3 visualizações

- Physics Lab Report
- 20040075896
- EJERCICIOS COMBINADOS
- Computer Aided Design and Finite Element Analysis of an airfoil with arbitrary dimensions, material and number of spars, using ANSYS® and SolidWorks®.
- Paper_2009_11
- Lec 13 (Theories of Failure)
- Mechanics of material Chapter 4 E russell
- Independent Slip Systems in Crystals
- Wafer Manufacturing
- MECH3020 Lecture 3b Students
- Mechanical Engineering 2006 Sem IV
- Anisotropic and asymmetrical yielding and its distorted-IJP2016.pdf
- 10 nmat2085
- panel design
- Structural
- Saddle Force
- Elasticity and Deforming Forces (Solids)
- 1.1-simplestress
- Article1380703650_Alwathaf Et Al
- 22 Integration of Tresca and Mohr Coulomb Constitutive Relations in Plane Strain Elastoplasticity (1)

Você está na página 1de 12

Michael Davis, SPE, Matthew Bogan PE, SPE, Noble Energy Inc.

In this paper we explain the differences between is only one half of casing design. The reason to

biaxial and triaxial and the API method in mention this is that this helps to clarify this in

regards to casing design. In order to do this we

advance because it can get confusing if not

had to explain nomenclature common in our

industry and clear up confusion associated with done in advance. Of course casing design

terms used in both cases as a result. First we involves many aspects including selecting

had to distinguish between casing design and casing setting depth, then hydrostatic and

load resistance and make clear that triaxial, other geomechanical loads, working loads

biaxial and the API method refer to load during casing emplacement and then the

resistance criterion. Second we had to internal, lifecycle of the well, loads. Once these

distinguish between collapse, burst and axial

loads have been modelled the strength of the

load resistance. Third we had to show that axial

is simply yield strength of the pipe. Fourth, we casing must be matched to these design loads

showed how burst has choice of API method and that is what we are discussing here today:

(Barlow’s) and that it isn’t either triaxial nor load resistance of casing and the different

biaxial yet sort of uniaxial and the Von Mises, or methods to arrive at these strengths to use in

triaxial, criterion. Fifth, we did inform that our overall casing design.

collapse has four failure modes and sixth, for

yield this is derived from triaxial criterion and yet

when axial is set to zero this isn’t uniaxial, it is These concepts are all in regards to the material

triaxial with one of the three axis set to zero and strength in casing design, heretofore referred to

so possibly biaxial is applicable and with axial

as “load resistance” and not the calculation and

load non zero this isn’t biaxial it is triaxial. This

is contrary to common opinion that collapse with modelling of the loads that this material will

axial load considered is biaxial and collapse “resist” except as needed to apply these “loads”

without axial is uniaxial. Lastly, we showed the to determine the material strength of the casing

times when Barlow’s is acceptable and the times according to the two most often used criterion.

in which it deviates significantly from the more This paper won’t delve into the hydrostatics and

accurate and cumbersome Von Mises Criterion. nuances of casing design loads and yet only

explain the different methods of determining the

Introduction

Let's first make one thing perfectly clear and load resistance of the casing used to withstand

then move on to clearing up a distinction about the loads and how and why these methods vary

"Biaxial" and its use to describe the "API and when this variance is the greatest and why

Published Rating" (API method) and the fact that this is so. Knowledge of this, it is hoped, will be

it is one in the same as Barlow's equation. First most useful and ensuring that the most exact

all of this discussion about uniaxial, biaxial, determination of load resistance of the casing in

triaxial, API method, and Barlow's equation is every casing design.

concerned with material strength of casing in

Loads and Combined Loads and Making collapse-load design, and taken to mean the

Sense of Common Nomenclature In Casing reduction of pipe collapse resistance as tension

Load Resistance Calculations. increases; it is under collapse loads that the pipe

design limit will often also be less than a

Combined load was indeed in reference to how theoretical yield limit.” Of course “uniaxially”

“Bi-axial” load has been used in the past by collapse loading is simply the external pressure

others and yet "Tri-axial" loading is the minus the internal pressure or the one axis of

penultimate combined load and is in reference to triaxial design referred to as “radial stress”. Of

Von Mises use of the Lame Equation to predict course tension adds to burst resistance and

casing strength under every concievable load detracts from collapse resistance of pipe. These

simultaneously or separately. Would "Biaxial" are two axis, radial and axial stress and

better describe using Von Mises Criterion and therefore is the term “Biaxial” is often used and

assuming one axis is zero? Perhaps, and if so yet as discussed above the term is confusing

then using "Biaxial" to describe Barlow's and scientifically wrong and the API method in

equation and results will be different from using regards to collapse (the load resistance we are

Von Mises Criterion with the appropriate thirds discussing since it detracts whereas the burst

axis zero as will be described in detail below. load resistance is enhance with tension) utilizes

Von Mises Triaxial Criterion for the "yield-

There has been much confusion as to the terms

strength" mode of failure and empirical relations

“Biaxial”, “API Method”, in regards to Barlow’s

for the other three modes of failure; plastic,

equation used by the API and published and

transition, and elastic, with internal pressure set

utilized by many in the petroleum industry. The

to zero. In a sense the "yield strength" mode of

way Barlow’s equation uses “combined load” is

failure for collapse might be considered to be

by adding the effect of axial load to

"biaxial" since one of the three Von Mises axis is

burst/collapse criterion and it is done like this:

zero and yet don't be confused this is different

In the much used SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, from the API Burst criterion which uses Barlow's

"Applied Drilling Engineering" (pp 308-311), the and is in no way triaxial, or biaxial and yet is a

"combined load" is presented by Holmquist and uniaxial model. The most common starting point

Nadia, "A Theoretical and Experimental of casing design in the past has thus been

Approach to the Problem of Collapse of Deep- “uniaxial”. The use of terms in the past has

Well Casing," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API, Dallas been a source of confusion we can get past with

(1939) 392. I've not read this paper and yet will, a clear review of the facts.

yet upon a superficial observation this derivation

seems to be purely the Von Mises "Triaxial" Derivation of the Barlow formula and why

Criterion. With this in mind then, this is "triaxial" API RP 7G calls this “Biaxial Design”

and not "biaxial" because all three axis, radial, The Barlow formula is a simplification of Lame's

hoop, and axial are used to derive the equation formula for thin walled pipes/ cylinders. The

used to model the effects of axial load on burst book by AP Moser (Buried Pipe Design) gives

and collapse and vice versa the radial pressure the derivation and arrives at S = PD/2t where D

is in fact the average diameter. This makes

(burst and collapse) effects on axial load

sense if you consider that there is a stress

resistance. profile across the pipe wall with highest stress at

the inside edge. So the average stress occurs in

There is even more confusion over the use of the material at the centre (ie. Do - t). The above

“Biaxial” as it is misused to point to the use of book has a couple of good sketches illustrating

Barlow equations in a uniaxial material load this.

resistance calculation. There is uniaxial, biaxial

and triaxial. Simon, again, had a very coherent Outer diameter is however quoted in the Barlow

answer to this worth repeating, “In my equation in some contexts - for example in

experience 'biaxial' is most often associated with ASME 31.8. This is apparently a simplification

(infact nominal outside diameter is used which is Mises Equivalent (VME) Stress (Triaxial

actually a bit smaller than the real outer Stress). Because the Barlow Equation

diameter). If using the formula to calculate wall

thickness the answer will be slightly

neglects axial stress, there is no

conservative but then you will generally look up distinction between pipe with capped

a standard wall thickness (eg. from the table in ends, pipe with open ends or pipe with

ANSI B36.10) so you will likely arrive at the tension end load." Those are not my

same answer anyway. words, because my opinion of the

scientific basis of the Barlow equation is

9.3.1.2 - The Barlow formula for internal fluid

pressure gives results on the side of safety for

that it works perfectly only if there is no

all practical thickness ratios. This formula is casing since it deteriorates in accuracy

similar to the 'common formula' (which uses the with wall thickness which implies that

mean diameter instead of the outside the more casing there is the less

diameter). In the common formula, it is accurate the prediction of strength is

assumed that the hoop stress is uniformly

distributed across the cylinder wall. This

with maximum accuracy at precisely no

condition does not hold, except in the case of casing wall thickness at all. Zero;

pipes having walls of infinitesimal thickness. nada. No casing.

While Barlow's formula is widely used because My opinion is that triaxial loading (Von

of its convenience of solution, it was not

generally considered to have any theoretical

Mises Ellipse of Plasticity) should be

justification until formulae based on the used all of the time yet keep in mind

maximum energy of distortion theory showed there are times when actual

that for thin walled pipe with no axial tension, casing material limits (from testing) will

Barlow's formula is actually theoretically fall within the VME ellipse of plasticity

correct. (See Lester, C. B., "Hydraulics for

Pipelines", Oldom Publishing Co., Bayonne,

and in those cases one might take

New Jersey, 1958, p 61.) special care to design to the material

limits of the casing and not the VME

ellipse, although the triaxial theory is

Barlow's equation is what you are arguably more accurate than the API

refering to as "Biaxial" and it isn't burst formula, so the casing should not

"Biaxial" in the sense of using two of fail in this area of the ellipse between

three Von Mises axis. This confusion the VME limit and the casing material

began with SPE 14727 that used limit. However, it may still mean

"Barlow" and "Biaxial" as operating at a higher pressure than the

interchangeable. API TR 5C3 6.6.2.1 casing has been tested at in the

states: "The Barlow Equation for pipe mill. Another argument for avoiding this

yield, which is the historical API area is that burst/collapse disks and

equation, is based on a one-dimensional completion equipment (for example a

(not triaxial) approximate equation of the side pocket mandrel for production

von Mises yield condition, combined tubing) will not be subjected to the same

with an approximate expression for the triaxial loads as the casing, but may

hoop stress in the pipe. In essence, the have the same burst rating.

Barlow Equation approximates the hoop

stress and then equates this Now with that said, let's keep in mind

approximation to the yield strength. This that some don't have access to the

approximation is less accurate than the computer programs that make Triaxial

Lamé Equation of yield used in Von design possible and so if that was the

case I would definitely use combined worth repeating, “In my experience

loads if the design was sufficiently close 'biaxial' is most often associated with

to the safety factor and anytime there is collapse-load design, and taken to mean

a detrimental effect not considered with

the reduction of pipe collapse resistance

uniaxial loading. These combined load

corrections are fairly simple and as tension increases; it is under collapse

straightforward and easily done on a loads that the pipe design limit will often

spreadsheet. also be less than a theoretical yield

limit.” That use is indeed often referred

Okay now when to use triaxial over to as "Biaxial" and yet the equation used

biaxial according to an actual study, in by the API for collapse is indeed the

SPE 14727-MS, it is concluded the

Von Mises Triaxial Criterion for "yield-

Triaxial Design procedure should be

used when surface pressures exceed strength" collapse and therefore is in no

+/-12,000 psi. This is based on way "Biaxial" and therefore the term is

comparing a series of designs for used in error. This is different from the

surface pressures ranging from 3,300 to API use of Barlow's equation for burst

21,000 psi. By first designing these yield. Of course collapse loading is

strings using the Biaxial/Barlow simply the external pressure minus the

approximation and then checking them

internal pressure or the one axis of

with the Triaxial/Lame' procedure, it is

noted that the Biaxial/Barlow design is in triaxial design referred to as “radial

considerable error above +/-12,000 psi stress” and then sets the internal

and may be unsafe above +/-15,000 psi. pressure and axial load to zero and yet

the "hoop stress" axis is comprised of

There is even more confusion over the the same internal and external

use of “Biaxial” as it is misused to point pressures as the "radial stress" term and

to the use of Barlow equations in a therefore this distinction is often missed

uniaxial material load resistance by professionals using the term

calculation for burst resistance and also "biaxial". Of course tension adds to

to describe the use of the triaxial Von burst resistance and detracts from

Mises Criterion with axial load and collapse resistance of pipe and yet

internal pressure set at zero for yield- although this seems to be "biaxial" it is

strength failure mode by the API in API indeed using the Von Mises Triaxial

TR 5C3 for collapse resistance of Criterion in the case of the API yield-

casing. There is uniaxial, and triaxial strength failure mode. These three axis

and yet "biaxial" is not actually proper radial, hoop, and axial consist of terms

use of a term with scientific meaning in for radial pressure and axial stress and

a colloquial sense to describe two main therefore the term “Biaxial” is often used

directions of force when in fact there are and yet the hoop stress axis uses the

three axis involved in combined stress same internal and external pressure

equations in use: radial, hoop and axial; terms that the radial stress axis uses

and thus this is "triaxial" design. Simon and so is derived as triaxial. The API

had a very coherent answer to this

method in regards to collapse (the load

resistance we are discussing since it

detracts whereas the burst load

resistance is enhance with

tension) utilizes Von Mises Triaxial

Criterion for the "yield-strength" mode of

failure and empirical relations for two of

the other three modes of failure; plastic,

Considering the one-half section of the

transition, and elastic, with internal casing and balancing the forces acting

pressure set to zero. Plastic and on the two rectangular areas L x t,

transition failure modes are empirically against the internal pressure on the

derived and the minimum elastic projected area D x L which is therefore,

collapse pressure equation was derived

from the theoretical elastic collapse

pressure equation developed by

Clinedinst. In a sense the "yield

strength" mode of failure for

collapse might be considered to be

Whether one wants to argue that this is

"biaxial" since one of the three Von hoop stress and radial stress it is clearly

Mises axis is zero and yet don't be not considering the balance of Von

confused this is different from the API Mises radial forces and therefore is not

Burst criterion which uses Barlow's and “Biaxial”. If it was to consider the

is in no way triaxial, or biaxial and yet is balance of radial forces the external

a uniaxial model. The use of terms in pressure would be acting on the outside

diameter of the casing and the internal

the past has been a source of confusion

pressure would be acting on the inside

we can get past with a clear review of diameter of the casing and this is

the facts. resolved by Barlow by assuming the

internal pressure is negative on the

outside. Why do I say this? Because

the Barlow equation in essence is using

Clearly my opinion is that SPE 14727 is the outside diameter and this surface in

in error in proclaiming the Barlow reality only pertains to external

equation or better known as the API pressure. There is no inside diameter in

method of calculating the strength of the equation and the only way this can

casing as Biaxial. It is not using two be is to assume internal pressure is

axis of the Triaxial, radial, hoop and zero. So Barlow’s equation is essential

axial stresses and yet it is simply using pulling the casing in half using a

one dimension of the two radial forces negative external pressure. The only

and the materials resistance to this time this represents physical reality is

more as a pulling of two thin walls than when the thickness is essential zero

as a hoop stress. Barlow’s derivation meaning when there is no casing (ha

uses: ha!). As a result of this Barlow’s

equation works best when there is no the confusion over the term "biaxial" to

casing at all and as you might expect as describe casing design.

the thickness increases the equation There is much confusion over the use of

loses validity and this is indeed

“Biaxial” as it is misused to point to the

expressed in API 5C3 by the following:

use of Barlow equations in a uniaxial

load design. There is uniaxial, biaxial

and triaxial. Simon, again, had a very

coherent answer to this worth repeating,

“In my experience 'biaxial' is most often

associated with collapse-load design,

and taken to mean the reduction of pipe

collapse resistance as tension

increases; it is under collapse loads that

the pipe design limit will often also be

less than a theoretical yield limit.” Of

course “uniaxially” collapse loading is

simply the external pressure minus the

internal pressure or the one axis of

triaxial design referred to as “radial

stress”. Of course “biaxially” tension

adds to burst resistance and detracts

from collapse resistance of pipe. These

are two axis, radial and axial stress and

It is hoped that this clears up the therefore is the term “Biaxial”. The most

confusing use of “Biaxial” (its not!) to common starting point of casing design

describe Barlow’s Equation, and also in the past has thus been

shows us clearly the API method is most “uniaxial”. The use of terms in the past

accurate when there is no casing at all has been a source of confusion we can

and all other times we should use get past with a clear review of the facts.

Triaxial Von Mises Criterion for Clearly my opinion is that SPE 14727 is

precision. in error in proclaiming the Barlow

triaxial design loads becomes critical to equation or better known as the API

consider “when the pipe and/or

method of calculating the strength of

connection design limit is lower under

casing as Biaxial. It is not using two

combined load than the simple uniaxial

rating would suggest; conventionally the axis of the Triaxial, radial, hoop and

combination of net internal pressure and axial stresses and yet it is simply using

axial compression, and net external one dimension of the two radial forces

pressure and tension.”, and addressing and the materials resistance to this

more as a pulling of two thin walls than

as a hoop stress. Barlow’s derivation diameter of the casing and the internal

uses: pressure would be acting on the inside

Considering the one-half section of the diameter of the casing and this is

casing and balancing the forces acting resolved by Barlow by assuming the

on the two rectangular areas L x t, internal pressure is negative on the

against the internal pressure on the outside. Why do I say this? Because

projected area D x L which is therefore, the Barlow equation in essence is using

the outside diameter and this surface in

reality only pertains to external

pressure. There is no inside diameter in

the equation and the only way this can

be is to assume internal pressure is

zero. So Barlow’s equation is essential

pulling the casing in half using a

negative external pressure. The only

time this represents physical reality is

when the thickness is essential zero

meaning when there is no casing (ha

Considering the one-half section of the

ha!). As a result of this Barlow’s

casing and balancing the forces acting

equation works best when there is no

on the two rectangular areas L x t,

casing at all and as you might expect as

against the internal pressure on the

the thickness increases the equation

projected area D x L which is therefore,

loses validity and this is indeed

expressed in API 5C3 by the following:

hoop stress and radial stress it is clearly

not considering the balance of Von

Mises radial forces and therefore is not

“Biaxial”. If it was to consider the

balance of radial forces the external

pressure would be acting on the outside

So when is it most important to use course the graph used by API above is

triaxial because of errors creeping in? It empirical.

was mentioned a high pressures is this

right and why? Yes, and because most

It is hoped that this clears up the

often high pressures are encountered in

confusing use of “Biaxial” (its not!) to

the deepest portions of wellbores with

describe Barlow’s Equation, and also

the smaller ID casings. Is there another

shows us clearly the API method is most

factor? Yes, at higher pressures the

accurate when there is no casing at all

wall thickness, t, will be higher because

and all other times we should use

of the need for greater burst resistance

Triaxial Von Mises Criterion for

and therefore with an increase in, t, the

precision.

ratio, D/t, decreases and adds error to

the Barlow equation. Let's see a

(Note from Page 308 of the “red book”

comparison of the D/t ratios of the

that eq. 7.3b reduces to eq. 7.2 when

smaller ID casing strings.

the pipe is subjected only to internal

pressure.) (Need to resolve how this

affects the comments made above)

These D/t ratios are in the "10" range The Von Mises Criterion, is triaxial. The

three principal stress of the Von Mises

and therefore indicating an approximate

stress tensor is: axial (tension and

error in the range of "2%" and also of

compression), radial (internal and

note is that the graph above referenced external pressures from hydrostatics),

in API 5C3 matches our calculations in and circumferential (hoop stress related

the above table very closely so it is to internal and external pressures from

confirmed that our equations are likely hydrostatics).

the same ones API used. While this is

within the range of most safety factors

this result does support the general

conclusion of SPE 14727 that the use of

triaxial Von Mises Criterion becomes

more critical at higher pressures. Let's

add to that and suggest that it becomes

more critical at higher pressures and

smaller OD casing of higher weights. Of

Barlow’s equation is however only used

to determine burst by the API. Collapse

via yield or “yield-strength” collapse is

determined by using triaxial Von Mises

Criterion with the internal pressure set to

zero and the axial load zero as well (ie.

Uniaxial) it can easily be shown that Von

Mises Triaxial equation for collapse

reduces to (eq 7.11 reduces to eq. 7.4a

in “red book” pg 310) the “yield-strength”

collapse equation used by the API in

API TR 5C3.

play a part in loading casing and yet are

absent from the simplest design

cases. Bending is generally

acknowledged and brought in as an

additional compressive axial load on the

concave side of the bend and an

additional tensile load on the convex

side of the bend. Torsion, on the other

hand is rarely considered in casing

design yet lets consider it for a

API Collapse

moment. With the common practice of

The collapse (a radial load of internal

rotating liners while cementing it is

minus external) in one axis and the axial

possible to “trap torque” into a liner and

load (tension in the string) is the other

cement it in place with this torsional

axis is misleading many to think of this

load. Torsional loads are seen as a

as "biaxial", as discussed above since

“shear stress” and must be added into

"hoop stress" is the third axis and uses

the Von Mises Criterion as such. An

the same internal minus external

easy entry point would be to convert this

pressure term. Considering this as a

“combined load” using equations such

“biaxial” design would be using the fact

as that found in API RP 7G for

that increasing tension decreases the

combined loads of drill pipe thus

collapse resistance of the pipe or in

reducing the tensile strength of casing

other words the axial load affects the

by adding torsion.

radial resistance and yet the hoop

resistance is involved as well. It is

triaxial.

torsional loading is added to pipe

especially in the case of small diameter

casing and tubing of softer grades. Is

Torsion a completely different axis from

radial, axial, and circumferential? Is this

Quadraxial design? No, it is pure shear

stress, and so perhaps we might call it

Shear Inclusive Triaxial Casing

Design and yet how significant it is in

any particular scenario is left up to you

to discover, and where you add this

torsional shear stress, as a component

to the axial stress or elsewhere in the

Von Mises equation, is left up to you to

decide. Yet consider this:

smaller tubes than larger ones. For

example with 9-7/8” 62.8# Q-

125 liner rotated to 60,000 ft-lbs (highly

unlikely) of torque and trapped the

resultant reduction of tensile strength

would be only 1%. With N-80 the torque

needed for 1% reduction is only 42,000 And assuming the torsion is pure shear added to the general

ft-lbs. This effect will be larger, of equation the new triaxial design with pure shear becomes:

course, for smaller casing such as 5”

18# J55 where 15,000 ft-lbs has a 1%

reduction of tensile strength and even With Torque and Bending added this becomes:

ft-lbs of torsion reduces the tensile

strength 1% and since the uniaxial

torsional strength of that tube is ~11,100

ft-lbs. and the connection is likely to be

higher than than and so torquing this

tube many times past 1,570 ft-lbs would

be operationally probable resulting in a

significant reduction in the overall axial

strength of this pipe in the casing design

if this torque is trapped and so keep this

in mind on critical applications where

Summary

This paper addressed the issue of ballooning in

drilling and gave a geomechanical explanation

and means for understanding, predicting and

mitigating the issues. It is my belief that in better

understanding the phenomena of ballooning

communicating in interdisciplinary teams and

conveying issues and instructions between the

rig and the office will be greatly enhanced. The

result should save time in diagnosing the

problems and in implementing the solutions and

also result in much safer operations and better

plans. In most cases ballooning can be

predicted for any trajectory and casing setting

depth design using the concept of the FC and an

alternative trajectory and/or casing setting depth

designed that will avoid the worst conditions or

eliminate the ballooning entirely. By changing

the trajectory and/or casing setting depths the

well designer may place wellbore locations in

advantageous positions relative to the PC and

FC. If this concept is used to prevent wellbores

with extremely high risk of ballooning, these

screening and design methods will be

responsible for eliminating one of the most, if not

the most significant, causes of well control

incidents and NPT in the industry.

Nomenclature

∝ = poroelastic coefficient

BT = Ballooning Threshold = ܲ − ܲ ೌೣ

ೞೌ ೞೌ

ܦఙೡ ೌೣ = depth at which the vertical stress is maximum for the total interval planned to be drilled.

ܦ = depth of interest

∆ܲ௦௪ = reduction of bottom hole pressure in a wellbore due to swabbing effect of pulling pipe.

= ܧYoung’s Modulus aka Elastic Modulus

ߝு = strain in the direction of maximum horizontal stress tectonic & tri-lateral compaction (TLC)

ߝ = strain in the direction of maximum horizontal stress tectonic & tri-lateral compaction (TLC)

EAD = equivalent annular density includes the added weight of circulating mud and cuttings load.

EAD୰ୣୢ୳ୡୣୖ= equivalent annular density while control drilling at reduced ROP to minimize losses.

ECD = equivalent circulating density includes the friction pressure of the circulating mud system.

ESD = equivalent static density of the pressure a drilling fluid column exerts at the hole bottom.

FC = fracture centroid depth

h = fracture height

l = fracture length

PC = pressure centroid depth

ܲ = fracture pressure

ܲ = fracture pressure of a sand

ܲ = pore pressure

ܲ = Minimum fracture pressure of all sands in any open hole interval

ೞೌ

ܲ = Minimum fracture pressure of all shale in any open hole interval

ೞೌ

ܲ ೌೣ = Maximum of all sand pore pressures in any open hole interval

௦ௗ

ܴ⊕ = radius of the earth ~ 20,903,520 ft

S = minimum horizontal stress in a normal faulting regime

S௩ = overburden stress

TLC = Tri-Lateral Compaction equation

ఔ ாఔ ( ି ೡ ) ா ( ି ೡ ) ாఔ ா

S = ൫S௩− ∝ ܲ ൯+ ∝ ܲ + · ೌೣ

· cos(dip°) · cos(strike°)+ · ೌೣ

· cos(dip°) · cos(strike°)+ቀ ߝு + ߝቁ

ଵିఔ ଵିఔమ (ோ⊕ ି ೡ ) ଵିఔమ (ோ⊕ ି ೡ ) ଵିఔమ ଵିఔమ ௧௧

ೌೣ ೌೣ

V = fracture volume

w = fracture width

References

Davis, M. D., 2011a, Basis Change Enables Better Fracture Pressure Prediction Via Only

Seismic Data, SPE (submitted December 4, 2011)

Davis, M. D., 2011b, Best Practices in Selecting Casing Setting Depths and Common Design

Pitfalls, SPE (submitted November 3, 2011)

Davis, M. D., 2011c, Drilling Geomechanics - Pre-Drill Fracture Centroid Perspective Is Key

To Design Pressure Balanced Open Hole Intervals And Avoid Costly Imbalances, SPE

(submitted December 25, 2011)

Heppard, P. D., and Traugott, Martin O., 1998, Use of Seal, Structural, and Centroid

Information in Pore Pressure Prediction in Alan Huffman, ed., Transactions of the American

Association of Drilling Engineers Industry Forum, Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins

and Their Prediction, September 2 – 4, 1998, Conroe, Texas p. 4

Zoback, M. D., 2007. Reservoir Geomechanics, first edition. Cambridge University Press.

Author Bio

Michael Davis is a petroleum engineer with Drill Science Corporation in Houston consulting for operators

with operations worldwide. Davis has engineered and managed drilling and completion projects with major

multinationals and independents, mostly in HTHP and deepwater environments as well as drilling

intervention wells and other highly technical projects needing his expertise and leadership. Davis researches

emerging technologies and the science and psychology of team building and team work. Davis values the

people involved in a project as the greatest resource and believes the tools and skills required for these

people to excel is key. Davis holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Texas in petroleum

engineering. Davis is a Member and Technical Editor for the Society of Petroleum Engineers' Editorial

Review Committee as well as a frequent participant and contributor to the Drilling and Geomechanics TIG on

the SPE.org website.

Sand

No Losses

- Physics Lab ReportEnviado porjomarbienes
- 20040075896Enviado porAmrouch Amr
- EJERCICIOS COMBINADOSEnviado porandy_flores
- Computer Aided Design and Finite Element Analysis of an airfoil with arbitrary dimensions, material and number of spars, using ANSYS® and SolidWorks®.Enviado porYussefRikli
- Paper_2009_11Enviado porrashidking
- Lec 13 (Theories of Failure)Enviado porAnonymous ee5dOj
- Mechanics of material Chapter 4 E russellEnviado porPralesh12
- Independent Slip Systems in CrystalsEnviado porRavi Teja
- Wafer ManufacturingEnviado porShailendraBaraniya
- MECH3020 Lecture 3b StudentsEnviado porBilly
- Mechanical Engineering 2006 Sem IVEnviado porShinto Mathew
- Anisotropic and asymmetrical yielding and its distorted-IJP2016.pdfEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 10 nmat2085Enviado porkelsiu1
- panel designEnviado porInam Ullah
- StructuralEnviado porLanie Mae Villareal
- Saddle ForceEnviado porvpjagannaath
- Elasticity and Deforming Forces (Solids)Enviado porksko07
- 1.1-simplestressEnviado porJudy Detangco
- Article1380703650_Alwathaf Et AlEnviado porAmin Kotb
- 22 Integration of Tresca and Mohr Coulomb Constitutive Relations in Plane Strain Elastoplasticity (1)Enviado porSebastiao Silva
- MAE 243 Lec 25.pptEnviado porwubied
- ACMSM23-083-CameraReadyEnviado porpiscesas45
- 8. PT SLABEnviado porPre Sheet
- Journal of Materials Processing Technology Volume 150 Issue 3 2004 [Doi 10.1016_j.jmatprotec.2004.01.011] M Salimi; M Kadkhodaei -- Slab Analysis of Asymmetrical Sheet RollingEnviado por88517229
- T-root Blades in a Steam Turbine Rotor AEnviado porrudi setiawan
- dreamhaus.pdfEnviado porKenneth Plasa
- krivykh2015Enviado por82865200
- Henckys Theorems ReportEnviado porSreekumar Rajendrababu
- no_title_12Enviado porjust me
- Non-linear Analysis of Multistorey Infilled Frames.Enviado porCheLo Luis

- Safety In Drilling ManualEnviado porapi-3697472
- Rop modeling Baradaran Seyed, Abolfazl -- [Society of Petroleum Engineers Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference - Buenos Aires, Argentina (2007-04Enviado porHamed Nazari
- NLOG_GS_PUB_6075_Combined_Nuclear.PDFEnviado porHamed Nazari
- Acronyms_Overview.pdfEnviado porHamed Nazari
- FULLTEXT01.pdfEnviado porHamed Nazari
- ResGeo202MOOC HW3 Nzd2019-SolutionsEnviado porHamed Nazari
- M5.3-Unified09Enviado porChandana Karumanchi
- H-406-4-FailureEnviado porIrfan Mahyunis
- City of Lies by Ravita Navai ExtractEnviado porHamed Nazari
- MD-Ph.DEnviado porHamed Nazari
- 274163988-Wellplan-Training-2.pdfEnviado porAbd Ennacer
- 3-Density Aqueous SolutionsEnviado porHamed Nazari
- H01986Enviado porHamed Nazari
- Permeability Plugging ApparatusEnviado porHamed Nazari
- Map Showing Geology, Oil and Gas Fields, And Geologic Provinces of IranEnviado porCaniusLupus
- boundary conditionEnviado porpadania
- Soda ashEnviado porHamed Nazari
- m-baroidEnviado porEri Sarmantua Sitinjak
- Lecture 30Enviado porHamed Nazari
- Filter_Press_HPHT_175R.pdfEnviado porHamed Nazari
- EZ_MULEnviado porHamed Nazari
- Acid Base Neutralisation SaltsEnviado porGaurav Yadav
- pxc3891986[1]Enviado porziani1976
- 63670Enviado porHamed Nazari
- Cormack, Dave-An Introduction to Well Control Calculations for Drilling Operations-Springer (2017) (3)Enviado porAnonymous jb7DM7Gc3
- Soda_Ash.pdfEnviado porHamed Nazari
- preview-drst (1).pdfEnviado porHamed Nazari

- Pan ChangEnviado porAstroSunil
- Presentation 1PRESENTATIONEnviado porsourajpatel
- 561 110 Falk True Hold Low Speed Backstops CatalogEnviado pornenny_vh
- Fundamentals of Structural Design in TimberEnviado porTimothy Ryan Wang
- BS 410-2 2000.pdfEnviado porJithesh.k.s
- 2CDC110004C0208_02Enviado porDouglas Fernando
- (Ocean Engineering & Oceanography 1) Edmund Wittbrodt, Marek Szczotka, Andrzej Maczyński, Stanisław Wojciech (auth.)-Rigid Finite Element Method in Analysis of Dynamics of Offshore Structures-Spri.pdfEnviado porAveek Girigoswami
- VU Meter a Led, KA2284Enviado porhamed sazegaran
- cv metcalf 2015 (1)Enviado porapi-277785793
- Silicon BaluEnviado porashok_abcl
- Letter Head BpsuEnviado porJn Guinto
- Chapter_8_05.pdfEnviado porShoshAlmazroeui
- Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and children, 24, 31-32..pdfEnviado porHam Daz
- Report Octane BoostingEnviado porsummi64
- ENF-Chinese Solar Companies ReportEnviado porValmik Soni
- engl 202c-internet resource guideEnviado porapi-252628311
- Components of Hydroelectric plantEnviado porHaroon Rasool
- HIMAP A1 Communication EEnviado pormaronnam
- Outreach Officer-South London Cares 2019Enviado porNorthLondonCares
- nitsche2016(2)Enviado porAsri Gani
- Cleaner Coal in ChinaEnviado porb_avid
- AD0685775.pdfEnviado porManju Barathi
- Differentiation for Nouns and Verbss and VerbsEnviado porlekinhthang
- The Historical Development of the Quantity Surveying Profession and the Importance of the Bill of Quantity in Modern Day Tradition Building ContractEnviado porChikwason Sarcozy Mwanza
- 4. Kontovas Psaraftis Formal Safety Assessment: A Critical Review - Christos A. KontovasEnviado porcaptain_hook_
- Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al - Document No. 67Enviado porJustia.com
- Real Estate management system synopsis.pdfEnviado pormanoj
- OPC Data Manager User's Manual v5.9.1.0.pdfEnviado porJuan Alardín
- Physics-2.1 Linear Motion 1Enviado porRais Rahimi
- Achilles D. Speliotopoulos- Dark energy and extending the geodesic equations of motion: its construction and experimental constraintsEnviado porPlunart