ARMA 10-202

Finite-element
lement analysis of deliberately increasing the wellbore fracture
gradient
Salehi, S.
Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Nygaard, R.
Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA

Copyright 2010 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada
Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in
Salt Lake City, UT June 27–30, 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and cri critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical
echnical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the wri
written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may n not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Lost circulation caused by low fracture gradients is the cause of many drilling related problems. When lost
circulation occurs, standard practice is to add lost circulation materials to stop mud from flowing into formations.
formations To improve the
treatment for
or lost circulation caused by low fracture gradients
gradients, special designed materials are added to the mud to seal the induced
fractures around the wellbore. This operation is in the literature referred to as wellbore strengthening. The size,
size type and geometry
of sealing materials used in this process are the object of debate depending on the specific technique applied. Further, the physical
mechanism of these techniques, in various rock permeabilities
permeabilities, is not fully understood.
The main objective for this studyy was to build a finite
finite-element model for fracture growth, and a parametric study was conducted to
determine the permeability effect on fracture growth and geometry. The results show that fracture growth is a strong function of
material permeability therefore in highly permeable rocks
rocks, cracks widen more than they do in less permeable rocks. The simulation
results formed the basis of a fracture geometry model that permits prediction of the fracture geometry formed around the wellbore.
The simulations alsolso demonstrated that to enhance the sealing mechanism the fracture geometry formed in the formations is a
contributing factor.

Introduction remains uncertain. For instance, different materials

system, from gels, including cross-linked
cross polymers [4],
When drilling wells, drilling mud prevent
prevents collapse of calcium carbonates [3, 8], deformable, viscous, and
the wellbore and entrance of formation fluids into the cohesive sealant (DVCS) [9, 10],
10] drill and stress fluid (
wellbore. High-density additives increase the density of DSF) water-based
based systems [11], to materials with higher
the drilling mud,, thus improving its function
function. On the mechanical strength [12]; have been used in wellbore
other hand, high-density mud can fracture the formation
formation. strengthening applications (Table 1).1) Although some
According
cording to the Kirsch solution for vertical wells [1], authors [12] have reported poor experimental results
fracturing occurs, in an impermeable
mpermeable formation with no using calcium carbonate and polymer-based
polymer mud
tensile strength and equal horizontal principal stresses, systems, others [4, 8] have applied these materials in the
when the mud is more than twice the least horizontal field and observed a significant
cant increase of fracture
stress (from which pore pressure has been subtracted). gradient as a result.
Among the earliest industrial approaches to this problem
were conventional
onventional loss circulation remedies such as The field and experimental data have yielded
pumping pills. More recently, however,
owever, the use of contradictory
ory information regarding which parameters
specially designed particles in the mud has strengthened affect this phenomenon and which whi physical model
the wellbore, helping the industry to cut the drilling non- describes it. Important
mportant questions related to wellbore
productive time (NPT) [2]. fracturing remains open: First;; are fractures merely being
healed? Or are the rock stresses near the wellbore
cessful field applications for wellbore
Although some successful actually being changed, and if so, to what extent can
strengthening have been reported [2-8], the extents to they be changed? Second, how important are mud
which the fracturing pressure in a wellbore can be properties and mud additive properties such as a material
enhanced and with which materials we can perform size, type, and strength? Some
ome studies have indicated
 that these techniques are successful only when specific
material sizes are used; others report successful field
applications, regardless of material properties.
The present study cannot fully address all these
questions. However, the technique introduced here is a
function of fracture opening and growth. Therefore, it
provides the foundation for a numerical model of
fracture formation and propagation.
The model was more accurate when the density of the
elements around the wellbore was increased; however
due to the time required for simulations and various
complexities of the model, this work used only the
simplest mesh that yielded acceptable results. Figure 2
shows the most accurate calibrated mesh; with 120
elements around the wellbore.

Table 1- Overview of different approaches used in Borehole

Strengthening

BS Material Material Rock BS

Author Materials Size Strength Stress Method
Alberty &
McLean Calcium Stress
[3,7] Carbonate Important Important Changing Cage
Dupriest
[6,11] DSF Unimportant Unimportant Changing FCS
Wang et al
[5, 10] DVCS Important Important Changing
Van Oort Not
et al [2] Important Unimportant changing FPR Figure 1- Three dimensional mesh and cohesive layer in the
High maximum horizontal stress direction
Aadnoy Strength Very
[12] Mat Important

Finite-element Formulation
Finite-element methods (FEMs) have been used
previously to simulate fractures in rock and these
methods have yielded satisfactory results agreeing well
with those of field cases and lab experiments [13-15].
Since conditions in front of the crack are neither plane
strain nor plane stress [16], this work relied on three-
dimensional numerical models. The mesh was generated
and discretized with 3D-Hyper Mesh software and as
illustrated in the Figure 1. Simulations were then
performed using ABAQUS SIMULIA software, which
modeled the fracture as pore-cohesive elements. The
simulated fracture is forced to develop along the axis
perpendicular to the least horizontal stress.
For the cohesive zone, displacement and pore pressure
three-dimensional cohesive elements were used. The rest
of the mesh was modeled using trilinear displacement
and pore pressure elements in order to permit pore fluid
flow throughout the model. The mesh was then validated
based on the Kirsch solution for effective stresses around
the wellbore in a pre fractured state. The difference
between the results of the numerical model and those of
the Kirsch solution proved to be only 2%.
A convergence study evaluated the ability of the
software to solve various simulations, and satisfactory
results were observed with this mesh. The height, width,
and length of the model were nearly ten times the
wellbore diameter and thus sufficient to eliminate the
artifacts in stress distribution that result from end effects.
Figure 2- Mesh with increased number of elements around the
borehole
Mesh Convergence Tests
Cohesive modeling results are very sensitive to element
size and the whole fracture zone size. Mesh size effects
when using cohesive elements has been reviewed for
simulation of the double cantilever beam specimen by
Turon et al. [22]. In order to obtain accurate finite
element results, the stresses in the cohesive zone must be
properly represented by the finite element spatial
discretization. The cohesive zone mesh size must be
appropriately correlated with enough number of
elements in the cohesive zone through its length. For this
reason, twelve cohesive elements were used in the
fracture zone in order to make sure that results are
reliable. A convergence study was also conducted to
evaluate the ability of the software to solve various
simulations based on changing cohesive element
thickness. Cohesive zone with 2 mm thickness was
selected for all simulations. Results of simulations with
changing cohesive thickness to 1 and 4 mm were
identical to the original thickness used in this study.
 δ m0 . The second method includes introducing the energy
Model Inputs
DEA-13 fracturing experiments were an early industrial dissipated due to failure G c [23] or the evolution based
effort for solving the loss circulation problem. These on fracture energy. The latter method has been used for
experiments were conducted in the 1980s, and the results simulations in this study. Published rock fracture
were later published in the 1990s [17-18]. Both water- mechanic test results for Berea sandstone was used for
based muds (WBM) and oil-based muds (OBM) were determining G c .
used as fracturing fluids. Samples from three types of
sedimentary basins rocks including Berea, Torrey Buff
sandstones and Mancos shale, were used for
experiments. Results from these experiments laid the
groundwork for further studies of loss circulation
problems in the drilling industry so that wellbore
strengthening was emerged as one of the effective
solutions to mitigate loss circulation problem.

Table 2 shows the DEA-13 input data used in this study.

This work has extended that on which the DEA-13
studies were based by modeling several scenarios with
varying rock and filter cake permeability. The results of Figure 3- Traction versus separation in cohesive layer for
the simulations, however, cannot be addressed without displacement and energy based evolution [23]
some preliminary discussion of the details of fracture
modeling as it used in this work. Pore-Cohesive Elements in Simulator
The cohesive element fluid flow model in ABAQUS was
Table 2- DEA-13 fracturing tests input data for Berea used here to model fracture hydraulics based on
sandstone rock tangential and normal flow across the gap [23]. Figure 4
shows the flow patterns in the cohesive elements.
Model Dimentions (meter) 0.76*0.76*0.76
Hole Size (meter) 0.038
Overburden stress (Mpa) 20.7
Max Horizontal Stress (Mpa) 15.15
Min Horizontal Stress (Mpa) 12.4
Young Modulus (Gpa) 10
Poisson's Ratio 0.2
Rock Permeability (Darcy) 0.1
Figure 4- Flow within cohesive elements [23]
Fracture Toughness
(Mpa*m^(0.5)) 1 Entry of the fluid into the cohesive elements was
Pore Pressure (Mpa) 6 modeled by defining a few cohesive elements as open in
the initial conditions of the model. The leakoff
Cohesive Zone Modeling coefficient "defines a pressure-flow relationship between
the cohesive element's middle nodes and their adjacent
Cohesive finite elements were used here to model surface nodes" [23]. This parameter can be interpreted as
discontinuities. The models applied were developed filter cake permeability on the crack face (Figure 5).
primarily by Barenblatt and Hilberborg [19, 20].
Cohesive modeling for quasi-brittle material assumes
that a process zone exists at the crack tip where a
constitutive relation is assumed to exist between the
tensile normal stress and crack displacement on the
crack sides [21].

Generally, there are two ways to define the evolution of

the fracture. The first method includes specifying the
Figure 5- Defining filter cake permeability in cohesive layer
effective displacement at complete failure δ mf (Figure 3)
[23]
or the effective displacement at the initiation of damage
Crack Modeling
Cohesive behavior was defined in the simulator based on
the traction-separation law. This law assumes that before
damage happens, a linear elastic traction-separation
exists and failure of the elements in the propagation
phase is characterized by degradation of the material
stiffness. And as mentioned earlier, the area under
traction-separation is referred to as fracture energy.
Fracture Initiation
Fracture initiation refers to the beginning of degradation
when stresses or strains satisfy a certain fracture
initiation criterion [23]. In order to model fracture
initiation in the simulations, suitable criterion must be
assigned. The following criterion was assigned to the
model, for fracture initiation condition [23, 24]:
2 2 2 Initial and Boundary Conditions
 ( s n )   s s   st 
 0  +  0  +  0  =1 (1)
 s n   s s   st 
where Si ^ i= n, s, t, is the nominal (average) stress and
Si0 is the maximum nominal stress. The above criterion
has been successfully used to predict the damage
initiation in previous fracture mechanics investigations
[25]. Damage is initiated when the above quadratic
function involving the nominal stress ratio reaches unity.
Fracture Propagation
The fracture propagation law defines the rate of
degradation for cohesive elements. Normally, when the
fracture initiation criterion is satisfied, fracture
propagation begins. A damage ratio (D) will show the
overall damage in the material; it has a value between 0
and 1. The traction vector components are affected by
damage as follows [23]:
s n = { (s1n −, D ) sn ,sn ≥ 0
s s = (1 − D ) s s ,
s t = (1 − D ) s t
(2)
Where S n , S s , S t represent the stress components
predicted by the elastic traction-separation behavior for
the current strains without damage.
Again, a criterion must be assigned for fracture
propagation. The most widely used criteria for predicting
propagation are the power law and the Benzeggagh-
Kenane (BK) criterion. The power-law criterion predicts
the failure of thermoplastic matrix composites [25, 26],
whereas the BK criterion best describes fracture
propagation in rock and mineral composites. The latter is
expressed as a function of the Mode I and Mode II
fracture energy and a material parameter obtained from a
fracture mechanics test. Since this work assumes the
opening of a Mode I crack, fracture energy in the first
and second shear directions is the same. Thus, this
criterion best fits these simulations [23, 27]:
η
G 
G + (G − G ) s  = G C
C
n
C
s
C
n
 GT  (3)
An output variable shows how much damage each
element has undergone; this information facilitates
identification of the degradation factor in each
simulation.
There is not a single preferred method on how to apply
loading and boundary conditions on numerical models;
however, since this model was tested based on an
analytical Kirsch solution in the pre fracturing state,
displacement boundary conditions were applied here
rather than solid forces applied as distributed loads on
each face. Thus, nodes were selected on each face of the
model and displacement resulted from far field and
vertical stresses assigned to these nodes. The model was
constrained using four degree of freedoms (X, Y, Z, and
pressure). Initial conditions for saturations, void ratio,
and fracture gap opening were also assigned in the
model. Since the height of the model is less than 1
meter, the effect of internal gravitational loads (i.e. pre-
stressing) was disregarded in these simulations.
Loading Steps
Normally; the first step in any geotechnical analysis is to
equilibrate the various forces and loads applied on the
model. This model, therefore, starts with the Geostatic
feature in the software that achieves equilibrium among
the gravitational forces and far-field and vertical stresses
applied.
The operational practice in any leak-off-test (LOT), for
initiating fractures would be initial pressurization once
the well has been shut in [28]. To simulate this process,
an additional distributed load was added on the wellbore
face to exert drilling fluid pressure on the borehole wall.
Once a tensile fracture developed in the desired
direction, fluid is pumped into the induced fractures in
order to propagate them. Once some volume of
hydraulic fluids were pumped into the fracture, the
pumps are stopped. This process was simulated using the
Soils option in the simulator. The flow was started as an
injection through the few nodes defined on the wellbore
face. An injection rate 0.5 cc/sec similar to that used in
the DEA-13 experiments was used in this step. Since
the model length was small, the modeling run was
stopped after 100 seconds, and some of the cracks had
reached the end of the model by this time.

Simulations Results
With the mechanical properties defined for both the rock
and the cohesive layer, a fracture was initiated and
propagated in the maximum horizontal stress direction
that is the direction of cohesive layer. Figure 6 illustrates
the crack growth around the wellbore, and Figure 7
shows the stress profile in the y-axis direction (The
model shown in these figures is oriented 90 degrees to
the model in Figure 6). Fracture initiation created a
tensile state of stress in the fracture plane. Fluid injection
into the fracture and the initiation of fracture propagation Figure 7- Half of the actual run model is cut off to show the
increases the pore pressure in the flowing nodes and stresses around the wellbore and the tensile stress in the
changes stress distribution. In the first set of simulations;
permeability was increased from 100 milli-Darcy (mD) fracture plane (parallel to the maximum horizontal stress).
to 450 (mD). The run results show that crack growth is a
Figure 8 shows the crack openings for various
strong function of permeability. Among simulations in
permeabilities; it indicates that the crack opening widens
low-permeable to high-permeable rocks, the maximum
more over time. Figure 9 illustrates crack growth as a
difference in fracture opening was 10 microns.
function of time for several scenarios. As the
permeability increased; the fracture length has increased;
results confirm length increase of 25 cm when the
permeability was increased by 350 mD. The method for
finding fracture length is based upon whether initiation
has occurred in an element; so it would be hard to state
confidently when the small changes are observed. The
damage ratio during fracture propagation will gradually
evolve from a minimum value of 0 to 1. Table 3 shows
the maximum damage ratio for each simulation; as
expected cracks propagate most in high-permeable
rocks.

Figure 6- Crack forming parallel to the maximum horizontal

stress direction (deformation magnified 50 times)

Figure 8- Crack opening changing with permeability

 fracture close to its mouth, in this case formation
permeability must be considered when designing sealing
materials.

Table 4 reveals that fracture geometry formed in the

formation must be considered when calculating materials
volume in strengthening operations. There will be
significant changes in materials volume especially when
long fractures induced in the wellbore.

Figure 9- Crack length changing with permeability

Table 3- Maximum damage ratio as a function of permeability

K (mD) SDEG
100 0.722
150 0.749
250 0.843 Figure 10- Output showing crack growth profile in selected
300 0.871 cohesive elements
350 0.879
400 0.886
450 0.891

Figure 10 and 11 illustrates crack growth and opening

for each element in the cohesive layer at a given time
step, respectively. Based on crack width in each
cohesive element, a fracture geometry model was built
for the final crack formed around the wellbore. As
shown in Figure 12, the terms wc to wm were assigned
to crack openings from narrowest to widest; it must be
noticed that Figure 12 is roughly showing the fracture
opening through its length and the illustrated fracture tip
is not representing the actual shape of the tip. Table 4 Figure 11- Output showing crack opening profile in selected
summarizes the details of crack geometry for each cohesive elements
scenario. It was interesting to observe that the width near
the tip of the fracture has changed from 0.1 micron to 1
micron for various scenarios. Based on the widths in the
cohesive elements, the fracture volume changes from
one geometry to another. More significantly; these
results confirm that the size of the propping particles is
important for effective crack sealing. Figure 13 shows
two cracks with mouths of different widths. A change in
particle size appears to be necessary to seal the crack Figure 12- Crack geometry model in cohesive layer (Left
mouth in each model. However, it may be feasible to use side: cohesive elements close to wellbore, right side: cohesive
the same size particles for sealing crack tips in both elements at the end of the model)
cases. This is a debating issue when different techniques
of wellbore strengthening are used. For instance, in
Stress Cage technique the main target is to seal the
Table 4- Details of crack geometry changing with rock widen up more. Figure 14 shows the hoop stress
changing in fracture face for all simulations.
permeability

Crack K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7,

Opening 100 150 250 300 350 400 450
(Micron) mD mD mD mD mD mD mD
Wm 7.6 11.6 14.6 14.9 15.9 16.7 17.5
W1 2.5 5.5 7.6 7.9 8.5 9.2 9.7
W2 0.2 2.4 3.9 4 4.4 4.8 5.2
W3 0 1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.1
W4 0 0 1.6 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.5
W5 0 0 0.8 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.3
W6 0 0 0.1 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.1
W7 0 0 0 2 2.4 2.6 2.9
W8 0 0 0 0.1 1.8 2.1 2.3
W9 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.4
W10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Figure 14- Tensile strength at the fracture face versus rock
Wc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 permeability

As illustrated in the Figure 14, as the permeability of the

rock increases the hoop stress at fracture face is
decreasing and this makes it easier for fracturing to
occur. However this effect might be reduced when
higher injection rates are used or pumping time
increased as the case would be in hydraulic fracturing
operations. The point of interest in this study is the early
time short fractures created during drilling. These
fractures might lead to massive loss circulations if not
properly controlled. So arresting these early fractures
through borehole strengthening techniques will help to
mitigate this problem on time.

Filter cake permeability effect

Figure 13- Particle size for sealing crack tip and mouth in two
different cases
Effective Stress Mechanism
It is generally observed in hydraulic fracturing
treatments, that higher rock permeabilities reduces
cracks growth because as the permeability of the rock
increases, more fluids will dissipate from the fracture
and this will leave less energy to pressurize the crack to
grow. However according to our simulations we found
out of another mechanism taking place that might make
the higher permeability rocks to widen up more
comparing to lower permeability rocks. State of effective
stress around the fracture boundary is a key point in
controlling fracture width and growth; When there are
more fluids leaking from the fracture this makes the
fracture face to be in higher mode of tensile strength
according to Terzaghi's principle. This will result in
faster fracturing of the rock and the existing fracture to
A mud with controlled fluid loss properties has proved
efficient in some wellbore strengthening applications [4,
11]. This conclusion is supported by definition of a leak-
off coefficient in simulations. As shown in the Figure
15, crack openings widen more once the leak-off value
increased slightly in the model. The simulations results
are very sensitive to leak-off values; the main reason for
controlled leak-off value in our simulations was to build
an acceptable mud filter cake on the fracture face.
Increasing the leak-off value may end up in reducing the
energy inside the fracture and fracture propagation
would be affected and slowed down. For this reason,
additional lab experiments are recommended to find a
correlation between the spurt loss of drilling fluids and
the leak-off value in the simulator. At this time the exact
value of this coefficient cannot be determined. In
addition, leak-off values that are either very high or very
low result in numerical singularities and cause
convergence problems in simulations.

Figure 15- Crack openings over time for the low and high
filter cake permeabilities
Discussion
The literature reports three different techniques to
achieve wellbore strengthening [2]. Stress Cage (SC),
Fracture Closure Stress (FCS) and more recently
Fracture Propagation Resistance (FPR) are the
techniques used to elevate the fracturing pressure.
Although particle size and strength have been debating
issues in these techniques, to date no study has
determined decisively the sealing effect of particles
shape, geometry; and distribution. The fracture model
presented here can predict the fracture geometry based
on pre-defined path. Contrary to the general belief that
fracture width decreases uniformly from the mouth of
the fracture to its tip, the results of the present study
show that fractures are wider close to the mouth; and
they narrow uniformly along their length. Fracture width
data in Table 4 confirm that material shape may also be
an important issue in sealing fractures. Maintaining
bridge stability at the mouth should be harder than
pushing bridges inside the crack and this is the case
reported in some Stress Cage operations. And as
discussed by the results, formation permeability must be
considered when using this technique. Another solutions
we may speculate can be to design bridging materials
based on sealing the tip of the fracture rather than
keeping them instable at the mouth. This is similar to the
practice used for Fracture Closure Stress (FCS)
technique.
Predicting the fracture geometry is another observation
in the simulations that helps to calculate the necessary
materials volume. For instance, normal practice in Stress
Cage technique is to calculate the volume of the fracture
based on a triangular prism shaped the height and width
of the target aperture [3]. Then particle size distribution
(PSD) is predicted based on the calculated fracture
volume. The present model confirms that this volume
cannot represent the true volume of the induced fracture
and it is necessary to estimate particle size distribution
based on widths from aperture to the tip of the crack.
The practice in the Fracture Closure Stress (FCS)
technique is different. Normally size of the materials are
relatively unimportant and it is believed that "any pill
will develop into an immobile mass if it can be made to
lose its carrier fluid” [6]. The research reported here
demonstrates that if pills are not designed based on the
size and shape of a fracture, they cannot effectively seal
the fracture. In other words, there is always a risk that
the materials with which pills are made be too large to
pass through the induced fractures; in such cases, the
pills will fail once drilling practice continues.
Conclusions
This work developed a finite-element fracture model to
study the effects of time, permeability; and leak-off
coefficient on fracture opening and length. This model
has also proved able to predict exact fracture geometry
in pre-defined path. The simulations performed to test
this model support the following conclusions:
• Fracture opening and length are both strong
functions of time. In order to stop the fracture
growth, early interventions are necessary to
arrest the fracture.
• The main fracturing mechanism observed in our
simulations is due to changes in effective stress
which is justified for early small fractures
induced during drilling operations.
• In the sample rocks simulated, fractures widen
more for higher permeabilities. The simulations
also indicate that longer fractures are initiated
however since fracture length was calculated
based upon whether initiation has occurred in a
cohesive element; it is difficult to confirm when
small changes are observed in fracture lengths.
• Based on predicted fracture geometry, fracture
width does not decrease uniformly from mouth
of the fracture to its tip. Rather, fractures widen
more close to the mouth; then narrow uniformly.
• Results demonstrate that the true fracture size
and geometry formed in the formation might be
a contributing factor when designing wellbore
strengthening pills. Sealing is more effective
when the fracture width close to tip is targeted
rather than the mouth of the fracture.
• Filter cake permeability or leak-off coefficient is
an important parameter affecting fracture
growth. The simulations conducted here show
that with higher leak-off values, fracture opening
is accelerated. However, more simulations and
experiments are required to confirm the
acceptable range for this parameter in various
rocks.
Finally, since the simulations performed here were based
on a very small wellbore size (0.038 m), more and
longer simulations on larger borehole sizes are required
before the model can be used in field operations. In
addition, fracturing experiments are necessary to validate
the simulation results. Nevertheless, most of the results
of these simulations have been confirmed in field
applications of wellbore strengthening techniques.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and
Zhengyu "Jenny" Zhang specially in helping improving
this paper.
Nomenclature
sn : Nominal stress in the normal direction
sn0 : Maximum nominal stress in the normal direction
ss : Nominal stress in the first shear direction
ss0 : Maximum nominal stress in the first shear direction
st : Nominal stress in the second shear direction
st0 : Maximum nominal stress in the second shear
direction
D: Damage ratio
δ mf : Displacement at complete failure
δ m0 : Displacement at initiation of the damage
GnC : Normal mode critical fracture energy
GSC : Shear mode critical fracture energy in the first
shear direction
G S : Total fracture energy in the shear direction
GT : Total fracture energy in the normal direction
G C : Total critical fracture energy
η : Material parameter
wc
: Minimum fracture opening
wm
: Maximum fracture opening
References
1. Fjaer, E.; Holt, R.M.; Horsrud, A.M.; Raeen, A.M.
and Risnes, R. 2008. Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics. Second edition, Elsevier publishing.
2. Van Oort, E.; Friedheim, J.; Pierce, T.; and Lee, J.
2009. Avoiding Losses in Depleted and Weak Zones
by Constantly Strengthening Wellbores. SPE 125093,
2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana.
3. Alberty, M.W, and McLean, M.R. 2004. A Physical
Model for Stress Cages. SPE 90493, SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Houston.
4. Aston, M.S.; Alberty, M.W.; Duncum, S., Bruton,
J.R., Friedheim, J.E. and Sanders, M.W. 2007. A
New Treatment for Wellbore Strengthening in Shale.
SPE 110713, SPE Annual Technical Conference,
Anaheim, California.
5. Wang, H.; Towler, B.F. 2007. Fractured Wellbore
Stress Analysis: Sealing Cracks to Strengthen a
Wellbore. SPE/IADC 104947, SPE Drilling
Conference, Netherlands.
6. Dupriest, F.E. 2005. Fracture Closure Stress (FCS)
and Lost Returns Practices. SPE/IADC 92192,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
7. Aston, M.S.; Alberty, M.W.; Mclean, M.R.; de Jong
H.J.; and Armagost, K. 2004. Drilling Fluids for
Wellbore Strengthening. IADC/SPE 87130,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas.
8. Fuh, G.F.; Beardmore, D. and Morita, N. 2007.
Further Development, Field Testing, and Application
of the Wellbore Strengthening Technique for Drilling
Operations. SPE/IADC 105809, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam.
9. Traugott, D.; Sweatman, R. and Vincent, R. 2007.
Increasing the Wellbore Pressure Containment in
Gulf of Mexico HP/HT Wells. SPE Drilling &
Completion, 16-25.
10. Wang, H.; Soliman, M.H. 2008. Investigation of
Factors for Strengthening a Wellbore by Propping
Fractures. IADC/SPE 112629, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Orlando.
11. Dupriest, F.E.; Smith, M.V.; Zeilinger, C.S. and
Shoykhet, I.N. 2008. Method to Eliminate Lost
Returns and Build Integrity Continuously with High-
Filtration-Rate Fluid. SPE/IADC 112656. Orlando.
12. Aadnoy, B.S.; Belayneh, M. 2008. Design of Well
Barriers to Combat Circulation Loss. SPE Drilling &
Completion, 295-300.
13. Dixon, J.R. and Strannigan, J.S. 1972. Determination
of Energy Release Rates and Stress-Intensity Factors
by the Finite-Element Method, Journal of Strain
Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 125-131.
14. Woo, C.W. and Kuruppu, M.D. 1992. Use of Finite
Element Method for Determining Stress Intensity
Factors with a Coin-Section Simulation Model of
Crack Surface, International Journal of Fracture,
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 163-178.
15. Sepehr, K. and Stimpson, B. 1988. Potash Mining
and Seismicity: A Time-Dependent Finite Element
Method, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 383-392.
16. Anderson, T.L. 1995. Fracture Mechanics:
Fundamentals and Applications, second edition.
Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 37, No. 16,
1415-1438
26. Needleman, A. 1987. A Continuum Model for Void
Nucleation by Inclusion Deboning. Journal of
Applied Mechanics 54:525-31.
27. Benzeggagh, M.L. and M. Kenane. 1996.
Measurement of Mixed Mode Delamination Fracture
toughness of Unidirectional Glass/Epoxy Composites
With Mixed-Mode Bending Apparatus. Composites
Science and Technology 56:439-49
28. Aadnoy, B.S.; Cooper, I.; Miska, S.Z.; Mitchell, R.F.
and Payne, Michael L. 2009. Advanced Drilling and
Well Technology, SPE publications.

17. Morita, N.; Black, A.D. and Fuh, G.F. 1996.

Borehole Breakdown Pressure with Drilling Fluids-I.
Emperical Results. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. , 39-51.

18. Morita, N.; Black, A.D. and Fuh, G.F. 1996.

Borehole Breakdown Pressure with Drilling Fluids-
II. Semi-Analytical Solution to Predict Borehole
Breakdon Pressure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech., 53-69.

19. Baremblatt GI. 1962. The mathematical theory of

equilibrium of cracks in brittle fractures. Advanced
Applied Mechanics; 7:55-129.

20. Hillerborg A, Modeer N, Petersson PE. 1976.

Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in
concrete by means of fracture mechanics in finite
elements. Cement and Concrete Research; 6:773-782.

21. Marfia S.; and Sacco E. 2003. Numerical techniques

for the analysis of crack propagation in cohesive
materials. Int. Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering; 57:1577-1602.

22. Turon, A.; Davila, C.G.; Camanho, P.P; and Costa, J.

2007. An engineering solution for mesh size effects
in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone
models. Journal of Engineering Fracture Mechanics
74, 1665-1682.

23. Abaqus Documentation Manual, version 6.9, 2009.

24. Cui, W., M. R. Wisnom, and M.Jones. 1992. " A

Comparison of Failure Criteria to Predict
Delamination Unidirectional Glass/Epoxy Specimens
Waisted Through the Thickness." Composites 23(3):
158-66.

25. Camanho, P.P. and Davila, C.G. 2003. Mixed Mode

Decohesion Finite Elements for the Simulation of
Delamination in Composite Materials. Nasa/TM.,