Fjaer et al, 1992) was
used to model the magnitudes of the minimum and stresses in this
study: Poro-Elasitc Model for Minimum Horizontal Stress Equation
𝜎ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑛= 𝜈1−𝜈 𝜎𝑣+1−2𝜈1−𝜈 𝛼𝑃𝑝+𝑌𝑀𝑠1−𝜈2𝜀𝑥+ 𝜈 𝑌𝑀𝑠1−𝜈2𝜀𝑦
The maximum horizontal stress is estimated to be factor of the
minimum horizontal stress by 110 percent. The values are then
calibrated to the actual wellbore failure in the main offset wells and
it is found that it matches the calliper.
Minimum horizontal stress at a depth can be directly estimated from
extended leak-off test (ELOT) or appropriately conducted leak-off
test (LOT) or mini-fracs with a wireline tool (Desroches J. et al., 1990
and Carnegie A. et al., 2002).
Mohr-Coloumb purely frictional failure model
This model predicts the magnitude of the least principal stress
required. It is appropriate for high porosity, high permeability
sandstones. The following formula is used in the calculation. The
calibration factor is an experimental constant

Where
FA is friction angle.
Pp is pore pressure.
Sy is vertical stress.
Poro-elastic model
• This model uses the rock’s elastic properties, Young’s Modulus and
Poisson’s Ratio (‘real’ PR), to predict the magnitude of the
minimum horizontal stress. Calibration factors eh and eH are the
primary calibration factors. This model is appropriate where
compressive tectonic stresses occur and can account for lithology-
dependent variations in stress.
• These models should be calibrated to measurements of minimum
stress, which can be estimated from the fracture closure pressure
in Leak Off Tests (LOTs) and loss events, or from hydraulic mini-
fracture tests.
Definitions
Leak-Off Test (LOT)
Leakoff tests (LOTs) are performed to test the strength or pressure
containment of the shoe after a cement job to help ensure that the
new hole has been securely isolated from what has been cased off. A
successful LOT can also be used to calibrate the least principal stress
(many times, in the case of a vertical well, the minimum horizontal
stress), or for geomechanics modeling. This will require initiating a
fracture at the wellbore. Because of the near-wellbore stress
concentration, for the purpose of geomechanics calibration, it is
preferred to take the leakoff to the far-field stress region. To perform
this extended LOT (XLOT), a relatively long fracture has to be
created.
A Formation Integrity Test (FIT)

A Formation Integrity Test (FIT) is a test of the strength and

integrity of a new formation and it is the first step after drilling a
casing shoe track. An accurate evaluation of a casing cement job and
of the formation is extremely important during the drilling of a well
and for subsequent work. [1] The Information resulting from
Formation Integrity Tests (FIT) is used throughout the life of the well
and also for nearby wells. Casing depths, well control options,
formation fracture pressures, and limiting fluid weights may be
based on this information.
Leak Off Test (LOT) guide line procedures
You may need to follow your standard procedure in order to perform
leak off test):
1. Drill out new formation few feet, circulate bottom up and collect
sample to confirm that new formation is drilled to and then pull
string into the casing.
2. Close annular preventer or pipe rams, line up a pump, normally a
cement pump, and circulate through an open choke line to
ensure that surface line is fully filled with drilling fluid.
3. Stop the pump and close a choke valve.
4. Gradually pump small amount of drilling fluid into well with
constant pump stroke. Record total pump strokes, drill pipe pressure
and casing pressure. Drill pipe pressure and casing pressure will be
increased continually while pumping mud in hole. When plot a graph
between strokes pumped and pressure, if formation is not broken, a
graph will demonstrate straight line relationship. When pressure
exceeds formation strength, formation will be broken and let drilling
fluid permeate into formation, therefore a trend of drill pipe/casing
pressure will deviate from straight line that mean formation is
broken and is injected by drilling fluid. We may call pressure when
deviated from straight line as leak off test pressure.
5. Bleed off pressure and open up the well. Then proceed drilling
operation.
Pressure–time response of field
injectivity test. FIT formation
integrity test, LOT leak-off test,
XLOT extended leak-off test,
PIFB pump-in and flow-back
test, LOP leak-off pressure, FIP
fracture initiation pressure,
FBP formation breakdown
pressure, FPP fracture
propagation pressure, ISIP
instantaneous shut-in pressure,
FCP fracture closure pressure
Estimating the Value of the
Maximum Horizontal Stress
The value of the maximum horizontal stress (SHG) is required for
wellbore stability analyses. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured
directly and can only be estimated based on other data, such as the
tectonic regime, the magnitude of the minimum stress, and/or
geological province. Alternatively, using Geostress software, SHG
can be back-calculated from known shear failure events where rock
strength is well constrained.
• A maximum horizontal stress dataset can be generated within the
Geostress application as a ratio of the difference between the
minimum stress (ShG) and the overburden gradient (OBG), using
a horizontal stress increment factor, tf. A tf value of 0.5 represents
that the SHG is intermediate between the values of the ShG and
the OBG; a tf value of 1.2 represents that the SHG exceeds the
overburden gradient.
• Generated by the Predict application where SHG is related to ShG
by a tectonic factor. This method is relevant in cases where ShG =
OBG < SHG.
Can be generated by the Predict application using Barton’s equation
and the breakout angle.
The method generally known as Barton’s equation was published by
C.A. Barton, M.D. Zoback and K.L. Burnes in "In-situ stress
orientation and magnitude at the Fenton geothermal site, New
Mexico, determined from wellbore breakouts." Geophys Res Lett,
1988.
Where
• 2Ɵ =Л-Wbo
• Wbo is the breakout angle
• SH is Maximum Horizontal Stress
• Sh is Minimum Horizontal Stress
• Pp is Pore Pressure
• ∆P = Pm-Pp where Pm is the mud pressure
• Ỽ∆t is the thermal stress which is assumed as zero in this SH
calculation.
Rock Failure
• The wellbore stability application focuses on the use of a relevant
failure model to minimize the potential for stress related wellbore
failures by predicting stable mud windows, defining stable wellbore
trajectories, and selecting optimal casing points. A detailed
knowledge of formation stresses also helps us manage reservoirs
that are prone to subsidence caused by a significant reduction in
pore pressure and an associated increase in the effective stress that
exceeds the in situ rock strength.
• In addition, the magnitude and orientation of the in situ stresses in
a given field have a significant influence on permeability
distribution that can influence planning of wellbore trajectories
and injection schemes for water or steam flooding.
Analyzing 4-Arm Caliper Log
Analysing 4-Arm Calliper Log
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
The general mathematical formula for the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion is

where smax and smin are the maximum and minimum principal
effective stresses and Ф, the friction angle and CS, the cohesive
strength, are parameters that describe how the rock strength
varies with its stress conditions.
Stress considerations
In the case of wellbore stability, the radial stress is one principal
stress while the other two principal stresses are normal to the radial
stress, and hence are tangential to the wellbore wall. While there are
six possible failure modes in general, only two are of practical
importance to wellbore stability. These are when the radial stress is
the minimum or when the tangential principal stresses are both the
maximum and minimum.
Data sources
Values of CS and Ф can be determined in special laboratory tests,
estimated from index tests, estimated from correlations with, for
example, sonic velocity to strength, or back-calculated from known
shear failure events. The latter method is preferred since the
elastic/brittle analysis used in wellbore stability analysis is an
approximation of real rock behavior. Note that the values of CS and
Ф that are determined by back analyses will be different for the
different failure criteria. In addition, values of CS, given Ф can be
deduced from tensile strength (TS) and Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests. However caution is encouraged when using
these test results on shale samples because the interpretation of these
tests assumes that pore pressures are zero during the test.
Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelop
For a given rock, friction angle is the angle on the graph of the shear
stress and normal effective stress at which shear failure occurs. This
property is one of the two parameters defining the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criteria, the second one being cohesion. Friction angle
determines the strength increase a material exhibits under confined
loading conditions. Friction angle in sedimentary rocks is a function
of porosity and clay content. Higher friction angles are found in
formations with low porosities and low clay contents. It typically
varies between 20 degrees and 40 degrees. Friction angle can be
determined in the laboratory by tri-axial compression tests.
Mohr-Coloumb pre-existing failure model
This model uses principles of fault mechanics to predict the
magnitude of the least principal stress allowing slip on critically
oriented planar surfaces. As such this model provides the lowest
bound on the likely regional minimum principal stress. The
frictional model requires a friction angle dataset. This model then
needs to be calibrated to measurements of minimum stress from
LOTs.
Modified Lade Failure Criterion
The general mathematical formula for the Modified Lade failure
criterion is as follows:

Where H and K are material properties which can be related to the

Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters cohesive strength (CS) and
friction angle (f), m is the mean effective stress and where S'L is the
modified Lade shear stress invariant.
These latter two parameters are defined below:
Where I'3 is the third invariant of the modified effective stress and is
I'3 = s'1, s'2, s'3 (in terms of principal stress).
The constants H and K are defined in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb
strength parameters cohesive strength (CS) and friction angle (f) as
follows:

This criteria is expressed in terms of modified Lade shear stresses.

Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion
The general mathematical formula for the Drucker-Prager failure
criterion is:
where M and N are material properties, which can be related to the
Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters, CS (cohesive strength) and f
(the friction angle), sm is the mean effective stress, and J2 is the
second invariant of the deviatoric stresses. These latter two
parameters are defined below:

Where, si, sj and sk are the three normal stresses and sij, sik, and
sjk are the three shear stresses. If the normal stresses are principal
stresses, then the shear stresses are zero.
The constants M and N are defined in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb
parameters, CS and f, as follows:
Any Questions

Thank you