SPE 103159
Modeling Transient Thermo-Poroelastic Effects on 3D Wellbore Stability
H.S. Farahani, SPE, M. Yu, SPE, S. Miska, SPE, and N. Takach, SPE, U. of Tulsa, and G. Chen, SPE,
Chevron Energy Technology Co.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The temperature difference between the wellbore drilling mud
and the formation, especially in deep wells, causes volumetric
expansion of pore fluid and rock matrix. Most existing models
ignore the effect of convective heat transfer, which is a valid
assumption for low permeability formations such as shales.
However, convection plays an important role in controlling
wellbore stability in high permeability formations such as
sandstones.
A 3-D thermo-poroelastic model that accounts for the
effect of convective heat transfer is developed in this study.
Transient coupled pore pressure and temperature equations for
non-isothermal conditions are developed based on
conservation laws.
Thermal effects are generated by the temperature
imbalance between the drilling fluid and drilled formations,
and increase as the temperature imbalance increases. Cooling
the formation is found to be helpful in lowering collapse
pressure, resulting in a more stable borehole. However, it is
also found that a formation is more vulnerable to fracture
because cooling also lowers the breakdown pressure. A higher
mud weight is required to fracture the formation when hot
drilling fluid is used because hotter fluids increase the
breakdown pressure. Also, a higher mud density is needed to
prevent a wellbore from collapsing when a hotter fluid is being
circulated through it.
The model presented in this study is useful for wellbore
stability analysis for deep wells and deep water applications
where mud temperature varies significantly along the well
path.
Introduction
The technology of drilling deeper, deviated and horizontal
wells has been growing rapidly in recent years. Some of the
benefits of drilling such wells are lower development costs
and faster production rates. However, these wells demand
operating under high pressure and temperature conditions and
as a result generate increased wellbore stability problems. In
order to control the instability one needs to understand the
behavior of rock around the wellbore. The behavior of the
rock is defined by the state of stresses and material properties.
Material properties are usually considered to be constants of
the rock character for the purpose of wellbore stability
analysis. It is the state of the stresses that is responsible for
extreme variance in rock behavior. Pressure and temperature
contribute to the state of the stresses.
There are three major mechanisms that affect the state of
the stresses in the rock formation around the wellbore:
mechanical, thermal and chemical effects. Drilling a well
causes a stress concentration at the wall of the wellbore as a
result of replacing the drilled-out rock with a drilling fluid of
different density from that of the original rock. Inclination
from vertical and deviation from the direction of the maximum
horizontal stress result in additional stresses around the
wellbore. The redistributed stresses are the tangential stress,
the radial stress, the axial stress, and shear components
generated in deviated wells.
The formation around a wellbore is considered to be a
porous medium saturated with pore fluid. The effect of the
pores should also be considered in analyzing the behavior of
the rock around the wellbore. For this purpose, the concept of
effective stress was introduced1 and is defined as the overall
effects of normal stresses and pore pressure. Pore pressure
changes will contribute to the state of the effective stresses by
two mechanisms: i) redistribution of the pressure profile; and
ii) additional stresses on the matrix. Pore pressure changes
occur as a result of hydraulic diffusion of the drilling fluid into
the formation, chemical effects and thermal effects.
In shale formations there is additional pore pressure
changes caused by a chemical potential difference between the
drilling fluid and the shale pore fluid. The chemical potential
difference will cause fluid flow into or out of the formation
and results in pore pressure changes that are coupled with
hydraulic fluid flow. Chemical effects have been studied by
Dokhami2 and Yu et al. 3, 4
Drilling mud pumped down hole through tubing and up to
the surface through the annulus has a different temperature
than the geothermal temperature of the formation, especially
in offshore operations. Mud is colder than the formation at the
bottom of the hole right after contacting the formation and
becomes hotter due to contact with the formation as it rises in
the annulus. Then it starts to become hotter than the formation
as the geothermal gradient of the formation decreases.
2 SPE 103159
Therefore drilling mud has a cooling effect below the neutral
point and heating effect above it. The temperature difference
between the drilling fluid and the formation induces a
temperature profile in the formation.
A temperature profile affects wellbore stability by two
mechanisms. Firstly, induced thermal stresses alter the stress
distribution around the wellbore. Secondly, temperature
changes affect the pore pressure profile, which in turn is
coupled with deformation.
Usually, mechanical, thermal and chemical effects reduce
the mechanical strength of the formation and ultimately may
result in compressive or tensile failure of the formation.
Compressive failure (also known as shear failure or breakout)
is caused by insufficient wellbore fluid pressure and tensile
fracture is caused by excessive pressure of the drilling fluid.
The most common problems associated with wellbore failure
are borehole collapse, stuck pipe, lost circulation, poor cement
job, poor hole cleaning and cuttings transport, unwanted
fracture of the formation, oversized or shrunken hole, etc.
Kurashige5 developed a thermoporoelastic model by
incorporating heat transfer into the modified Biots theory.6
Kurashiges model has been modified and implemented in
most wellbore stability studies. However, this model seems to
overpredict the effect of temperature changes on pore
pressure. The unrealistic pore pressure predictions of this
model could be because of excessive simplifications and its
high level of dependence on material properties that are
difficult to measure. Furthermore, most existing wellbore
stability models assume that heat transfer from the wellbore to
the formation is caused solely by conduction, ignoring the
effect of convective heat transfer from fluid flow.7 This
assumption is indeed valid in low permeability shale
formations. However, in mid- or high permeability formations
(such as sandstone), the effect of convection could be
significant. A well path may go through formations with
different permeability properties. Therefore, there is a need to
develop a general thermoporoelastic model that accounts for
the effect of convective heat transfer and is valid for
formations with variable permeability values.
With regard to these points a new approach is used here to
derive coupled pressure temperature equations that include a
convective effect. This model makes use of conservation laws
along with transport laws. Temperature and pressure are
coupled through a pressure-temperature dependant density
equation, and unnecessary simplifications are avoided as a
result.
In this paper, governing equations for the pressure and
temperature profile are obtained first by following
conservation laws. Next, a pressure-temperature dependent
density equation is presented and implemented into the
governing equations to obtain the coupled equations.
Boundary and initial conditions are also discussed. A
numerical method to solve the coupled equations and a
procedure to calculate induced stresses due to temperature
differentiation are presented. Finally, the effects of
temperature and pressure changes on wellbore stability are
demonstrated in the results of a simulator developed in this
study.
Thermo-Poroelastic Model
The phenomenon of heat flow into fluid-saturated porous
media around the wellbore is coupled with fluid flow and
matrix deformation. Bai and Abousleiman8 demonstrated
responses of fluid flow and heat transfer for a deformable
formation in a triangle-chain fashion. Changes in solid body
strain, pore pressure, or temperature may result in the
corresponding unequilibrium of mass, momentum and energy
systems.
A fully-coupled, thermo-poro-elastic coupling should be
applied to study this complex interaction. By applying the
assumption of strong incompressible pore structure, the
mechanical effect can be decoupled from the equilibrium
triangle. Behavior of a fluid-saturated porous media subjected
to thermal and hydraulic diffusion can be studied under the
boundary conditions and the formations characteristics.
Heat transfer between the wellbore and the formation
depends on the boundary conditions. Specifically, in the case
of a permeable wall, both convection and conduction can
cause heat transfer into the surroundings. In low permeability
formations, like shale, conduction is the dominant mechanism,
while in high permeability formations convection has
considerable impact. In impermeable wall conditions, there is
no fluid flow into the formation and heat diffusion is only due
to conduction. Pore pressure changes depend on thermal
diffusion only in impermeable wall conditions, whereas it is
dependant on both thermal and hydraulic diffusion in the case
of a permeable boundary. In low permeability formations,
thermal diffusion is generally much faster than hydraulic
diffusion and the former dominates the pore pressure and
stress changes.
Equation of Continuity
Assuming a stationary volume element as shown in Fig. 1
through which fluid is flowing, mass balance can be written
as:
D
= (.vi ) ,......(1)
Dt
Equation of Motion
For a volume element such as that shown in Fig. 2, the
momentum balance may be written in the following form
vi = (.vi v j ) P (. ij ) + g i ,.........(2)
t
The left side of Eq. 2 indicates the rate of increase of
momentum. The first term on the right side stands for the rate
of momentum gain by convection. The second term on the
right side represents the pressure force on the element. The
third term is the rate of momentum gain by viscous force. The
last term is the gravitational force the element. Eq. 2 may be
rearranged with the help of the equation of continuity to
obtain:
Dvi
= P (. ij ) + g i ,...(3)
Dt
SPE 103159 3

Equation of Energy P KT
Consider a stationary unit volume element, Fig. 2, through = (v m )( ) = m K T ,...(11)
which a pure fluid is flowing, and then we write the law of T V v
conservation of energy for the fluid contained in this volume
at any given time as: Where m is Thermal Expansion Coefficient, and K T is
Rate of accumulation of internal and kinetic energy = Rate Isothermal Bulk Modulus. Writing Eq. 8 in a cylindrical
of internal and kinetic energy in by convection - Rate of coordinate system after substituting Eq. 11 into it and
internal and kinetic energy out by convection + Net rate of dropping the viscous term yields:
heat addition by conduction - Net rate of work done by system
T T 1
on surroundings,.(4)
Eq. 4 includes kinetic energy which is interpreted as
CV + vr = (rqr )
t r r r
energy associated with the fluid flow. Unsteady behavior is
also allowed in the equation. This equation may be written
1
mathematically as: T m K T (rvr ) ,.(12)
r r
1 1
(U + v 2 ) = [.vi (U + v 2 )] (.qi ) Conductive heat transfer qr is given by Fouriers law as:
t 2 2
T
+ (vi .g i ) (.Pvi ) [.( ij.vi )] ,.......(5) qr = K ,......(13)
r
After rearrangement, Upon rearranging Eq. 12 after substituting Eq. 13 into it,
following equation is obtained:
DU
= (.qi ) P (.vi ) ( ij : vi ) ,..(6)
Dt T K 2 T 1 T T K T v v
= + vr T r + r
Internal energy may be considered as a function of volume t CV r 2
r r r CV r r
and temperature,
( A) (B ) (C )
U U ..(14)
dU = dV + dT ,..(7)
V T T V
where,
A: Heat conducted to the formation
By substituting Eq. 7 into Eq. 6 the following equation of B: Heat added by convection
energy in terms of temperature (T) is obtained, C: Heat added to the formation as the result of fluid flux
DT P
C v = (.qi ) T (.vi ) ( ij : vi ) , The term vr can be interpreted as volumetric fluid flux into
Dt T V the formation, which is a function of pressure gradient based
....(8) on Darcys law. Fluid flux and pressure gradient are related by
coefficient K1 as follows:
This equation states that the temperature of a moving fluid
changes because of heat conduction, expansion effects and P
vr = K1 ,.....(15)
viscous heating. The term ( ij : vi ) is called the viscous r
dissipation effect and can be ignored for the purpose of this Coefficient K1 has the dimension of L3tm and reflects the
study. By assuming a constant volume for the element through effect of permeability, porosity and viscosity. Substituting
which fluid is passing, the effects of temperature changes on Eqs. 13, 14, and 15 into Eq. 12 will give us one of the coupled
pressure can be expressed as material constants, bulk modulus equations as:
and thermal expansion. If
T K 2T 1 T
V V = +
dV = dT + dP = 0 ,...(9) t CV r 2 r r
T P P T
then,
P T m K T 2 P 1 P
+ K1 + T + ,.....(16)
P V P r r CV r 2 r r
= ,...(10)
T V T P V T
For impermeable formations the hydraulic conductivity K1
takes the value of zero and the temperature will be due solely
or to heat conduction.

Temperature-Pressure Dependent Density

Following the method developed by Eirik Karstad et al.,9 a
relationship for density as a function of both pressure and
4 SPE 103159

temperature is presented in this section. The detailed (rw , t ) = w ..(20e)

mathematical derivation can be found in Reference 9. The
resultant equation of state is given by:
(r , t ) = 0 ...(20f)
= 0 [1 + P (P P0 ) + T (T T0 )] ,.(17)
Numerical Solution to the Coupled Equations
Coupled Temperature-Pressure Equations The transient coupled Eqs. 16 to 18 can be solved using a
Eq. 16 is one of coupled equations, and it can be seen that finite difference method corresponding to the given initial and
temperature and pressure are coupled with each other. Two boundary conditions. A fully-explicit method with small
more equations are needed to calculate the coupled increments in both distance and time is used. Central and
temperature-pressure-density profile. Eq. 17 serves as the backward finite difference methods are used to differentiate
second coupling equation. Another relation for pressure the second order and first order partial derivatives,
changes is required. For this purpose, the continuity equation respectively. Therefore, the numerical algorithm can be
can be used. Rewriting the equation of continuity, Eq. 1, in written thusly:
terms of compressibility in cylindrical coordinates for a porous
media will give: Ti n +1 Ti n T 2Ti + Ti 1 1 Ti Ti 1
= c 0 i +1 +
t r 2
rw + i r r
P K1 2 P 1 P 1 P ,....(18)
= + +
t C t r 2
r r r r Pi Pi1 Ti Ti1 P 2Pi + Pi1 1 Pi Pi1
+ K1 + c0Ti i+1 + ,
A system of equations consisting of Eqs. 16 to 18 can be r r r 2
rw + ir r
solved simultaneously to obtain the coupled transient density, (21a)
pressure and temperature profiles.
Pi n +1 Pi n Pi +1 2 Pi + Pi 1 1 i i 1 Pi Pi 1
Initial and Boundary Conditions =c +
A semi-infinite geometry, Fig. 3, was adopted for solving t r 2 i r r
the above system of equations. Pressure at the wall for each n
depth is considered to be equal to the hydrostatic pressure of 1 Pi Pi 1
+ ,.(21b)
the column of mud inside the wellbore. Temperature at the rw + ir r
wall can be measured or considered to be equal to the
calculated annulus temperature at the desired depth. Numerical i = 0 [1 + P (Pi P0 ) + T (Ti T0 )] ,........(21c)
and analytical methods to calculate annulus temperature under
steady state and transient state conditions are available.10, 11
Density at the inner boundary is equal to the density of the Where c is called the hydraulic diffusion constant, c0 is
drilling fluid. With the semi-infinite assumption the outer thermal diffusivity and c0 is the coupling term, given as:
boundary conditions will remain undisturbed and equal to the K1
initial conditions. c= ,......(22)
Ct
Initial Conditions
K
P(r ,0 ) = Po ,...(19a) c0 = ,...(23)
CV
T (r ,0 ) = T0 ,...(19b)
m KT
c0 = ,........(24)
(r ,0 ) = 0 ,...(19c) CV

Boundary Conditions Induced Stresses

Stresses induced as the result of pressure and temperature
P(rw , t ) = Pw ,.....(20a) changes can be calculated by the following equations.3
(1 2 ) 1 r f
P(r , t ) = Po ,.....(20b) r = P (r , t )rdr
1 r 2 rw
T (rw , t ) = Tw (t ) ,....(20c)
E m 1 r rw2
+ T f (r , t )rdr + Pw ,(25a)
T (r , t ) = T0 ,..(20d) 3(1 ) r 2 rw r2
SPE 103159 5

(1 2 ) 1 r r
2
= P f (r , t )rdr P (r , t ) z = ( xz sin + yz sin )(1 + w2 ) ,..(27f)
1 r2 rw
r

E m 1 r rw2 Failure Criteria

T f (r , t )rdr T f (r , t ) Pw , Failure criteria determine the amount of stress that can be
3(1 ) r 2 rw r2
tolerated by a formation before failure. In other words, it
....(25b) defines the limit of deformation before a rock fails. If the
induced stresses are grater than the formation compression or
(1 2 ) f E m tensile strength then the rock under stress fails. When stresses
z = P (r , t ) + T f ( r , t ) ,...(25c)
1 3(1 ) at any point around the wellbore are calculated, it is possible
to compare the computed stresses against the formation
Where strength. At points where the Failure Index (FI, see Eq. 41) is
P f (r , t ) = P(r , t ) P0 ,...(26a) less than zero failure is considered to have initiated. The
Failure Index defines whether or not the stress state has
T f (r , t ) = T (r , t ) T0 ,....(26b) exceeded formation strength. Most failure criteria are
expressed in terms of principal stresses. The principal stresses
Complete Thermo-poroelastic Model at the wellbore wall can be calculated using the following
The complete thermoporoelastic model is obtained by equations after the stress tensor around the wellbore is
superimposing mechanical (in-situ), thermal and hydraulic obtained.
induced stress effects. After including the thermo-pressure 1 = rr ,..(28)
induced stresses the resultant equations are as follows.
2
xx + yy xx yy + z z
2 = + z ,(29)
2
2 4 2

rr =
r
(1 w2 ) +
r r
1 + 3 w4 4 w2 cos 2 +
2 r 2 r r 2 2
rw2 r4 (1 2 ) 1 r
+ z z
2
+ 1 4 + 3 w4 xy sin 2 + P f ( r , t ) rdr
r 2
r 1 r2 rw 3 = + z ,(30)
2

2 2
E m 1
2
r r max = Max( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ,.(31)
+ T f ( r , t ) rdr + Pw w2 ,..(27a)
3(1 ) r 2 rw r
min = Min( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ,..(32)
xx + yy rw
2
yy r
4
Boreholes may fail in tensile (fracture) or compression
= (1 + 2
) xx 1 + 3 w4 cos 2 (breakdown) modes depending on the pressure inside the
2 r 2 r
wellbore. The rock will behave differently under tension than
under compression and therefore different failure criteria are
rw4 (1 2 ) 1 r required to describe each type of failure.
1+ 3 xy sin2 P f (r, t )rdr P f (r, t )
r 4
1 r2 rw
Tensile Failure Criteria
E m 1
2
r r Rock tensile failure will occur when the effective
T (r , t )rdr T (r , t ) Pw w2
f f
minimum stress exceeds the tensile strength of the formation.
3(1 ) r 2 rw r ,(27b)
Thus tensile failure takes place when
2 2 min
eff
t ,...(33)
r r
z = zz 2 ( xx yy )( w2 ) cos 2 4 xy ( w2 ) sin 2 Where t is the tensile strength of the formation, and can
r r
be obtained from lab data or well logs. Bradley12 and Aadnoy
(1 2 ) f E m et al.13 argued that because it is assumed that a fracture
+ P (r, t ) + T f ( r , t ) ,(27c) initiates in a flaw or joint, tensile strength of a rock is zero. In
1 3(1 )
this study it is assumed that compression is positive and tensile
has a negative value. Once the minimum stress is calculated
xx yy rw
2
rw
4
from Eq. 32 the effective stress is given by the summation of
r = 1+ 2 3 sin 2
2 r2 r4 the total stress and pore pressure as given by Terzaghi.1

r2 r4 min
eff
= min ij Po ,......(34)
+ 1 + 2 w2 3 w4 xy cos 2 ,.(27d)
r r Where ij is the Kronecker delta. A modification of
Terzaghis theory was given by Biot4 as:

r
2 min
eff
= min ij Po ,...(35)
rz = ( xz cos + yz sin )(1 w2 ) ,(27e) Where is Biots constant and takes values in the range of
r < <1, where is porosity. Eq. 35 is used in this study.
6 SPE 103159

Compressive Failure Criteria Table 1- Basic Input Data

There are several compressive failure criteria used in
wellbore stability models. Mclean and Addis14, 15 categorized Variable Symbol Value
and compared some of these criteria and analyzed the effects Max. horizontal stress gradient SH 0.9 psi/ft
of some parameters such as intermediate principal stress. Min. horizontal stress gradient Sh 0.78 psi/ft
Various failure criteria proposed in the literature can give
different results in predicting the minimum mud weight Overburden stress gradient Sv 1 psi/ft
requirements. A criterion may prove successful in one Pore pressure gradient Po 0.433 psi/ft
situation, but give unrealistic predictions under another Azimuth d 30 degree
situation.14 Some of the criteria are said to be more Youngs Modulus E 1E+6 psi
conservative such as Mohr-Coulomb as compared to Drucker-
Poissons ratio 0.22
Prager. The most commonly used criteria in the field of
wellbore stability are implemented in our simulator so that the Vertical depth Z 10000 ft
user can have the option of which criteria to choose according Borehole radius rw 4.9375 in
to the situation. The Drucker-Prager criteria are used in this Cohesion factor C 890 psi
paper and presented below.
1
Friction angle 30 degree
(J 2 ) 2 = AJ 1eff + B ,...(36) Biots constant 0.9

+2 +3 Tensile strength t 0 psi

J 1ef = 1 p o (r , t ) ,..(37) Compressibility of the fluid Cf 1E-6 psi
-1
3
Compressibility of the rock matrix Cr 3.8E-6 psi-1
J2 = 1
3
( 1 2 ) 2
+ ( 2 3 ) + ( 3 1 )
2 2
, Earth specific heat Cv 0.2 btu/lbm-F
.(38) Diffusion factor K1 1.13E-18 m3s/kg

2 2 Sin Isothermal Bulk Modulus KT 7E+9 m2/s

A= ,...(39)
3 Sin Earth conductivity K 1.3 btu/hr-ft-F
Density of pore fluid 8.33 ppg
2 2cCos
B= ,..(40) Geothermal gradient Tg 1.1 F/100ft
3 Sin Temperature at the wall Tw 30-90 C
FI = ( J 2 )1 / 2 + AJ 1 + B ,....(41) Empirical constant p 3.18E-10 pa-1
Empirical constant t -4.1E-4 C-1
Results and Discussion Volumetric thermal expansion m 2.7E-5 1/F
The model developed here can be used to study the effect of
Porosity 0.34
mechanical, thermal and pressure changes as well as the
impact of constraining parameters on wellbore stability. The Increment in time t 1s
effect of both pressure and temperature changes on wellbore Increment in r direction used r 0.2165 inch
stability can be studied. Sensitivity studies of the controlling in numerical method
parameters in relation to the state of stresses and wellbore Increment in direction used 1 degree
stability can be conducted with this model. in numerical method
Based on the model a simulator was developed that is Increment in mud weight m 0.1 ppg
capable of performing the above-mentioned parametrical Total time totalt 3600 s
studies. This model (together with the simulator) can be used
Failure criteria F.C. Drucker-Prager
to select the required mud weights to prevent compressive or
tensile failure. The consequences of heating or cooling the Model Mode Thermoporoelastic
formation can be studied. The simulator can also perform a
sensitivity study on the constraining parameters that are Thermo-poroelastic Effect on Wellbore Stability
involved in wellbore stability studies. Results of cases based Fig. 4 shows the predictions of mud weight windows for
on the data obtained from papers by Yu3, 4 and Chen16-18 are pure elastic model, poroelastic model and thermo-poroelastic
discussed in this section. The input data are shown in Table 1. model. In this case temperature difference between wellbore
and formation is considered zero for the pure elastic and
poroelastic cases and there is a -40 C (cooling effect)
difference for the thermoporoelastic case. In fact, the pure
elastic model is a case of the thermo-poroelastic model where
thermal and pressure values at the impermeable wall are
considered to be the same as that of formation and the
poroeleastic model is an isothermal condition with pressure
effect only. For this case, the pure elastic model gives the
widest operational mud window and thermoporoelastic gives
SPE 103159
the narrowest. Collapse failure is more sensitive to pressure
changes in deviated and horizontal wells. Tensile failure is
more sensitive to pressure and temperature changes in all
inclination angles. In this case, pore pressure and stresses at
the wall are used to determine wellbore failure. Hence, the
time dependent effect is not shown in Fig. 4.
Temperature Profile
As a result of drilling operations, drilling fluid circulating
in the wellbore has a different temperature than the geothermal
temperature. Drilling mud moving up in the annulus comes
from hotter geothermal zones and has higher temperatures
than the formation. This results in heating the formation.
Drilling fluid may also have lower temperatures at the drill bit
than at the formation and cause a cooling effect. Figs. 5 and 6
show the temperature profile from wellbore wall to the
formation at a distance of four times the well radius at
different times, up to 24 hours after exposure to the drilling
mud. Fig. 5 presents a case when the formation is heated from
60 C in the initial condition to 90 C. Fig. 6 presents a case
when formation is cooled to 30 C from the initial temperature
of 60 C. In either case it takes less than two hours for the
temperature to propagate to a vicinity of two times the
wellbore radius.
Temperature Effect on Mud Weight Selection
Once the temperature profile in the wellbore is known,
thermally-induced stresses can be calculated and analyzed for
their effects on wellbore stability. Thermally-induced stresses
alter both compressive and tensile failure states around the
wellbore. Tensile failure is more sensitive to temperature
changes than compressive failure, as shown in Figs. 7
through 9. Although the effects of temperature changes on
compressive failure are minimal, in this case heating the
formation will reduce the compressive stress while reducing
the mud temperature will increase the compressive stress. For
example, at the wall, the hoop stress will be increased if the
formation is heated. Therefore, when concerned with
compressive failure preventions, heavier mud is needed when
the drilling mud is at higher temperatures than the formation
and lighter mud can be used when the drilling mud is at lower
temperatures than the formation, as shown in Fig. 10. The
temperature effect on tensile stress is considerable. Drilling
mud that is hotter than the formation increases the tensile
stress around the wellbore while colder mud will decrease the
tensile stress. As can be seen in Fig. 11, cooling the formation
30C at a distance of 1.08 times the wellbore radius has a
negative tensile Failure Index, which means a fracture type of
failure in that zone. Heating the formation by 30C will
prevent the formation from tensile failure. The effect of
temperature differences on mud weight selection in case of
tensile failure prevention is presented in Fig. 12. For a vertical
well, 17.7 ppg mud is required to prevent fracture when
drilling with mud that is at the same temperature as the
surroundings. Increasing mud temperature by 30C will
increase that limit to 18.7ppg, and decreasing mud temperature
by 30C will reduce the limit to 16.5ppg.
7
Time Dependent Failure
Transient pressure and temperature profiles will induce
transient stresses. Transient effects may result in early or late
failure times. Chemical effects, for example, will induce
pressure build up at the near wellbore region a short time after
drilling and may cause an early failure time.4, 17 The region of
the failure around the wellbore will increase or decrease with
time as the temperature and pressure increase or decrease.
Similarly, a time-dependent failure analysis due to thermal
effect was performed and results are presented. Fig. 13 shows
tensile Failure Index (FI) in the formation at different time. In
this case mud weight is 12 ppg, and it is 30C cooler than the
formation temperature. In this figure, negative FI values
indicate failure points. Tensile failure propagates into the
formation around a horizontal well at the initial time and after
periods of five and 24 hours, as observed in Figs. 14 through
16. These results emphasize the need of transient wellbore
stability analysis not only at the wellbore wall but also in the
formation around the wellbore.
Effect of Variable Wellbore Temperature
Keeping a constant downhole mud temperature may be
impossible due to drilling operation constraints. Shutting in
the well during drilling operations is a common practice that
may result in variable wall temperatures. As stated, a
temperature change of 30C in drilling mud, if given enough
time, will have a significant effect on wellbore stability. One
heating scenario is presented as examples of the effect of
variable wellbore temperature on wellbore stability. In this
example, initial circulating mud temperature is assumed to be
hotter than the formation and then drops below the geothermal
temperature.
Heating-Cooling Effect
Consider a geothermal temperature of 61C at a depth of
10,000 feet, and assume that drilling mud will have a
temperature of 91C when it reaches that depth. If the
temperature is kept constant for four hours and then decreased
to 31C, Failure Index at a point inside the formation at
r/rw=1.1 is simulated. Temperature changes at this point are
given in Fig. 17. The effect of this temperature change on
wellbore stability at the stated point can be seen in Fig. 18.
After a peak in failure index a short time after operation, it
gradually decreases to about 890psi just before changing the
mud temperature. The failure index drops to about -475psi
after cooling the mud, thus causing tensile failure.
Effect of Convective Heat Transfer
The effect of convective heat transfer on wellbore stability
is shown in Fig. 19. Convection effect can be decoupled from
the temperature equation by assuming K1 is zero in Eq. 16.
Mud weight window for cases with and without convection
are presented in Fig. 19: Case I- heat transfer is only due to
conduction (K1 = 0, K=0.1 btu/hr-ft-F); and Case II- heat
transfer is due to both conduction and convection (K1 =1E-12
m3s/kg and K=0.1 btu/hr-ft-F). In both cases, temperature
difference between the drilling fluid and the formation is
assumed to be 30C. Fig. 19 shows that convective heat
transfer plays an important role in controlling wellbore
stability in high permeability formations. Results show that
8 SPE 103159
convective heat transfer may significantly narrow the mud
weight window. In this case, tensile failure is more sensitive to
convection than collapse failure.
Conclusions
1. The effects of pressure and temperature changes on
wellbore stability are significant.
2. In high permeability formations, convection is the
dominant type of heat transfer and should be
incorporated into wellbore stability models.
3. Both compressive and tensile failure change as a
result of temperature variation. Tensile failure is
more sensitive than collapse failure with temperature
changes. Heating the formation will reduce the
chance of fracture, and cooling the formation has the
reverse effect. Therefore, some instability problems
like lost circulation can be treated by controlling the
temperature of drilling fluid.
4. Temperature and pressure-induced failures are time
dependent.
5. The critical mud weight window may decrease due to
thermal effects.
Nomenclature
A = Material constant used in failure criteria
B = Material constant used in failure criteria
C = Cohesive strength, m/Lt2, psi
CV = Earth specific heat at constant volume, L2/t2F,
btu/lbm-F
c = Effective diffusion constant, L2/t, in2/s
cf = Fluid compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1
cr = Rock compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1
ct = Total compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1
E = Young s modulus, m/ Lt2, psi-1
FI = Failure Index, m/ Lt2, psi-1
K = Earth conductivity, m/t3F, btu/hr-ft-F
K1= Hydraulic conductivity, L3t/m, m3 kg-1 s
KT = Isothermal Bulk Modulus, m/ Lt2, psi-1
P = Pressure, m/ Lt2, psi-1
Po = Initial pore pressure, m/ Lt2, psi-1
Pw = Pressure at the wall of the wellbore, m/ Lt2, psi-1
P (r,t) = Pore pressure fluctuations, m/ Lt2, psi-1
f
R = Radial distance, L, inch
rw = Wellbore radius, L, inch
T = Temperature, C, K, F
= Biot Constant, dimensionless
d = Well azimuth, degrees
-1 -1
m = Volumetric thermal expansion coefficient, C , K ,
-1
F paper SPE 13208 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual
= Well inclination angle, degrees
2
p = Empirical constant in density equation, Lt /m, psi
-1 -1
T = Empirical constant in density equation, C , K ,
F-1
= Angle measured from the direction of the
maximum horizontal stress, degree
= Poisson s ratio
= Fluid density, m/L3, ppg
0 = Fluid density at the reference pressure, m/L3, ppg
w = Drilling fluid density at the wall, m/L3, ppg
2
ij = Stress tensor, m/ Lt , psi
eff
ij = Effective stresses, m/ Lt2, psi
h = Minimum in-situ stress, m/ Lt2, psi
H= Maximum in-situ stress, m/ Lt2, psi
v= Overburden in-situ stress, m/ Lt2, psi
max = Maximum principal stress, m/ Lt2, psi
mid = Medium principal stress, m/ Lt2, psi
min = Minimum principal stress, m/ Lt2, psi
t= Tensile strength of the rock , m/ Lt2, psi
rr = Radial stress, m/ Lt2, psi
= Hoop stress, m/ Lt2, psi
zz = Axial stress, m/ Lt2, psi
r = Shear stress, m/ Lt2, psi
= Porosity, dimensionless
= Friction angle, degree
References
1. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons (1948).
2. Dokhani, V., "Modeling of Chemically Induced Transient
Pore Pressure In Shale Formations," Master Thesis (2005),
The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104.
3. Yu, M., Chemical and Thermal Effects On Wellbore
Stability of Shale Formations, Dissertation (2002), The
University of Texas at Austin.
4. Yu, M., Chen, G., Chenevert, M. E., Sharma, M. M.,
Chemical and Thermal Effects On Wellbore Stability of
Shale Formations, paper SPE 71366 presented at the 2001
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, 30 September-3 October.
5. Kurashige, M., A Thermoelastic Theory of Fluid-Filled
Porous Materials, Int. J. Solids Struct. (1989), 25(9), pp.
1039-1052.
6. Biot, M. A., General Theory of Three-Dimensional
Consolidation, Journal of Applied Physics (February 1941),
Vol. 12, pp. 155-164.
7. Gonzalez, M. E., Bloys, J. B., Lofton, J. E., Pepin, G. P.,
Schmidt J. H., Naquin, C. J., Ellis S. T., and Laursen P. E.,
Increasing Effective Fracture Gradients by Managing
Wellbore Temperatures, paper SPE/IADC 87217 presented
at the 2004 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas,
March.
8. Bai, M. and Abousoleiman, Y., Thermoporoelastic
Coupling with Application to Consolidation, Intl. Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
(1997), Vol. 21, pp.121-132.
9. Karstad, E., and Aadnoy, B. S., "Density Behavior of
Drilling Fluids During High Pressure High temperature
Drilling Operations," paper SPE/IADC 47806 presented at
the 1998 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia,
7-9 September.
10. Corre, B., Eymard, and Guenot A., Numerical Computation
of Temprature Distribution in a Wellbore While Drilling,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 16-19
September.
11. Garcia, A., Santoyo, E., Espinosa, G., Hernandez, I.,
Estimation of Temperature in Geothermal Wells During
Circulation and Shut-in in the Presence of Lost Circulation,
Transport in Porous Media (1998), 33: 103-124.
12. Bradley, W. B., Failure of Inclined Boreholes, J. Energy
Res. Tech. (1979), pp. 232-239, Trans., AIME, 101.
13. Aadnoy, B. S. and Chenevert, M. E., Stability of Highly
Inclined Boreholes, SPE Drilling Engineering (December
1987), pp. 364-374.
SPE 103159 9

14. McLean, M. R. and Addis, M. A., Wellbore Stability

Analysis: A Review of Current Methods of Analysis and r
Their Field Application, paper SPE/IADC 19941 presented
at the 1990 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Houston, TX, Pw ro
rw
February 27 - March 2, pp. 261-274. P0
15. McLean, M. R. and Addis, M. A., Wellbore Stability: The
Effect of Strength Criteria on Mud Weight
Recommendations, paper SPE 20405 presented at the 1990
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, September 23-26.
16. Chen, G., A Study of Wellbore Stability In Shales Including
Poroelastic, Chemical, and Thermal Effects, Dissertation
(2001), The University of Texas at Austin.
17. Chen, G., Chenevert, M. E., Sharma, M. M. and Yu, M.,
Thermal and Chemical Effects on Shale Stability,
Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering (2001),
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, Fig. 3- Boundary conditions.
USA.
18. Chen, G., Ewy, R. T., Investigation of the Undrained
Loading Effects and Chemical Effects on Shale Stability,
80
SPE/ISRM 78164, Irving (October 2002), 20-23.

Inclination Angle, degree

Figures 60
z

(x+ x,y+ y,z+ z) 40

20

( vx)|x
( vx)|x+ x 0
z 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
Mud Weight, ppg
(x y,z)
y
y Pure elastic Poroelastic Thermoporoelastic
x Fig. 4-Comparison of mud weight window after including thermal
effects.
x

Fig. 1-Volume of the element through which fluid flows.

90
z

zx | z+ z
80
Temperature, c

(x+ x ,y+ y, z+ z)
70

xx | x yx | y+ y 60
y xx | x+ x

50
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(x y,z) r/rw
yx | y
Initial time 0.1 hr 1 hr
zx | z
12 hr 24 hr
x
Fig. 5-Temperature profile at different times when mud is hotter
than formation.

Fig. 2-Volume element x y z with directions of x-component

of momentum.
10 SPE 103159

70
19

Critical Mud Weight, ppg

60
Temperature, c

15
50

11
40

30 7
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
r/rw Mud-Form ation Tem perature Difference, c
Initial time 0.1 hr 1 hr
12 hr 24 hr Tensile failure limit Compressive failure limit

Fig. 6-Temperature profile at different times when a cold mud is Fig. 9-Effect of temperature changes on critical mud weight
used. selection for a horizontal wellbore.

19
80
Critical Mud Weight, ppg

15 Inclination Angle, degree 60

40
11

20

7
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Mud-Form ation Tem perature Difference, c
Critical Mud Weight, ppg
Tensile failure limit Compressive failure limit Heating 30c Isothermal Cooling 30 c
Fig. 7-Effect of temperature changes on critical mud weight Fig. 10-Effect of temperature on critical mud weight selection to
selection for a vertical wellbore. prevent compressive failure for different inclination angles.

19
2900
Tensile Failure Index, psi
Critical Mud Weight, ppg

1900
15

900

11
-100
FI=0

7 -1100
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Mud-Form ation Tem perature Difference, c r/rw

Tensile failure limit Compressive failure limit Cooling 30 c Isothermal Heating 30c

Fig. 8-Effect of temperature changes on critical mud weight Fig. 11-Tensile Failure Index around the wellbore for different
selection for a 45-degree inclined wellbore. temperatures.
SPE 103159 11

80
Inclination Angle, degree

60

40

20

0 Fig. 15-Tensile failure index cloud after 5 hrs (grey points indicate
15 16 17 18 19 failure).
Mud Weight, ppg
Heating 30 c Isothermal Cooling 30 c

Fig. 12-Effect of temperature on critical mud weight selection to

prevent tensile failure for different inclination angles.

2900
Tensile Failure Index, psi

1900

900 Fig. 16-Tensile failure index cloud after 24 hrs (grey points
indicate failure).

-100
FI=0 90

-1100 80
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Temperature, c

r/rw 70
0.1 hr 2 hr 12 hr
60

Fig. 13-Transient tensile failure index in the formation. 50

40

30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tim e, hr

Fig. 17-Temperature changes with time at r/rw=1.1, heating-

cooling.

Fig. 14-Tensile failure index cloud at initial time (grey points

indicate failure).
12 SPE 103159

2000

1500
Tensile Failure Index, psi

1000

500

-500

-1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time, hr

Fig. 18-Tensile failure index changes with time at r/rw=1.1, heating-

cooling.

80
Inclination Angle, degree

60

40

20

0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Mud Weight, ppg
Convection + Conduction Conduction

Fig. 19-Effect of convective heat transfer on mud weight window.