Advertisement

A New Analytical Model to Evaluate Uncertainty of Wellbore Collapse Pressure Based on Advantageous Synergies of Different Strength Criteria

  • Lisong ZhangEmail author
  • Yinghui Bian
  • Shiyan Zhang
  • Yifei YanEmail author
Original Paper
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Considering the uncertainties of rock mechanical parameters, formation pressure and in situ stresses, the uncertainty of the wellbore collapse pressure should be evaluated. Before the uncertainty of evaluation, the collapse pressure model needs to be selected reasonably. In this paper, a new model was proposed to evaluate the collapse pressure, considering the advantageous synergies of different strength criteria. Especially, weight coefficients were introduced to represent the effect of different strength criteria on the collapse pressure, and were calculated by analytic hierarchy process. Then, an analytical method was proposed to address the uncertainty of the collapse pressure based on improved Rosenbluthe method, considering the new collapse pressure model. By means of the analytical method, the collapse pressure was obtained as the probability distribution under the condition that the uncertainties of input parameters were quantified based on well log data. More importantly, the analytical method was validated by Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that the probability distribution agrees very well between the analytical method and Monte Carlo simulation. Note that, the new collapse pressure model has the best matching for the probability distribution desired, which can be treated as the advantageous synergies of the new collapse pressure model.

Keywords

Wellbore collapse pressure Uncertainty Probability distribution Analytical method Advantageous synergies 

List of symbols

\(A\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle and the cohesion in Modified Lade criterion

\({A_1}\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle and the cohesion in Mogi-Coulomb criterion

\(B\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle in Modified Lade criterion

\({B_1}\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle in Mogi-Coulomb criterion

\(c\)

Cohesion

\({E_{\text{s}}}\)

The static elastic module

\(g\)

The gravitational acceleration

\({I_1}\)

The first stress invariant

\({J_2}\)

The second deviatoric stress invariant

\(m\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle

\(k\)

Coefficient related to the internal friction angle and the cohesion

\({P_0}\)

The drilling fluid pressure

\({P_{\text{p}}}\)

The formation pressure

\(P_{{\text{p}}}^{0}\)

The hydrostatic pressure

\(x\)

The exponent constant

\({y^*}\)

Coefficient used in improved Rosenbluthe method

\(y_{{^{i}}}^{+}\)

Coefficient used in improved Rosenbluthe method

\(y_{{^{i}}}^{ - }\)

Coefficient used in improved Rosenbluthe method

\(z\)

Depth

\(\alpha\)

Biot’s coefficient

\(\Delta {t_{{\text{c\_measured}}}}\)

The measured compressive sonic transit time by well logging

\(\Delta {t_{{\text{c\_normal}}}}\)

The normal compressive sonic transit time in shale obtained from normal trend line

\({\varepsilon _x}\)

The tectonic strain along the horizontal maximum stress direction

\({\varepsilon _y}\)

The tectonic strains along the horizontal minimum stress direction

\({\eta _1}\)

Weight coefficient, representing the effect of Mohr–Coulomb criterion on the collapse pressure

\({\eta _2}\)

Weight coefficient, representing the effect of Drucker–Prager criterion on the collapse pressure

\({\eta _3}\)

Weight coefficient, representing the effect of modified Lade criterion on the collapse pressure

\({\eta _4}\)

Weight coefficient, representing the effect of Mogi–Coulomb criterion on the collapse pressure

\({\nu _{\text{s}}}\)

The static Poisson’s ratio

\(\rho\)

The bulk density

\({\sigma _{\text{H}}}\)

The horizontal maximum in situ stress

\({\sigma _{\text{h}}}\)

The horizontal minimum in situ stress

\({\sigma _{\text{v}}}\)

The vertical minimum in situ stress

\(\sigma _{r}^{\prime }\)

The radial effective stress

\(\sigma _{\theta }^{\prime }\)

The hoop effective stress

\(\sigma _{z}^{\prime }\)

The vertical effective stress

\(\varphi\)

The internal friction angle

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very much indebted to the Projects Supported by PetroChina Innovation Foundation (2018D-5007-0309), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (16CX02036A), and Applied Basic Research of Qindao (15-9-1-71-jch) for the financial support.

References

  1. Aadnoy BS, Chenevert ME (1987) Stability of highly inclined boreholes. SPE Drill Eng 2(4):364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aadnøy BS (2011) Quality assurance of wellbore stability analyses. Paper SPE/IADC 140205. In: Presented at the SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition, Amsterdam, 1–3 MarGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Ajmi AM, Al-Harthy MH (2010) Probabilistic wellbore collapse analysis. J Pet Sci Eng 74:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW (2005) Relationship between the parameters of the Mogi and Coulomb failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW (2006) Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using the Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:1200–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 74(8):312–320Google Scholar
  7. Blanton TL, Olson JE (1997) Stress magnitudes from logs: effects of tectonic strains and temperature. In: Paper presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley WB (1979a) Mathematical concept-stress cloud can predict borehole failure. Oil Gas J 77(8):92–101Google Scholar
  9. Bradley WB (1979b) Failure of inclined boreholes. J Energy Resour Technol Trans ASME 101:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai M (2010) Practical estimates of tensile strength and Hoek–Brown strength parameter m i of brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter BJ, Scott Duncan EJ, Lajtai EZ (1991) Fitting strength criteria to intact rock. Geotech Geol Eng 9(1):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colmenares LB, Zoback MD (2002) A statistical evaluation of intact rock failure criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for five different rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):695–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cui WC, Xu XD, Qiu Q (1998) A fast method to calculate the mean and the standard deviation of the function of random variable. J Ship Mech 2(6):50–60Google Scholar
  14. De Fontoura SAB, Holzberg BB, Teixeira EC, Frydman M (2002) Probabilistic analysis of wellbore stability during drilling. Paper SPE/ISRM 78179. In: Presented at the SPE/ISRM rock mechanics conference, Irving, 20–23 OctGoogle Scholar
  15. Desai CS, Salami MR (1987) A constitutive model and associated testing for soft rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 24(5):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drucker DC, PragerW (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl Math 10:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumans CFF (1995) Quantification of the effect of uncertainties on the reliability of wellbore stability model predictions. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  18. Eaton BA (1975) The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs, Paper SPE5544. In: Fall meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 28 September–1 October. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewy RT (1999) Wellbore-stability predictions by use of a modified Lade criterion. SPE Drill Complet 14:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gholami R, Moradzadeha A, Rasoulib V, Hanachica J (2014) Practical application of failure criteria in determining safe mud weight windows in drilling operations. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gholami R, Rabiei M, Rasouli V, Aadnoy B, Fakhari N (2015) Application of quantitative risk assessment in wellbore stability analysis. J Pet Sci Eng 135:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng Div 106:1013–1035Google Scholar
  23. Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates or rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoek E, Franklin JA (1968) Simple triaxial cell for field or laboratory testing of rock. Trans Inst Min Metall 77:483–489Google Scholar
  25. Horsrud P (2001) Estimating mechanical properties of shale from empirical correlations. SPE Drill Complet 16:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lade P, Duncan J (1975) Elastoplastic stress–strain theory for cohesionless soil. J Geotech Eng ASCE 101(10):1037–1053Google Scholar
  27. Lee YK, Pietruszczak S, Choi BH (2012) Failure criteria for rocks based on smooth approximations to Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown failure functions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 56:146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liang QJ (2002) Application of quantitative risk analysis to pore pressure and fracture gradient prediction. Paper SPE 77354. In: Presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, 29 Sept–2 OctCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu M, Gao Y, Liu H (2012) A nonlinear Drucker–Prager and Matsuoka–Nakai unified failure criterion for geomaterials with separated stress invariants. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 50:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luis AM, Vargas J, Vaz LE, Gonçalvesc CJ (2009) Borehole stability analysis considering spatial variability and poroelastoplasticity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(1):90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maleki S, Gholami R, Rasouli V, Moradzadeh A, Riabi RG, Sadaghzadeh F (2014) Comparison of different failure criteria in prediction of safe mud weigh window in drilling practice. Earth Sci Rev 136:36–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manohar L (1999) Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction and shale strength. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering conference, CaracasGoogle Scholar
  33. McLean M, Addis MA (1990) Wellbore stability: the effect of strength criteria on mud weight recommendations. In: 65th annual technical conference and exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  34. Mogi K (1967) Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure. J Geophys Res 72(20):5117–5131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J Geophys Res 76(5):1255–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohr O (1900) Welcheumstande bedingendieelastizita tsgrenze unddenbruch eines materials? VDI-Z 44:1524Google Scholar
  37. Moos D, Peska P, Finkbeiner T, Zoback M (2003) Comprehensive wellbore stability analysis utilizing quantitative risk assessment. J Pet Sci Eng 38(3–4):97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morita N (1995) Uncertainty analysis of borehole stability problems. Paper SPE 30502. In: Presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 OctGoogle Scholar
  39. Mostafavi V, Aadnoy BS, Hareland G (2011) Model-based uncertainty assessment of wellbore stability analyses and downhole pressure estimations. In: Proceedings of the 45th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, ARMA 11–127, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  40. Niño FAP (2016) Wellbore stability analysis based on sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Paper SPE-184480-STU. In: Presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dubai, 26–28 SeptGoogle Scholar
  41. Ottesen S, Zheng RH, McCann RC (1999) Borehole stability assessment using quantitative risk analysis. Paper SPE/IADC52864. In: Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 9–11 MarGoogle Scholar
  42. Pan XD, Hudson JA (1988) A simplified three dimensional Hoek–Brown yield criterion. In: Romana M (ed) Rock mechanics and power, plants. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 95–103Google Scholar
  43. Priest SD (2005) Determination of shear strength and three-dimensional yield strength for the Hoek–Brown yield criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):299–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenblueth E (1985) On computing normal reliabilities. Struct Saf 2(3):165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheng Y, Reddish D, Lu Z (2006) Assessment of uncertainties in wellbore stability analysis. In: Modern trends in geomechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Song I, Haimson BC (1997) Polyaxial strength criteria and their use in estimating in situ stress magnitudes from borehole breakout dimensions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Udegbunam JE, Aadnøy BS, Fjelde KK (2014) Uncertainty evaluation of wellbore stability model predictions. J Pet Sci Eng 124:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiebols GA, Cook NGW (1968) An energy criterion for the strength of rock in polyaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 5(6):529–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yi X, Ong S, Russell JE (2006) Quantifying the effect of rock strength criteria on minimum drilling mud weight prediction using polyaxial rock strength test data. Int J Geomech 6(4):260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. You MQ (2009) True-triaxial strength criteria for rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yudhbir RK, Lemanza W, Prinzl F (1983) An empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In: Proceedings of the 5th ISRM congress, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp B1–B8Google Scholar
  52. Zhang JC (2013) Borehole stability analysis accounting for anisotropies in drilling to weak bedding planes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:160–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang L, Radha KC (2010) Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using a three dimensional Hoek Brown strength criterion. In: Proceedings of the GeoFlorida, West Palm BeachCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang L, Zhu H (2007) Three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criterion for rocks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(9):1128–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang L, Cao P, Radha KC (2010) Evaluation of rock strength criteria for wellbore stability analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:1304–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang LS, Yan XZ, Yang XJ, Tian ZL, Yang HL (2015a) An elastoplastic model of collapse pressure for deep coal seam drilling based on Hoek–Brown criterion related to drilling fluid loss to reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 134:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang LS, Yan XZ, Yang XJ, Zhao XB (2015b) An analytical model of coal wellbore stability based on block limit equilibrium considering irregular distribution of cleats. Int J Coal Geol 152:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zoback MD (2010) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Pipeline and Civil EngineeringChina University of PetroleumQingdaoChina
  2. 2.College of Electronic Engineering and AutomationShandong University of Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina
  3. 3.College of Mechanical and Electronic EngineeringChina University of PetroleumQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations