SPRINGER BRIEFS IN

PETROLEUM GEOSCIENCE & ENGINEERING

Yongcun Feng · K. E. Gray

Lost Circulation
and Wellbore
Strengthening
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience
& Engineering

Series editors
Dorrik Stow, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Mark Bentley, AGR TRACS International Ltd, Aberdeen, UK
Jebraeel Gholinezhad, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK
Lateef Akanji, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Khalik Mohamad Sabil, Heriot-Watt University, Putrajaya, Malaysia
Susan Agar, Houston, USA
Kenichi Soga, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, USA
A. A. Sulaimon, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Petronas, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
The SpringerBriefs series in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering promotes and
expedites the dissemination of substantive new research results, state-of-the-art
subject reviews and tutorial overviews in the field of petroleum exploration,
petroleum engineering and production technology. The subject focus is on upstream
exploration and production, subsurface geoscience and engineering. These concise
summaries (50–125 pages) will include cutting-edge research, analytical methods,
advanced modelling techniques and practical applications. Coverage will extend to
all theoretical and applied aspects of the field, including traditional drilling,
shale-gas fracking, deepwater sedimentology, seismic exploration, pore-flow
modelling and petroleum economics. Topics include but are not limited to:

• Petroleum Geology & Geophysics

• Exploration: Conventional and Unconventional
• Seismic Interpretation
• Formation Evaluation (well logging)
• Drilling and Completion
• Hydraulic Fracturing
• Geomechanics
• Reservoir Simulation and Modelling
• Flow in Porous Media: from nano- to field-scale
• Reservoir Engineering
• Production Engineering
• Well Engineering; Design, Decommissioning and Abandonment
• Petroleum Systems; Instrumentation and Control
• Flow Assurance, Mineral Scale & Hydrates
• Reservoir and Well Intervention
• Reservoir Stimulation
• Oilfield Chemistry
• Risk and Uncertainty
• Petroleum Economics and Energy Policy

Contributions to the series can be made by submitting a proposal to the responsible

Springer contact, Charlotte Cross at [Link]@[Link] or the Academic
Series Editor, Prof Dorrik Stow at [Link]@[Link].

More information about this series at [Link]

Yongcun Feng K. E. Gray
•

Lost Circulation
and Wellbore Strengthening

123
Yongcun Feng K. E. Gray
Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Department of Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX Austin, TX
USA USA

ISSN 2509-3126 ISSN 2509-3134 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering
ISBN 978-3-319-89434-8 ISBN 978-3-319-89435-5 (eBook)
[Link]
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018939313

© The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Lost circulation, the loss of partial or whole drilling fluid into the formation, is one
of the most common and costly problems in drilling operations. Typical scenarios
of lost circulation include drilling through pressure depleted zones, deepwater
formations, naturally fractured shales, and carbonate formations. Wellbore
strengthening is an effective and economic technique to prevent or mitigate lost
circulation problem. This technique artificially increases the maximum pressure a
wellbore can withstand by bridging or sealing the natural or drilling induced
fractures on the wellbore wall. Although a number of experimental studies and field
applications of wellbore strengthening have been reported in the drilling industry,
the fundamental mechanisms of lost circulation and wellbore strengthening are still
not thoroughly understood, and the industry still lacks sufficient models for lost
circulation prediction and wellbore strengthening evaluation. This book makes an
effort to fill these knowledge gaps.
This book focuses on the underlying mechanisms of lost circulation and well-
bore strengthening. It presents a comprehensive, yet concise, overview of the
fundamental studies on lost circulation and wellbore strengthening in the oil and gas
industry, as well as a detailed discussion on the limitations of the wellbore
strengthening methods currently used in the industry. The book provides several
advanced analytical and numerical models for the simulations of lost circulation and
wellbore strengthening under realistic conditions. Simulation results are presented
to illustrate the capabilities of the models and to investigate the influences of key
parameters. In addition, experimental results are also provided for better under-
standing of the subject.
The book is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 begins with a brief introduction
to the definition, scenarios and consequences of lost circulation, and the concept
and different methods of wellbore strengthening. This chapter also provides a
critical review of fundamental studies on lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening.
Chapter 2 covers some background knowledges of drilling-related geomechanics
which are closely related to lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. Concepts
such as in situ stress, stress concentration around a wellbore, and drilling mud

v
vi Preface

weight window are introduced. Familiarity with these concepts is essential for
understanding the mechanisms of lost circulation and wellbore strengthening.
To understand fracture behavior during lost circulation, Chap. 3 describes a
numerical model for lost circulation simulation. The model couples dynamic mud
circulation in the wellbore and fracture propagation into the formation. It provides
estimates of time-dependent wellbore pressure, fluid loss rate, and fracture profile
during drilling. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate the effects of several
key parameters on lost circulation.
Chapter 4 illustrates the mechanisms of wellbore strengthening in detail. An
analytical model based on linear elastic fracture mechanics is introduced which
provides a fast procedure to predict wellbore strengthening after bridging the
fractures. Moreover, a numerical model is developed which gives a more detailed
description of the distribution of local stress and fracture width with wellbore
strengthening operations. A couple of experimental studies of wellbore strength-
ening are also described in this chapter.
Chapter 5 summarizes the properties and features of various lost circulation
materials (LCMs) currently used in the drilling industry. Formations with different
lithology usually require different LCMs. LCMs suitable for permeable sandstones,
low-permeability shales, and carbonate formations are discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 6 provides some recommendations for future endeavors.
The book will help the readers understand quickly the concepts related to lost
circulation and wellbore strengthening. It offers valuable information and guidelines
for drilling engineers who face lost circulation problem in their wells and want to
use wellbore strengthening technique to solve the problem. The book is also useful
for industrial researchers and graduate students who perform fundamental resear-
ches in this area.

Austin, USA Yongcun Feng

K. E. Gray
Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Wider Windows Industrial Affiliate Program, the University
of Texas at Austin, for financial and logistical support of the research work utilized
in this book.
We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Wider Windows sponsors
BHP Billiton, British Petroleum, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, Marathon,
National Oilwell Varco, Occidental Oil and Gas, and Shell.

Yongcun Feng
K. E. Gray

vii
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 1
1.1 Lost Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 1
1.2 Wellbore Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 2
1.3 A Literature Review of Fundamental Studies on Lost
Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Experimental Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Physical Models of Wellbore Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.3 Analytical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.4 Numerical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Drilling Related Geomechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 In-Situ Stress and Pore Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Field Injectivity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Stress Around a Wellbore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Wellbore Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Drilling Mud Weight Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Lost Circulation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.2 Formulation of the Lost Circulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.3 Results of the Lost Circulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.1 Wellbore Ballooning Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.2 Formulation of the Wellbore Ballooning Model . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3.3 Results of the Wellbore Ballooning Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

ix
x Contents

4 Wellbore Strengthening Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 43

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 43
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening ....... 44
4.2.1 Analytical Wellbore Strengthening Model
for Bridging Small Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 44
4.2.2 Analytical Wellbore Strengthening Model
for Bridging Large Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.3 Results of the Small Fracture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.4 Results of the Large Fracture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2.5 Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.1 Development of the Numerical Wellbore
Strengthening Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3.2 Hoop Stress and Fracture Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3.3 Effect of Horizontal Stress Contrast SHmax =Shmin . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.4 Effect of LCM Bridge Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3.5 Effect of Pressure Behind LCM Bridge (Bridge
Permeability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.3.6 Field Implications of the Numerical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.4 Some Experimental Results of Wellbore Strengthening . . . . . . . . . 68
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5 Lost Circulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.2 Lost Circulation Materials for High-Permeability Formations . . . . 75
5.3 Lost Circulation Materials for Low-Permeability Shales . . . . . . . . 76
5.4 Lost Circulation Materials for Carbonate Formations . . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6 Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.1 Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Prologue

Lost circulation problems have plagued the drilling industry for many years, with
substantial nonproductive time and costs for prevention and remedial actions. While
wellbore strengthening is often used to prevent or mitigate lost circulation, there are
numerous physical concepts for the different types of scenarios encountered and
operational consequences in different types of wellbore strengthening treatments.
Thus, the authors, Yongcun Feng and K. E. Gray, provide an overview of funda-
mental studies on lost circulation and wellbore strengthening and do an admirable
job of presenting various analytical and numerical models in a scientific and
unbiased fashion.
Although lost circulation is extremely important to the drilling industry, wide-
spread disagreement about both its root causes and the best mitigation strategies still
remain. Perhaps this is to be expected, since at a minimum, fully understanding lost
circulation requires an in-depth knowledge of pore pressure, in situ stresses, near
wellbore stresses, and multiple properties of the formation rock. In addition, pro-
cedures for avoiding or mitigating lost circulation require detailed knowledge about
drilling fluids and their physical and chemical interactions with all formations
within a well or wellbore.
In the early 1990s, improved estimates for pore pressure, fracture gradient, and
deviated wellbore stability for wells drilled in the North Sea were needed. At that
time, two target reservoir sands were moderately depleted from their original pore
pressures of 10.5 ppg and 14.0 ppg, respectively. Fortunately, significant closure
stress and fracture gradient data, obtained from injectivity tests and hydraulic
fracture stimulation operations, were available. As drilling operations and pro-
duction related depletion continued over the subsequent 2–1/2 decades, multiple
observations were made regarding changes in fracture gradient and lost circulation
with respect to depletion.
Leak-off tests in moderately inclined wellbores were only slightly reduced fol-
lowing significant reservoir depletion. Reservoir pressures in both formations were
now below 5.0 ppg. It was determined that fracture closure pressure (FCP) and
minimum fracture propagation pressure (FPP) had been reduced significantly, as
predicted. One dramatic example occurred while cementing a production liner. As

xi
xii Prologue

designed, the pre-flush successfully removed the filter cake across a depleted sand,
and total lost circulation was observed. A subsequent trip inside the casing to
determine the fluid level confirmed that the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore had
stabilized at the estimated FPP in the depleted sand. It was also noted that the well
had been drilled with an equivalent circulating density (ECD) significantly greater
than this pressure, without significant fluid loss.
From these and multiple additional observations, it was determined that the
tangential (hoop) stress equation (Kirsch solution) did a reasonably good job of
estimating fracture initiation pressure (leak-off), including changes with respect to
wellbore orientation and reservoir depletion, as long as the filter cake remained
intact. However, with the filter cake removed, or absent, total losses occurred at
FPP. Conversely, it was determined that for multiple shallower formations, which
consisted mostly of silty shale and carbonates, leak-off tests were lower than
expected, with seemingly no benefit from near wellbore hoop stress. It was sur-
mised that the near wellbore stress field was bypassed by preexisting fractures, or
there was a lack of filter cake development. It was also observed that there were
often significant differences between FCP, FPP, and leak-off pressure, contrary to
assertions in the literature.
It was suggested that the depleted formations were being strengthened, with
fractures initiated at the wellbore wall and then quickly filled with background
LCM, creating a plug at the fracture opening. But observed leak-off pressures were
equal to (and not greater than) the hoop stress estimated by the Kirsch solution with
no “strengthening.” This discrepancy may be explained by an LCM enhanced filter
cake forcing fractures to initiate at the wellbore wall, taking advantage of the
already present hoop stress. There remains widespread disagreement about this, but
interestingly, the LCM recommendations are identical in either case!
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, with a major exploration push into the
deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM), operators immediately experienced difficulties
associated with narrow drilling margins. The pore pressure/fracture gradient win-
dow had to be pushed to its limit in nearly every hole section, to ensure there would
be an adequate number of casing and liner strings to reach the objective formations.
Wellbore breathing (often called ballooning) and lost circulation were often
observed at pressures significantly below the previous casing shoe test. Synthetic
based mud (SBM) was very popular due to its shale inhibition, increased lubricity,
reduced ECD, ease of running and maintaining, and significantly reduced
propensity for differential sticking. However, it also had its drawbacks, including
higher costs, cuttings disposal issues, potential masking of small gas influxes, and
often lower observed fracture gradient compared to water-based mud (WBM). The
widespread availability of logging while drilling (LWD) tools now made it possible
to observe where wellbore breathing and lost circulation events were occurring.
Interestingly, these losses were often seen in silty or ratty shale, often but not
necessarily, at the transition between clean shale and sand. Furthermore, wellbore
breathing was almost exclusively associated with nonaqueous drilling fluids.
Several operators reported incidences of switching back to (WBM) in a particular
hole section, in order to continue drilling with fewer mud losses and avoid setting
Prologue xiii

casing prematurely. Significant work was being performed to describe the differ-
ences in FPP pressure between WBM and SBM, which focused on the major filter
cake property differences within a fracture. The WBM filter cake was apparently
superior for isolating the fracture tip from the wellbore pressure, thereby increasing
FPP.
In addition, the numerous “lost circulation pills” formulated by various service
companies for squeezing into and sealing fractures, required dewatering once in
place in order for the fracture to close and seal around them. It was observed that
these pills rarely performed well, unless they were mixed in a water-based carrier
fluid. Otherwise, they would not effectively dewater into the shale and allow the
fracture to close. This observation led to consideration of wettability of the silty
shale formations (usually water wet) and associated capillary entry pressures for
non-wetting phase SBM, as playing a significant role in lost circulation pill
dewatering. It was also considered that this same phenomenon may be partially
responsible for the improved filter cake properties for WBM compared to SBM,
inside a fracture.
Despite improved understanding of wellbore breathing and lost circulation with
SBM, results of mitigation strategies remain mixed. Pills that do not require
dewatering are available, but operations to spot them are still expensive and time
consuming, and these pills are frequently eroded by subsequent drilling operations.
Some operators have focused more on ECD reduction methods for improving
drilling margins, including constant bottom hole pressure techniques.
While lost circulation and its control have been studied extensively and signif-
icant advances have been achieved, knowledge gaps and unsolved problems still
pose significant nonproductive time and costs for the drilling industry. Additional
studies are needed, and topical recommendations by the authors of this monograph
include: preexisting fractures; thermal effects; time-dependent developments of
external and internal mudcake; numerical models to simulate transportation and
deposition of LCMs in fractures; bridging/plugging processes; fracture geometry
during drilling for selecting/adjusting size distribution of LCMs in real time;
improved or new logging while drilling techniques for acquiring better knowledge
of drilling-induced or preexisting natural fractures; lost circulation in carbonates;
LC events in anisotropic/heterogeneous formations with complex lithology, stress,
and pressure profiles; advanced LCMs that are both reservoir and environment
friendly.

John Jones
Marathon Oil Company (retired)
Chapter 1
Introduction

Abstract Lost circulation is a wellbore instability problem that has plagued the
drilling industry for years. Wellbore strengthening is recognized as an effective tech-
nique to prevent or mitigate lost circulation. This chapter introduces the common
scenarios and consequences of lost circulation, as well as the concepts and different
types of wellbore strengthening treatments. A review of fundamental studies on lost
circulation and wellbore strengthening is also presented.

1.1 Lost Circulation

Lost circulation is the partial or whole losses of drilling fluid into the formation during
drilling. It is a major cause of non-productive time (NPT) in the drilling industry.
Lost circulation can lead to various drilling incidents, such as differential sticking
and well control events, which further increase NPT and drilling costs [1]. More than
12% of NPT has been reported due to lost circulation in the Gulf of Mexico area
shelf drilling [2]. The US Department of Energy reported that on average 10–20% of
the drilling cost of high-pressure and high-temperature (HTHP) wells is expended
on mud losses [3]. The impact of lost circulation on well construction is significant,
representing an estimated 2–4 billion dollars annually in lost time, lost drilling fluid,
and materials used to stem mud losses [4].
Mud loss may cause a reduced mud level in the well annulus. As a result, the
bottom hole pressure (BHP) may become insufficient to balance formation pressure,
and well control issues such as kick and underground blowouts will occur. Wellbore
collapse may also occur due to reduced BHP. In some cases, the collapsed wellbore
may result in buried drilling tools and stuck pipe [5, 6]. These incidents further
increase NPT and drilling costs.
Most lost circulation events are due to fracture extension from the wellbore to
the far field region. So lost circulation is a fracture initiation and propagation prob-
lem, occurring when the BHP is high enough to create fractures into the formation.
Lost circulation commonly happens in formations with narrow drilling mud weight

© The Author(s) 2018 1

Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
2 1 Introduction

windows (MWW) between pore pressure/collapse pressure gradient and fracture

gradient.
Several typical scenarios having a narrow MWW include depleted zones, deep-
water formations, naturally fractured formations, and deviated wellbores [7]. In
depleted zones, pore pressure reduction leads to a decreased fracture pressure and thus
a lower pressure-bearing capacity of the wellbore. In deep-water formations, consid-
erable water depth can cause a lower-than-usual fracture pressure. While drilling
deviated wellbores, the MWW may diminish quickly with borehole inclination
increase in some field stress conditions. Existence of natural fractures can signif-
icantly reduce the pressure-bearing capacity of a wellbore due to the low strength
and reopening pressures of such fractures.
Note that lost circulation events are also commonly encountered in carbonate for-
mations. This type of formation is often characterized by the presence of vugs and
cavities [8–10]. Nevertheless, this book mainly focuses on lost circulation through
fracture extension in clastic formations rather than through vugs in carbonate forma-
tions.

1.2 Wellbore Strengthening

The wellbore strengthening technique has been extensively used in the drilling indus-
try to prevent or mitigate drilling fluid loss. Wellbore strengthening can be defined
as methods to artificially increase the maximum pressure a wellbore can withstand
without intolerable mud losses. Wellbore strengthening aims to enhance the effec-
tive fracture pressure and widen the mud weight window, rather than increasing
the strength of the wellbore rock. By preventing and/or mitigating fluid loss, well-
bore strengthening also reduces lost circulation associated NPT events, e.g. wellbore
instability, pipe sticking, underground blowouts, and kicks.
Wellbore strengthening attempts to bridge, plug, or seal wellbore fractures with
lost circulation materials (LCMs) to arrest the propagation of lost circulation frac-
ture(s). The pressure-bearing capacity of the wellbore can be enhanced by one or a
combination of the following mechanisms in wellbore strengthening treatments.
• Bridge a fracture near its mouth to increase the local compressive hoop stress
around the wellbore and enhance fracture opening resistance [11–21];
• Widen and prop a fracture to enhance the fracture closure stress that acts on closing
the fracture [22–29];
• Form a filter cake in the fracture to isolate the fracture tip from wellbore pressure
and enhance resistance to fracture propagation [4, 30–39].
1.3 A Literature Review of Fundamental Studies on Lost Circulation … 3

1.3 A Literature Review of Fundamental Studies on Lost

Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening

1.3.1 Experimental Studies

Very few experimental studies have been conducted on lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening. The DEA-13 experimental study conducted in the middle 1980s to
early 1990s [33, 37, 40] is an early experimental investigation into lost circulation.
The aim of that study was to examine why lost circulation occurs less frequently
while drilling with water based mud (WBM) than with oil based mud (OBM). A
major observation of DEA-13 project was that fracture propagation pressure (FPP) is
strongly related to mud type and significantly increased by the use of LCM additives.
This result was explained by a physical model called “tip screen-out” [33, 34, 36,
40], which indicates that the increase in FPP is due to isolation of the fracture tip
and wellbore pressure by an LCM filtercake in the fracture.
The GPRI 2000 project conducted in the late 1990s to early 2000s [38] is another
major experimental effort. The purpose of the GPRI 2000 project was to evaluate
the capabilities of different LCMs on increasing fracture gradient. The experimental
results show that fracture reopening pressure (FRP) of a wellbore can be increased
by using LCMs and this effect is more remarkable in WBM than in OBM or synthetic
based muds (SBM).
A recent experimental study on lost circulation conducted from late 2000s to
early 2010s is called the Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening Research
Cooperative Agreement (RCA) project [41]. The aim of this project was to investigate
the wellbore strengthening mechanism and the effectiveness of different wellbore
strengthening methods (preventive and remedial methods). The main findings of this
study include (1) a preventive wellbore strengthening treatment is more effective
than remedial treatment; (2) particle size distribution (PSD) and concentration of
LCM are critical in wellbore strengthening; and (3) fracture pressure achieved with
wellbore strengthening can be higher than the formation breakdown pressure (FBP).

1.3.2 Physical Models of Wellbore Strengthening

There are three major physical models used in the drilling industry for explaining why
wellbore strengthening treatments can “strengthen” a wellbore. They are the Stress
Cage model, Fracture Closure Stress model, and Fracture Propagation Resistance
model.
In the Stress Cage model [11], the LCMs wedge the fracture close to the wellbore
together with filtration control agents. Next, trapped fluid in the fracture filters into the
formation due to pressure difference; meanwhile compressive forces are transferred
to the LCM-bridge at the fracture mouth. Finally, the fracture is bridged at the fracture
mouth, resulting in an increased hoop stress.
4 1 Introduction

In the Fracture Closure Stress (FCS) model [25], a fracture at the wellbore wall
is first created and widened to increase the compressive stress (i.e. fracture closure
stress) in the adjacent rock. Next, LCMs are forced into the fracture. As the carrier
fluid leaks off into the formation, the LCM particles consolidate and form an immo-
bile mass inside the fracture that keeps the fracture open and isolates the fracture
tip from wellbore pressure. The increased fracture closure stress and isolation of the
fracture tip make the fracture more difficult to open and extend.
The Fracture Propagation Resistance (FPR) model [34, 38] does not aim to
increase wellbore hoop stress; instead it attempts to increase resistance against frac-
ture propagation by forming a filtercake inside the fracture. The filtercake can seal
the fracture tip and prevent pressure communication between the fracture tip and
wellbore, thereby increasing the resistance to fracture propagation.

1.3.3 Analytical Studies

There is no extensive analytical investigation on lost circulation and wellbore

strengthening in the drilling industry. Several parameters of interest in analytical
studies are fracture pressure, fracture width, and fracture-tip stress intensity factor,
before and after bridging/sealing the fracture. For calculating these parameters, it is
important to consider the near wellbore stress concentration for short fractures and
pressure drop along the fracture for large fractures.
[42] developed an approximate, closed-form model for fracture mouth opening
of two fractures symmetrically located at the wellbore wall, based on linear elastic
fracture mechanics. Their model is only valid for a relative short fracture with a
length less than 4 wellbore radii and for a maximum to minimum horizontal stress
ratio less than 2.
[1] proposed a semi-analytical solution for wellbore strengthening analysis based
on singular integral formulation of the stress field. The model considers far field stress
anisotropy and near wellbore stress perturbation, but it doesn’t consider pressure drop
along the fracture.
[43] applied the penny-shaped hydraulic fracture model developed by [44] to
analyze fracture pressure increase after plugging the fracture. The model does not
consider near wellbore stress concentration and therefore can only be used for a long
fracture. Moreover, the model assumes that the pressure is uniform inside the fracture
from the wellbore to the LCM plug (i.e. it does not consider pressure drop), which is
not realistic for a large fracture from the perspective of viscous pressure drop along
the fracture.
[36] presented two sets of closed-form solutions of stress intensity factor and
fracture pressure for fractures bridging at the fracture mouth and inside the fracture,
based on linear elastic fracture mechanics and the superposition principle. The model
also assumes that the pressure inside the fracture from fracture mouth to bridge
location is uniform and equal to wellbore pressure. The model for bridging inside
the fracture neglects the effect of the wellbore on stress intensity factor induced by
1.3 A Literature Review of Fundamental Studies on Lost Circulation … 5

pressure from the LCM bridge to fracture tip. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is only
valid for the cases with large fractures when the effect of the wellbore can be ignored.
[39] extended the KGD hydraulic fracture model [45–47] to calculate fracture
pressure and fracture width after sealing the fracture in wellbore strengthening. How-
ever, this model neglects both near wellbore stress concentration and pressure drop
in the fracture.

1.3.4 Numerical Studies

Numerical methods have also been applied to simulate lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening for understanding the mechanisms behind them.
[2, 20] developed a 2D boundary-element method (BEM) model to calculate
stress and fracture width distribution before and after bridging a fracture in wellbore
strengthening. [42] used a 2D finite-element method (FEM) model to investigate the
fracture width distribution for two symmetrically located fractures on the wellbore
with various in situ stresses and fracture lengths; but the model does not simulate frac-
ture bridging. [11] employed a 2D FEM model to calculate fracture width and hoop
stress distribution after bridging the fracture near its mouth under nearly isotropic
in situ stresses. All of these numerical models assume that the rock is linearly elastic
and do not consider porous features of the rock, therefore the effect of pore pressure
and fluid flow are not considered.
In order to perform a comprehensive parametric study for wellbore strengthening,
[16, 48] developed a 2D FEM poroelastic model considering fluid flow inside the
rock and across fracture surfaces. That model is described later in this book. With the
aim to exam the hypothesis of hoop stress increase when fractures are sealed/bridged
as presented in the Stress Cage theory, [49, 50] modeled fracture propagation and
sealing during lost circulation and wellbore strengthening using the cohesive zone
model. They argued that fracture sealing/bridging cannot increase wellbore hoop
stress beyond its ideal state when no fracture exists. In their model, a predefined
injection rate (fluid loss rate) boundary condition was defined at the fracture inlet
which is not consistent with the actual drilling situation where the downhole condition
at the fracture inlet is neither a constant flow rate nor a constant pressure.

References

1. Shahri MP, Oar T, Safari R, Karimi M, Mutlu U (2014) Advanced geomechanical analysis
of wellbore strengthening for depleted reservoir drilling applications. In: IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, 4–6 March. SPE-167976-MS. [Link]
10.2118/167976-MS
2. Wang H, Towler BF, Soliman MY (2007) Fractured wellbore stress analysis: sealing cracks to
strengthen a wellbore. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 20–22 February, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. [Link]
6 1 Introduction

3. Growcock FB, Kaageson-Loe N, Friedheim J, Sanders MW, Bruton J (2009) Wellbore stability,
stabilization and strengthening. In: Offshore Mediterranean conference and exhibition, 25–27
March, Ravenna, Italy
4. Cook J, Growcock F, Guo Q, Hodder M, Van Oort E (2011) Stabilizing the wellbore to prevent
lost circulation. Oilfield Rev 23(4)
5. Lavrov A (2016) Lost circulation: mechanisms and solutions, 1st edn. Gulf Professional Pub-
lishing, Cambridge
6. Messenger J (1981) Lost circulation. Pennwell Corp, Tulsa
7. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2016) A review on fracture-initiation and -propagation pressures
for lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. SPE Drill Completion 31(02):134–144
8. Davidson E, Richardson L, Zoller S (2000) Control of lost circulation in fractured lime-
stone reservoirs. In: IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, 11–13 Sept, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. [Link]
9. Masi S, Molaschi C, Zausa F, Michelez J (2011) Managing circulation losses in a harsh drilling
environment: conventional solution vs. CHCD through a risk assessment. SPE Drilling Com-
pletion 26(02):198–207
10. Wang S et al (2010) Real-time downhole monitoring and logging reduced mud loss drastically
for high-pressure gas wells in Tarim Basin, China. SPE Drilling Completion 25(02):187–192
11. Alberty MW, McLean MR (2004) A physical model for stress cages. In: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 26–29 Sept, Houston, Texas. [Link]
12. Aston MS, Alberty MW, Duncum SD, Bruton JR, Friedheim JE, Sanders MW (2007) A new
treatment for wellbore strengthening in shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, 11–14 Nov, Anaheim, California, USA. [Link]
MS
13. Aston MS, Alberty MW, McLean MR, de Jong HJ, Armagost K (2004) Drilling fluids for
wellbore strengthening. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 2–4 March, Dallas,
Texas. [Link]
14. Bassey A et al (2012) A new (3D MUDSYST Model) approach to wellbore strengthening while
drilling in depleted sands: a critical application of LCM and stress caging model. In: Nigeria
Annual International Conference and Exhibition, 6–8 August, Lagos, Nigeria. [Link]
10.2118/162946-MS
15. Chellappah K, Kumar A, Aston M (2015) Drilling depleted sands: challenges associated with
wellbore strengthening fluids. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition,17–19 March,
London, England, UK. [Link]
16. Feng Y, Arlanoglu C, Podnos E, Becker E, Gray KE (2015) Finite-element studies of hoop-
stress enhancement for wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 30(01):38–51
17. Loloi M, Zaki KS, Zhai Z, Abou-Sayed AS (2010) Borehole strengthening and injector plug-
ging—the common geomechanics thread. In: North Africa technical conference and exhibition,
14–17 Feb, Cairo, Egypt. [Link]
18. Shen X (2016) Widened safe mud window for naturally fractured shale formations: a workflow
and case study. In: IADC/SPE Asia Pacific drilling technology conference, 22–24 August,
Singapore. [Link]
19. Song J, Rojas JC (2006) Preventing mud losses by wellbore strengthening. In: SPE Russian
Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3–6 October, Moscow, Russia. [Link]
org/10.2118/101593-MS
20. Wang H, Soliman MY, Towler BF (2008) Investigation of factors for strengthening a wellbore
by propping fractures. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference, 4–6 March, Orlando, Florida, USA.
[Link]
21. Zhang J, Alberty M, Blangy JP (2016) A semi-analytical solution for estimating the fracture
width in wellbore strengthening applications. In: SPE deepwater drilling and completions
conference, 14–15 Sept, Galveston, Texas, USA. [Link]
22. Buechler S et al (2015) Root cause analysis of drilling lost returns in injectite reservoirs. In:
SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 28–30 Sept, Houston, Texas, USA. https://
[Link]/10.2118/174848-MS
References 7

23. Duffadar RD, Dupriest FE, Zeilinger SC (2013) Practical guide to lost returns treatment selec-
tion based on a holistic model of the state of the near wellbore stresses. In: SPE/IADC drilling
conference, 5–7 March, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Link]
24. Dupriest FE (2009) Use of new hydrostatic packer concept to manage lost returns, well control,
and cement placement in field operations. SPE Drilling Completion 24(4):574–580
25. Dupriest FE (2005) Fracture closure stress (FCS) and lost returns practices. In: SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, 23–25 Feb, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [Link]
26. Dupriest FE, Smith MV, Zeilinger SC, Shoykhet N (2008) Method to eliminate lost returns and
build integrity continuously with high-filtration-rate fluid. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference,
4–6 March, Orlando, Florida, USA. [Link]
27. Lai YK, Woodward B (2014) Fracture closure stress treatment in low fracture pressure reservoir.
In: International petroleum technology conference, 10–12 Dec, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. https:
//[Link]/10.2523/IPTC-17850-MS
28. Montgomery JK, Keller SR, Krahel N, Smith MV (2007) Improved method for use of chelation
to free stuck pipe and enhance treatment of lost returns. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference,
20–22 Feb, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Link]
29. Vaczi K, Estes BL, Ryan J, Linehan S, Mota M (2009) Drilling fluid design prevents lost
returns by building integrity continuously while drilling in East Texas. In: SPE/IADC drilling
conference and exhibition, 17–19 March, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Link]
2118/119269-MS
30. Contreras O, Hareland G, Husein M, Nygaard R, Alsaba M (2014) Wellbore strengthening
in sandstones by means of nanoparticle-based drilling fluids. In: SPE deepwater drilling and
completions conference, 10–11 Sept, Galveston, Texas, USA. [Link]
MS
31. Fuh GF, Beardmore DH, Morita N (2007) Further development, field testing, and application of
the wellbore strengthening technique for drilling operations. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference,
20–22 Feb, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Link]
32. Jacobs T (2014) Pushing the frontier through wellbore strengthening. J Petrol Technol
66(11):64–73
33. Morita N, Black AD, Fuh GF (1996) Borehole breakdown pressure with drilling fluids—I.
Empirical results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(1):39–51
34. Morita N, Fuh GF, Black AD (1996) Borehole breakdown pressure with drilling fluids—II.
Semi-analytical solution to predict borehole breakdown pressure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 33(1):53–69
35. Morita N, Black AD, Guh GF (1990) Theory of lost circulation pressure. In: SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition, 23–26 Sept, New Orleans, Louisiana. [Link]
2118/20409-MS
36. Morita N, Fuh G-F (2012) Parametric analysis of wellbore-strengthening methods from basic
rock mechanics. SPE Drilling Completion 27(02):315–327
37. Onyia EC (1994) Experimental data analysis of lost-circulation problems during drilling with
oil-based mud. SPE Drilling Completion 9(01):25–31
38. van Oort E, Friedheim JE, Pierce T, Lee J (2011) Avoiding losses in depleted and weak zones
by constantly strengthening wellbores. SPE Drilling Completion 26(4):519–530
39. van Oort E, Razavi OS (2014) Wellbore strengthening and casing smear: the common under-
lying mechanism. In: IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort Worth,
Texas, USA. [Link]
40. Fuh GF, Morita N, Boyd PA, McGoffin SJ (1992) A new approach to preventing lost circulation
while drilling. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4–7 Oct, Washington,
D.C. [Link]
41. Guo Q, Cook J, Way P, Ji L, Friedheim JE (2014) A comprehensive experimental study on
wellbore strengthening. In: IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort
Worth, Texas, USA. [Link]
42. Guo Q, Feng YZ, Jin ZH (2011) Fracture aperture for wellbore strengthening applications. In:
45th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium, 26–29 June, San Francisco, California.
8 1 Introduction

43. Ito T, Zoback MD, Peska P (2001) Utilization of mud weights in excess of the least prin-
cipal stress to stabilize wellbores: theory and practical examples. SPE Drilling Completion
16(4):221–229
44. Abé H, Keer LM, Mura T (1976) Growth rate of a penny-shaped crack in hydraulic fracturing
of rocks, 2. J Geophys Res 81(35):6292–6298
45. Geertsma J, De Klerk F (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically
induced fractures. J Petrol Technol 21(12):1571–1581
46. Linkov AM (2013) Analytical solution of hydraulic fracture problem for a non-Newtonian
fluid. J Min Sci 49(1):8–18
47. Christianovich SA, Zheltov YP (1955) Formation of vertical fractures by means of a highly
viscous liquid. In: Proc. 4th World Petroleum Congress 2:579–586
48. Feng Y, Gray KE (2016) A parametric study for wellbore strengthening. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
30:350–363
49. Salehi S (2012) Numerical simulations of fracture propagation and sealing: implications for
wellbore strengthening. Doctoral Dissertations, Missouri University of Science and Technol-
ogy, Rolla, Missouri, USA
50. Salehi S, Nygaard R (2011) Numerical study of fracture initiation, propagation, sealing to
enhance wellbore fracture gradient. In: 45th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium,
26–29 June, San Francisco, California
Chapter 2
Drilling Related Geomechanics

Abstract Analyses of lost circulation and wellbore strengthening require knowledge

of formation and wellbore geomechanics. This chapter provides a brief overview of
some geomechanical concepts related to the subject, including in-situ stress, pore
pressure, wellbore stress concertation, wellbore failure criteria, and drilling mud
weight window. A variety of field injectivity tests for determining in-situ stress and
fracture properties (e.g. fracture initiation, propagation, and closure pressures) are
also discussed.

2.1 In-Situ Stress and Pore Pressure

In-situ stresses in a formation are usually denoted by three orthogonal principal

stresses, which are the vertical principal stress Sv , the maximum horizontal stress
S H max , and the minimum horizontal stress Shmin .
Sv is equal to the integration of rock density with depth [1]:
z
Sv  ρ(z)gdz ≈ ρ̄gz (2.1)
0

where ρ (z) is the density of rock, g is the gravitational acceleration, ρ is the average
overburden rock density, z is depth.
In geologically relaxed areas, the horizontal stresses are nearly isotropic and can
be expressed as a function of vertical stress and Poisson’s ratio as [2]:
ν
S H max  Shmin  Sv (2.2)
1−ν

where ν is the Poisson’s ratio.

© The Author(s) 2018 9

Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
10 2 Drilling Related Geomechanics

For anisotropic conditions, considering pore pressure and thermal effect, the fol-
lowing equations can be used to determine horizontal principal stresses:
ν 1 − 2ν Eεx x EαT T
Sx x  Sv + αp pp + +
1−ν 1−v 1−ν 2 1−ν
ν 1 − 2ν ν Eεx x EαT T
S yy  Sv + αp pp + + (2.3)
1−ν 1−v 1 − ν2 1−ν

If εx x < 0, Shmin  Sx x and S H max  S yy

If εx x > 0, Shmin  S yy and S H max  Sx x
where α p is the Biot coefficient, p p is pore pressure, E is Young’s modulus, εx x is
tectonic strain, αT is thermal expansion coefficient, T is temperature difference
between the depth of interest and surface.
The in-situ stress orientation can be estimated by one or a combination of the
methods of: leak-off tests, stress-induced wellbore breakouts, stress-induced tensile
wellbore fractures, hydraulic fracture orientations, earthquake focal plane mecha-
nisms, and shear velocity anisotropy. Interested readers can refer to [1] for a detailed
review of these methods.
In a normal pressure formation, the pore pressure is equal to the hydrostatic
pressure of formation fluids and is expressed as [1]:
z
pp  ρ f (z) gdz ≈ ρ f gz (2.4)
0

where ρ f (z) is the density of formation fluids, ρ f is the average fluid density.
Normal pressure systems develop when the rate of formation deposition does not
exceed the rate of fluid escape from the pores. If the formation deposition rate is
faster than fluid escape rate, abnormal pressure develops in the formation. On the
other hand, subnormal formation pressure is also observed in oil and gas reservoirs
which is usually caused by production operations.

2.2 Field Injectivity Tests

Precise determinations of in-situ stress and fracture parameters (e.g. fracture initiation
and propagation pressures) are critical for lost circulation prevention and some other
aspects, such as wellbore stability evaluation and casing program design [3, 4].
Field injectivity tests are usually conducted during drilling operations to assess in-
situ stress, including formation integrity test (FIT), leak-off test (LOT), extended
leak-off test (XLOT), and pump-in and flow-back test (PIFB) [5]. However, not all
these tests can provide reliable stress information, either due to insufficient injection
time/volume or due to a number of factors distorting test signatures and leading to
2.2 Field Injectivity Tests 11

interpretation difficulties and uncertainties [6]. A brief description of the different

kinds of field injectivity tests is provided as follows.
• Formation integrity test (FIT) is to confirm the cement integrity near the casing
shoe, and to ensure the formation strength at the shoe is sufficient to withstand any
expected or potential loads while drilling the subsequent hole section. In an FIT,
the wellbore pressure is increased to a pre-set value lower than fracture initiation
pressure (FIP). Fracture pressure and field stress cannot be obtained because no
fracture has been created.
• Leak-off test (LOT) measures the fracture initiation pressure (FIP) near the casing
shoe. In an LOT, wellbore pressure is increased until a noticeable deviation from
linearity appears on the pressure-time curve. The wellbore pressure at the deviation
point is defined as leak-off pressure (LOP), which is commonly assumed equal to
FIP and used to determine the upper limit of the drilling mud weight window. LOTs
rarely provide far-field stress information because the fractures created in the tests
remain very short and are dominated by the near-wellbore stress concentration.
• Extended leak-off test (XLOT) creates long enough fracture to measure far-
field minimum horizontal stress Shmin . In an XLOT, pumping continues until a
relatively steady fracture propagation pressure (FPP) is reached, followed by a
shut-in phase. Fracture closure pressure (FCP) can be predicted using the shut-in
data and is commonly taken as the best estimate of Shmin . However, XLOTs are
usually conducted in “impermeable” tight shale with “dirty” drilling mud, where
the fracture may not close due to limited leak-off, leading to difficulties in FCP
prediction.
• Pump-in and flow-back test (PIFB) provides better prediction of FCP and Shmin .
A PIFB test is an XLOT followed by a flow-back phase, usually with a constant
flow-back rate. FCP and thus Shmin can be readily and accurately determined using
the flow-back data, because fracture closure can be assured with fluid flow-back
and is not dependent on fluid leak-off anymore. Therefore, PIFB tests provide a
superior method of measuring Shmin in impermeable formations. Unfortunately,
PIFB tests are rarely performed in drilling operations, due to additional time and
cost required to carry out the tests and the fear of damaging wellbore integrity [7].
A schematic wellbore pressure versus time plot of a field injectivity test with
three stages (pump-in, shut-in, and flow-back) is shown in Fig. 2.1. During pump-in,
wellbore pressure increases linearly to LOP, after which the curve deviates to the
right. Beyond LOP, the pressure increases with a lower rate to formation breakdown
pressure (FBP). After FBP, the pressure experiences a sudden drop and finally sta-
bilizes at a relatively constant FPP. Following shut-in, the pressure first has another
sudden drop from FPP to instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP), and then declines at
a rate dependent on the permeability of the formation. In permeable formations, the
facture may close with leak-off and a FCP can be determined as shown in Fig. 2.1.
However, in impermeable formations, such a FCP cannot be obtained because the
leak-off is too slow for the fracture to close within a reasonable amount of time. In
the flow-back phase, the pressure first decreases with a smaller rate before FCP, and
then with a larger rate after FCP.
12 2 Drilling Related Geomechanics

Fig. 2.1 Pressure-time response of field injectivity test (FIT—formation integrity test; LOT
—leak-off test; XLOT—extended leak-off test; PIFB—pump-in and flow-back test; LOP—leak-off
pressure; FIP—fracture initiation pressure; FBP—formation breakdown pressure; FPP—fracture
propagation pressure; ISIP—instantaneous shut-in pressure; FCP—fracture closure pressure) (after
[5], with permission from Springer)

A schematic wellbore pressure versus volume plot of a field injectivity tests in

permeable and impermeable formations is shown Fig. 2.2. The horizontal axis is the
volume of injection fluid added into the system during the test. The featured points,
such as LOP, FPP and FCP, indicated in Fig. 2.2 correspond to those in Fig. 2.1.

2.3 Stress Around a Wellbore

For wellbore failure analysis, the stresses around a wellbore should be determined
first. This is usually accomplished by transforming the in-situ stresses from the
geodetic coordinate system (X, Y, Z) (Fig. 2.3a) to the wellbore Cartesian coordi-
  
nate system (X , Y , Z ) (Fig. 2.3b), and then to the wellbore cylindrical coordinate
system (r, θ , z) (Fig. 2.3c). α and i are the azimuth and inclination of the wellbore,
respectively. The transformations of stresses are as follows.
The in-situ far-field stress tensor in coordinate (X, Y, Z) is:
2.3 Stress Around a Wellbore 13

Fig. 2.2 Pressure-volume response of field injectivity test (Vpi—total volume pumped into the
system during the pump-in stage; Vw—injected volume before the fracture is initiated; Vfs—fluid
volume added to the system during stable fracture propagation equal to volume flowing into the
fracture plus any further volume change due to mud compression, casing expansion, fluid penetration
and open hole expansion with wellbore pressure increase; Vfp—equal to the volume to extend the
fracture and the volume loss into the formation due to leak-off during unstable fracture propagation;
Vba—total flow-back volume; Vbf—flow back volume from the fracture; Vbr—returned volume
due to inward fluid flow from the formation to the wellbore and wellbore shrinkage with pressure
decrease; Vlo—total fluid volume lost into the formation) (after [5], with permission from Springer)

⎡ ⎤
S H max 0 0
⎢ ⎥
S  ⎣ 0 Shmin 0 ⎦ (2.5)
0 0 Sv

The stress in the wellbore Cartesian coordinate can be expressed as:

⎡   
⎤
Sx x Sx y Sx z
⎢ ⎥
 ⎢    ⎥
S  L S L T  ⎢ S yx S yy S yz ⎥ (2.6)
⎣ ⎦
  
Szx Szy Szz

where,
14 2 Drilling Related Geomechanics

Fig. 2.3 Coordinate

transformation. a geodetic
coordinate system (X, Y, Z);
b wellbore Cartesian
coordinate system
  
(X , Y , Z ); c wellbore
cylindrical coordinate
system (r, θ, z)
2.3 Stress Around a Wellbore 15
⎡ ⎤
cos (α) cos (i) sin (α) cos (i) − sin (i)
⎢ ⎥
L  ⎣ − sin (α) cos (α) 0 ⎦ (2.7)
cos (α) sin (α) sin (α) sin (i) cos (i)

The stress around the wellbore in the wellbore cylindrical coordinate can be
obtained as:
 
 

Sx x + S yy R2 Sx x − S yy R4 R2
Srr  1− 2 + 1 + 3 4 − 4 2 cos (2θ )
2 r 2 r r

 R4 R2 R2
+ Sx y 1 + 3 4 − 4 2 sin (2θ ) + pw 2 (2.8)
r r r
 
 

Sx x + S yy R2 Sx x − S yy R4
Sθθ  1+ 2 − 1 + 3 4 cos (2θ )
2 r 2 r

 R4 R2
− Sx y 1 + 3 4 sin (2θ ) − pw 2 (2.9)
r r
  R2 
    R2
Szz  Szz − v 2 Sx x − S yy cos (2θ ) + 4S xy 2 sin (2θ ) (2.10)
r2 r
 

S yy − Sx x R4 R2  R4 R2
Sr θ  1 − 3 4 + 2 2 sin (2θ ) + Sx y 1 − 3 4 + 2 2 cos (2θ )
2 r r r r
(2.11)
  2

 R
Sθ z  −Sx z sin (θ ) + S yz cos (θ ) 1 + 2 (2.12)
r
  
R2

Sr z  Sx z cos (θ ) + S yz sin (θ ) 1 − 2 (2.13)

r

where R is the wellbore radius.

The stress components on the wellbore wall (r  R) can be written as:

Srr  pw (2.14)
 
 
 
Sθθ  Sx x + S yy − 2 Sx x − S yy cos (2θ ) − 4Sx y sin (2θ ) − pw (2.15)

   


Szz  Szz − v 2 Sx x − S yy cos (2θ) + 4Sx y sin (2θ ) (2.16)
Sr θ  0 (2.17)
  

Sθ z  2 −Sx z sin (θ ) + S yz cos (θ ) (2.18)
Sr z  0 (2.19)

The radial stress Srr is one of the principal stresses on the wellbore wall. The
other two principal stresses can be determined as:
16 2 Drilling Related Geomechanics

2
(Sθθ + Szz ) Sθθ − Szz
S prin1,2  ± + Sθ2z (2.20)
2 2

2.4 Wellbore Failure Criteria

The critical wellbore pressure required to create a fracture on the wellbore is defined
as the fracture pressure of the wellbore. It can be determined by the tensile failure
criterion:

S3 − α · Pp ≤ St (2.21)

where S3 is the minimum principal stress on the wellbore wall; St is the tensile
strength of the rock, which is a negative value.
The fracture pressure of an impermeable wellbore is different from that of a
permeable wellbore because of fluid penetration through wellbore wall in the latter
case. The fracture pressure of an impermeable vertical wellbore is given by [8]:

p f  3Shmin − S H max − p p + St (2.22)

The fracture pressure of a permeable vertical wellbore is given by [9]:

3Shmin − S H max − ηp p + St
pf  (2.23)
2−η
 
where η  α p 1−2ν1−ν
is a poroelastic parameter of the rock, which determines the
magnitude of the stress induced by fluid penetration, and varies in the range [0, 1],
from zero fluid penetration to unimpeded fluid penetration, respectively; α p is Biot’s
coefficient; and v is Poisson’s ratio.
Pre-existing cracks on the wellbore wall can significantly change the fracture
pressure. [10] presented the following solution of fracture pressure of a wellbore
with a pre-existing crack. This solution is obtained based on the Barenblatt condition,
which dictates a balance between the tensile stress intensity factor produced by
fluid pressure in the fracture and the negative stress intensity factor caused by the
compressive in-situ stress:
3Shmin − S H max KIc
pf  + √ (2.24)
2 π 2L

where K I C and L are the fracture toughness and the length of the existing fracture,
respectively. A limitation of this solution is that it is not suitable for very short fracture
length.
2.4 Wellbore Failure Criteria 17

Wellbore instability occurs when the wellbore pressure is too low to support
the wellbore wall and shear wellbore failure occurs. The critical state for wellbore
instability can be written as follows based on the Mohr-Coulomb theory:

  π φ
S1 − αp p  S3 − αp p tan2 + + Sc (2.25)
4 2

where S1 is the maximum principal stress on the wellbore wall; Sc is the uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock; φ is the angle of internal friction.

2.5 Drilling Mud Weight Window

Drilling mud weight window is defined as the margin between the maximum mud
weight before the occurrence of lost circulation and the minimum mud weight to
balance formation pore pressures or avoid excessive wellbore failure. Lost circulation
events commonly occur in formations with narrow drilling mud weight window.
As mentioned previously, two typical scenarios of lost circulation are fluid losses
in depleted reservoirs and deep-water formations. This is because in depleted sands
the reduction in pore pressure results in a corresponding reduction in fracture gradi-
ent. Conversely, the bounding and inter-bedded shale layers, as well as any isolated
and un-drained sands, will maintain their original pore pressure and fracture gradient
[11]. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 2.4, it may be difficult or impossible to reduce the
drilling fluid density sufficiently to maintain equivalent circulating densities (ECD)
below the depleted zone fracture gradient.

Fig. 2.4 Pore pressure and

fracture gradient plot in
depleted zone. Pore pressure
decrease leads to a decrease
in fracture gradient (after
[11], with permission from
SPE)
18 2 Drilling Related Geomechanics

Fig. 2.5 Pore pressure and

fracture gradient plot in
deep-water formation with
abnormally high pressure.
There is a reduced
mud-weight window (after
[11], with permission from
SPE)

In deep-water formations, the total vertical stress is relatively low since sea water
does not provide as much overburden loading as sediment and rock. A reduction
in total vertical stress also results in a lower lateral stress and fracture gradient. If
abnormal pressures are also present, the mud-weight window may be very narrow,
as shown in Fig. 2.5. Under these circumstances, it may be challenging to avoid
hydraulic fracturing both while tripping due to surge/swab effects, and while circu-
lating due to high annular friction losses and ECDs.

References

1. Zoback MD (2010) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press

2. Fjar E, Holt RM, Raaen AM, Risnes R, Horsrud P (2008) Petroleum related rock mechanics.
Elsevier
3. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Parameters controlling pressure and fracture behaviors in field injec-
tivity tests: a numerical investigation using coupled flow and geomechanics model. Comput
Geotech 87:49–61
4. Feng Y, Gray KE (2016) A comparison study of extended leak-off tests in permeable and
impermeable formations. In: 50th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium
5. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Discussion on field injectivity tests during drilling. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 50(2):493–498
6. Feng Y, Jones J, Gray K (2015) Pump-in and flow-back tests for determination of fracture
parameters and in-situ stresses. In: 2015 AADE national technical conference and exhibition,
San Antonio
7. Ziegler F, Jones J (2014) Predrill pore-pressure prediction and pore pressure and fluid loss mon-
itoring during drilling: a case study for a deepwater subsalt Gulf of Mexico well and discussion
on fracture gradient, fluid losses, and wellbore breathing. Interpretation 2(1):SB45–SB55
References 19

8. Hubbert MK, Willis DG (1972) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Petroleum Transactions,

AIME, 210:153–168
9. Haimson B, Fairhurst C (1969) Hydraulic fracturing in porous-permeable materials. J Petrol
Technol 21(07):811–817
10. Lee D, Bratton T, Birchwood R (2004) Leak-off test interpretation and modeling with applica-
tion to geomechanics. In: Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium
(NARMS)
11. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2016) A review on fracture-initiation and-propagation pressures
for lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 31(02):134–144
Chapter 3
Lost Circulation Models

Abstract The ability to model fracture growth during lost circulation is critical for
loss prevention and wellbore strengthening design. Such a model can provide use-
ful information for the optimization of drilling fluid rheology, well configuration,
pump schedule, and LCM particle size distribution. In this chapter, a lost circula-
tion simulation model is developed, based on the finite-element method. The model
successfully couples mud circulation in the wellbore, fracture propagation, fracture
fluid flow, and the surrounding reservoir behavior during a lost circulation event. It
can predict time-dependent fluid loss rate, wellbore pressure, and fracture geometry.
Borehole ballooning is a phenomenon closely related to lost circulation and is often
regarded as an omen of a lost circulation event during drilling. Using a similar numer-
ical approach, a model for wellbore ballooning in naturally fractured formations is
also proposed in this chapter. The model is able to capture dynamic fracture growth
during mud circulation when downhole circulation pressure is higher than fracture
reopening pressure of the natural fractures, as well as fracture closure during the
pump-off period when downhole pressure is lower. Time-dependent wellbore pres-
sure, fluid loss/gain rate, and fracture profile in borehole ballooning can be obtained.
The model aids in understanding the mechanisms involved in wellbore ballooning
in naturally fractured formations.

3.1 Introduction

Mud losses through natural or drilling-induced fractures constitute the majority of

lost circulation events during drilling, especially for drilling operations in depleted
reservoirs, deep-water wells, and fractured shales [1, 2]. Knowledge of fluid loss
and associated fracture growth behavior can help understand how to prevent this
problem [3]. In addition, accurate prediction of fracture geometry is important for
the selection of lost circulation materials (LCMs) to plug or bridge the fractures to
mitigate fluid losses [4].

© The Author(s) 2018 21

Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
22 3 Lost Circulation Models

A few models have been developed for fluid losses into natural fractures. The
existing models usually assume a pre-defined fracture with a fixed length (i.e. fracture
is not growing) and an impermeable fracture surface (i.e. leak-off through the fracture
surface is ignored) [5–11]. Usually, fluid flow within the fracture is modeled based on
Reynolds lubrication theory, and the normal deformation of fracture surfaces (i.e.,
fracture width change) is described by a linear or exponential deformation model
which relates fracture width and fluid pressure in the fracture [10]. Even with the
significant simplifications incorporated in these models, they have proven to be very
useful as diagnostic tools to estimate the width of the natural fracture for design of
LCMs [12].
For mud losses into drilling-induced fractures, [13] and [4] modeled the fracture
growth using the cohesive zone fracture model implemented in a finite element code.
However, in their models, a constant or user-specified time-dependent injection rate
boundary condition at the bottom of the hole were used to drive the fractures. While
such an injection rate driven fracture can capture the physics of an injectivity test or
a hydraulic fracturing treatment, it cannot capture the physics of a drilling-induced
fracture [4]. The condition at the fracture mouth of a drilling-induced fracture is a
dynamic bottom hole pressure (BHP) or ECD while drilling, rather than a constant
flow rate. These two boundary conditions can result in significantly different fracture
geometries [4]. Moreover, there is no way to capture the amount of lost and returned
circulation with an injection rate boundary condition because all the injected fluid is
forced into the fracture.
A comprehensive lost circulation model should couple mud circulation in the
wellbore for instantaneous prediction of BHP, rather than define a pressure boundary
condition at the hole bottom. In so doing, the dynamic BHP, fluid loss, and time-
dependent fracture geometry can be quantified. This chapter illustrates a numerical
framework that allows for coupling between mud circulation in the wellbore and
induced fracture propagation into the formation. The new model, therefore, provides
a unique method for solving the challenging bottom-hole boundary conditions in
modeling drilling-induced fractures.
The coupled lost circulation model is developed by combining a cohesive zone
model (CZM) for simulating fracture propagation and a pipe flow model for sim-
ulating mud circulation through the drill pipe and annulus. The model is imple-
mented with the finite-element software package Abaqus [14]. A similar model is
also developed to simulate borehole ballooning events, phenomena closely related
to lost circulation.

3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation

As shown in Fig. 3.1, a lost circulation system generally consists of three major com-
ponents: the well, the fracture, and the formation. The following physical processes
occurring in a lost circulation event are included and simulated simultaneously in
the proposed lost circulation model [3]:
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation 23

Fig. 3.1 Illustration of lost circulation system with well, formation and fracture

• Mud circulation in the well,

• Lost circulation fracture propagation and fluid flow in the fracture,
• Formation rock deformation and pore fluid flow.
The lost circulation model is developed on the finite-element platform Abaqus, which
is a general purpose finite-element code for solving linear and non-linear stress-
analysis problems [14].
24 3 Lost Circulation Models

3.2.1 Theory

Mud circulation in the well. Mud circulation in the wellbore is modeled based on
Bernoulli’s equation (using a Darcy-Weisbach approach) considering both gravity
and viscous pressure losses [14]:

f L ρv2
P − ρgZ  (3.1)
Dh 2

where P is the pressure difference; Z is the elevation difference; v is the fluid

velocity in the pipe; ρ is the fluid density; g is the gravity acceleration factor; L is
the pipe length; f is the friction factor; Dh  4SA is the hydraulic diameter of the
pipe; A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe; and S is the wetted perimeter of the
pipe.
The friction factor f in Eq. (3.1) is an important parameter which determines the
friction loss during fluid flow. In this work, the friction factor is determined by the
Churchill friction loss formula [15]:
 12  121
8 1
f 8 + (3.2)
Re (A + B)1.5
 
16  16
7 0.9
where A  −2.457ln Re + 0.27 DKhs ; B  37350
Re
; Re is the Reynolds
number; K s is the roughness of the pipe.
The Fracture Model. The cohesive zone model (CZM) is used to model fracture
growth. In contrast to the bulk-continuum materials for which constitutive behaviors
are usually described in terms of stress and strain, the constitutive behavior of the
fracture in CZM is defined in terms of the traction and separation of the fracture
interface. The traction-separation damage law consists of three stages, i.e. initial
loading before damage, damage initiation, and damage evolution.
Figure 3.2 shows a bilinear traction-separation law used in this study. The initial
loading process before damage (i.e. before the traction reaches cohesive strength
To ) follows linearly elastic behavior. Damage initiation refers to the start of stiffness
degradation of the cohesive interface [16], and occurs when the stress/traction applied
on the interface satisfies certain damage initiation criteria. In this work, a quadratic
nominal stress criterion is used for damage initiation, which states that damage starts
when a quadratic interaction function involving the nominal stress ratios reaches
unity [14]:
 2  2  2
Tn  Ts Tt
+ + 1 (3.3)
Tno Tso Tto

where, Tn , Ts , and Tt are the tractions on the interface in the normal, the first shear,
and the second shear directions, respectively. Tno , Tso , and Tto are the peak values
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation 25

Fig. 3.2 A bilinear

traction-separation law

of the nominal stress when the deformation is purely normal to the interface (pure
tension), purely in the first shear direction, and purely in the second shear direction,
respectively. The symbol  represents the Macaulay bracket, used to signify that a
pure compressive stress state does not initiate damage at the interface.
Damage evolution begins once the damage initiation is reached. Damage evolution
is characterized by a progressive degradation of the interface stiffness. A scalar
damage variable, D, is used to represent the degree of damage. D evolves from 0 to
1 as damage develops [16]. Assuming linear softening during damage evolution, the
damage variable D can be expressed as [17, 18]:
f 
δm δmmax − δm0
D 
(3.4)
f
δmmax δm − δm0
 
δm  δn2 + δs2 + δt2 (3.5)

where δm is the effective displacement, used to describe the evolution of damage

under a combination of normal and shear deformation across the interface; δn is the
displacement in the normal direction and the Macaulay bracket  represents that a
pure compressive displacement does not contribute to the effective displacement; δs
and δt are the shear displacement in the first and second shear directions, respectively;
f
δm and δm0 are the effective displacement at the complete failure and at the initiation of
damage, respectively. δmmax is the maximum effective displacement attained during
the loading history.
The interface stress and stiffness of the traction-separation model during damage
evolution are functions of the damage variable D [19], as defined in Eqs. (3.6) and
(3.7) and schematically illustrated in Fig. 3.3.

Td  (1 − D) T̄ (3.6)
26 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.3 Damage response

of the traction-separation law

K d  (1 − D) K 0 (3.7)

where Td is the interface stress at the maximum opening displacement δmmax attained
during the loading history; T̄ is the interface stress predicted by the elastic traction-
separation behavior for displacement δmmax without damage; K d is the stiffness after
damage evolution; and K 0 is the initial stiffness before damage.
Fracture propagation is modeled as a result of the damage evolution which can be
defined based on fracture energy dissipated during the damage process. The fracture
energy is equal to the area under the traction-separation curve (Fig. 3.2) and dependent
on the failure modes. In this study, the Benzeggagh-Kenane fracture criterion (Eq. 3.8)
is used to define the dependence of fracture energy on failure modes [3, 20]. This
criterion states that the mixed-mode failure is interactively governed by the energies
required to cause failure in the individual (i.e. normal and two shear) modes.
 β
 GS
G Cn + G Cs − G Cn  GC (3.8)
GT

where G S  G s + G t is the total energy dissipated due to deformations in the first

and second shear directions; G T  G n + G s + G t is the total energy dissipated
due to deformations in the normal, the first shear, and the second shear directions;
G C  G Cn + G Cs + G Ct is the total critical fracture energy in the normal, the first
shear, and the second shear directions; G n , G s and G t are the energies dissipated
due to deformations in the normal, the first shear, and the second shear directions,
respectively; G Cn , G Cs and G Ct are the critical energies required to cause failure in the
normal, the first shear, and the second shear directions, respectively.
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation 27

Fig. 3.4 Tangential flow and leak-off of fracture fluid

Upon complete failure of the cohesive interface, i.e. the fracture opens, fluid will
flow into the fracture. Both tangential flow along the fracture direction and fluid
leak-off from the fracture surface to the surrounding formation may occur, as shown
in Fig. 3.4. The continuity equation for fracture fluid flow can be expressed as [21,
22]:
∂w ∂q f
+ + vt + vb  0 (3.9)
∂t ∂s
where w is the fracture width; q f is the tangential flow rate along the fracture direc-
tion; vt and vb are the leak-off velocities through the top and bottom surfaces of the
fracture.
The tangential flow is modeled as Newtonian fluid flow, and described with the
following momentum equation:

w3 ∂ p f
qf  − (3.10)
12μ f ∂s

where q f is the tangential flow rate;w is fracture width;μ f is the fluid viscosity; p f
is the fluid pressure; s the distance along the fracture.
The leak-off (normal flow) is defined as [14]:

vt,b  ct,b p f − Pt,b (3.11)

where v is the leak-off velocity; c is leak-off coefficient; p f is the fluid pressure

inside the fracture, P is the pore fluid pressure in the porous medium adjacent to the
fracture surfaces; the subscripts t and b represent the values corresponding to the top
and bottom surfaces of the fractures, respectively.
Rock Deformation and Pore Fluid Flow. The formation rock is assumed to be an
isotropic and poroelastic medium. Rock deformation and pore fluid flow are modeled
based on the theory of poroelasticity. With the sign convention that tension is positive
28 3 Lost Circulation Models

and compression is negative, the relationship between total stress σ , effective stress

σ , and pore pressure p p , can be expressed as [23]:

σ  σ − αp p I (3.12)

where I is unit matrix; α is the Biot coefficient.

Stress equilibrium for the solid phase of the porous material is expressed using
the principle of virtual work for the volume under its current configuration [22, 24]:
  
σ : δε d V  t · δv d S + f · δv d V (3.13)
V S V

where V is the control volume; S is the surface area under surface traction; σ is the
total stress matrix, δε is the virtual strain rate matrix; t is the surface traction vector;
f is the body force vector; and δv is the virtual velocity vector. This equation is
discretized using a Lagrangian formulation for the solid phase, with displacements
as the nodal variables. The porous medium is thus modeled by attaching the finite
element mesh to the solid phase. Fluid is allowed to flow through these meshes.
A continuity equation is required for fluid flow in the porous medium. The equation
equates the rate of change of the total fluid mass in the control volume V to the fluid
mass crossing the surface S per unit time, and can be expressed as [16]:
 
d
∫ ρ f ϕd V  − ∫ ρ f n · v f p d S (3.14)
dt V S

where ρ f is the density of the pore fluid; ϕ is the porosity of the medium; v f p is the
average velocity of the pore fluid relative to the solid phase; n is the outward normal
to surface S.
The pore fluid flow in the formation follows Darcy’s law as:
 
1 ∂pp
vfp  − k· − ρf g (3.15)
ϕgρ f ∂X

where g is the gravity acceleration vector; g is the magnitude of gravity acceleration;

k is the hydraulic conductivity of the porous medium; p p is pore pressure; X is a
spatial coordinate vector.

3.2.2 Formulation of the Lost Circulation Model

The development of the lost circulation FEM model is described in this section.
During drilling, the drilling mud is pumped into the well through the drill pipe and
returns to the surface through the annulus (see Fig. 3.1). The formation is assumed to
be in a 2D, plane-strain condition. Owing to symmetry, only one half of the formation
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation 29

Fig. 3.5 The lost circulation model. The formation is in a plane-strain condition in the horizontal
x-y plane. The drilling pipe and annulus are in the z-direction perpendicular to the x-y plane, but
they are shown in the y-direction in the figure for better visualization (after [3], with permission
from SPE)

is modeled as shown in Fig. 3.5. The maximum and minimum horizontal stresses
(S H max and Shmin ) are in the X- and Y-directions in the horizontal plane, respectively.
The well, consisting of drill pipe and annulus, is modeled as a “U-tube” configu-
ration (Fig. 3.5). For simplicity, the annulus is assumed to have a uniform size (i.e.
constant clearance between the drilling pipe and the wellbore wall) along the well
depth. In a real situation, the annulus clearance would vary due to multiple casing
sizes, which can be readily taken into account in the model once configuration of the
casing programs is known. The drill pipe and annulus are discretized using the pipe
elements in Abaqus.
A predefined fracture path is assigned in the direction of the maximum horizontal
stress from the wellbore wall to the outside of the formation (Fig. 3.5). The fracture
path is discretized using a layer of coupled pore pressure cohesive zone elements in
Abaqus. To improve the model accuracy, progressively refined elements towards the
wellbore are used because significant stress gradients are expected in the wellbore
vicinity.
A symmetric boundary condition is defined on the left edge of the model (see
Fig. 3.5). The normal displacements of the other three outer boundaries are restricted.
Initial field stresses (S H max and Shmin ) and pore pressure are applied to the whole
domain of the model. A constant pore pressure boundary condition (equal to the
initial formation pressure) is applied to all the outer boundaries, except the symmetric
boundary. The wellbore is filled with drilling fluid. Gravity force is applied to the
fluid in the wellbore. The pressure at the wellhead (annulus side) is equal to the
atmospheric pressure (assumed to be zero since its small value compared with fluid
pressure in the wellbore). A constant pump rate is defined at the top of the drill pipe
to simulate the pumping of mud.
30 3 Lost Circulation Models

Table 3.1 Input parameters for the lost circulation model (after [3], with permission from SPE)
Parameters Values Parameters Values
Formation size 60 × 20 m Rock Young’s 7 GPa
modulus
Formation depth 1000 m Rock Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Wellbore radius 10 cm Rock permeability 5 mD
Drilling pipe radius 5 cm Rock porosity 0.25
Annulus clearance 5 cm Critical tensile 0.4 MPa
strength
Initial pore pressure 10 MPa Fracture toughness 28 J/m2
Minimum horizontal 13 MPa Leak-off coefficient 5 × 10−9 m/s/Pa
stress
Maximum horizontal 15 MPa Interface stiffness 80 GPa
stress
Pore fluid density 1.0 g/cm3 Pumping rate 0.36 m3 /min
Drilling mud density 1.3 g/cm3 Fluid viscosity 1 cp
Gravity constant 10 m/s2

During the simulation, it is important to ensure stress equilibrium and fluid conti-
nuity between the wellbore, the formation, and the fracture at the bottom of the hole.
These requirements are achieved by using the “TIE” constraint and the “PORMECH”
constraint available in Abaqus. The “TIE” constraint links the last annulus element
node to the formation element nodes on the wellbore wall and the cohesive element
node at the fracture mouth. This constraint ensures the pore pressure in the bot-
tom annulus is equal to the pore pressure at the wellbore wall (assuming permeable
wellbore wall) and the fracture mouth. The “PORMECH” constraint is used to auto-
matically apply the dynamic fluid pressure at the bottom annulus onto the wellbore
wall as a mechanical surface pressure. These two particular constraints, therefore,
successfully handle the coupling among the wellbore, the formation, and the fracture.

3.2.3 Results of the Lost Circulation Model

The model described above provides a unique way to model lost circulation during
dynamic mud circulation. It can capture the dynamic loss rate, the returned circula-
tion rate, BHP, and lost circulation fracture profiles, which are valuable information
for lost circulation prevention, mud optimization, and LCMs selection. Some key
modeling results are presented in this section to illustrate the capability of the model.
Table 3.1 reports the base-case input parameters used in the modeling.
Using the data reported in Table 3.1, a short period of 100-second mud circulation
is simulated because the early-time fluid loss and fracture behavior are of particular
3.2 Modeling Study of Lost Circulation 31

Fig. 3.6 Fluid loss rate, return rate, and BHP during mud circulation. The inset is a zoom-in plot
for the first 2-seconds circulation (after [3], with permission from SPE)

interest in the studies of lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. The time devel-
opments of mud loss rate, returned circulation rate, and BHP during mud circulation
are shown in Fig. 3.6. The results show a BHP of 13 MPa before the start of mud
circulation, which is the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column in the annulus.
Immediately after the start of circulation, the BHP increases to 15.5 MPa due to
the dynamic friction loss in the annulus. This BHP exceeds the fracture initiation
pressure, resulting in sudden fracture creation and fluid loss. The BHP decreases to
14.7 MPa with the sudden fracture creation, and then gradually returns to 15.5 MPa
with further mud circulation. The fluid loss rate first increases to 0.09 m3 /min (25%
pumping rate), and then gradually decreases to 0.02 m3 /min (6% pumping rate).
Accordingly, the fluid return rate first decreases to 0.27 m3 /min and then increases
to 0.34 m3 /min. The results show that neither the fluid loss nor the BHP are constant
during the early-time of lost circulation.
The model can predict real-time fracture geometry, critical information for opti-
mizing particle size distribution (PSD) in wellbore strengthening applications [25].
The time developments of fracture mouth width and fracture length are shown in
Fig. 3.7. The results show that the fracture growth is rapid in the early circulation,
and then slows down with time. This is more obvious for the growth of fracture mouth
width. The fracture mouth width finally reaches a value of about 1.4 mm, and further
increase in circulation time will not significantly change the fracture mouth width,
while the fracture length will continue growing. However, the fracture will not extend
indefinitely. The fracture growth will cease when the BHP is no longer sufficient to
32 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.7 Evaluation of fracture mouth width and fracture length during mud circulation (after [3],
with permission from SPE)

overcome the pressure loss along the fracture or an equilibrium between the fluid
flow into the fracture and the fluid leak-off from the fracture is established. Oscil-
lating fracture growth behavior is observed, especially for the fracture width. This
phenomenon results from intermittent fracture advancement and is also observed in
field and laboratory tests [26–30]. The oscillating fracture width may influence the
effectiveness of the LCM particles used in wellbore strengthening applications and
deserves further investigation. The temporal extent of the fracture (in both width and
length) is further illustrated in Fig. 3.8.
It is also interesting to know the stress and pore pressure distributions around the
fracture during lost circulation. Figure 3.9 depicts pore pressure distribution at four
different mud circulation moments of 1, 5, 10 and 50 s. It can be seen that the pore
pressure around the wellbore and near the fracture builds up with circulation time
due to fluid diffusion into the formation through the wellbore wall and fracture sur-
faces. The maximum pore pressure appears in the near-wellbore region. Figure 3.10
shows the distribution of the maximum effective principal stress around the fracture
at different moments, with the sign convention of tensile stress as positive and com-
pressive stress as negative. The results show that greater (more tensile) maximum
effective principal stress occurs near the wellbore and the fracture during fracture
propagation. The greatest value appears in the region close to the wellbore because
the relatively larger fluid diffusion in this area leads to larger tensile stress in the
formation.
3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning 33

Fig. 3.8 Fracture geometry at different circulation times (after [3], with permission from SPE)

3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning

3.3.1 Wellbore Ballooning Overview

Borehole ballooning is the phenomenon of reversible mud losses and gains during
drilling [31]. It has been a major, but not well-understood, problem in the drilling
industry. Borehole ballooning is an indicator of a likely subsequent lost circulation
event. Failure to control borehole ballooning may result in significant fluid loss and,
consequently, increased drilling time and cost [9, 10]. Furthermore, mud gain from
a formation in the pump-off period may be diagnosed as a well kick, prompting an
increased mud weight to prevent it. This could lead to even worse lost circulation
events, especially in high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) formations, where the
safe drilling margin is narrow and a minor change in mud weight can cause wellbore
failure [32]. On the other hand, borehole ballooning also has its valuable aspects.
For example, [33] argued that some information collected from borehole ballooning
can be used to constrain the fracture gradient of a wellbore.
Borehole ballooning mostly occurs in naturally fractured formations. During mud
circulation, high equivalent circulation density (ECD) in the annulus resulting from
additional frictional pressure exceeds reopening pressure of the natural fractures,
resulting in mud loss into the formation. With pumps off, the annulus pressure falls
below the fracture reopening pressure due to the removal of frictional pressure, and
34 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.9 Pore pressure distribution around the fracture during lost circulation (after [3], with per-
mission from SPE)

a sizeable amount of mud flows back into the wellbore. An accurate model capturing
this process can aid in understating the mechanisms behind borehole ballooning,
distinguishing it from a well kick, and improving mud optimization [8, 34, 35].
For a comprehensive borehole ballooning model, three major physical pro-
cesses should be taken into account and modeled simultaneously. They are wellbore
hydraulics, fracture opening/closing, and deformation of porous formation. There
is a very limited number of published borehole ballooning models. To the authors’
knowledge, none of them couples these three components.
[11] proposed a mud loss model which assumes mud flows into a non-deformable
fracture with a constant aperture and impermeable fracture walls. Similarly, [6] devel-
oped a model for mud flow into a non-deformable, infinite radial fracture. These mod-
els, neglecting fracture deformation with pressure buildup inside the fracture, may
cause underestimation of fluid loss volume [34]. [5] introduced a borehole balloon-
3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning 35

Fig. 3.10 Maximum principal stress distribution around the fracture during lost circulation (after
[3], with permission from SPE)

ing model for fluid loss into a fracture of finite length undergoing fracture aperture
change with a linear deformation law. Later, they extended the model to fracture
deformation with an exponential deformation law [31]. [9] also used a model with a
linear fracture deformation law to investigate borehole ballooning with an emphasis
on the effect of fracture roughness. Similar models using a linear or exponential
deformation law to relate fracture aperture and fluid pressure in the fracture were
also presented in [7, 36]. None of these models describes the initiation, propagation,
and closure of the fractures based on fracture mechanics theory. Moreover, they do
not explicitly model mud circulation in the wellbore as well as rock deformation
and pore fluid flow in the bulk formation surrounding the fracture. Therefore, they
cannot capture fluid exchanges between the wellbore, fracture, and formation during
borehole ballooning events.
36 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.11 The borehole ballooning model

In this section, a wellbore ballooning model that couples dynamic mud circula-
tion, fracture opening/closing, and formation deformation is presented. The model
significantly reduces the shortcomings of previous models. The modeling theory is
very similar to that of the lost circulation model in Sect. 3.2. Mud circulation is
modeled based on Bernoulli’s equation, taking into account both gravity and viscous
pressure losses. Fracture behavior is described using the cohesive zone approach.
The model captures mud losses into the formation during mud circulation and mud
gains from the formation during pump-off period. In addition, the model can provide
estimates of time-dependent wellbore pressure, fluid loss/gain rate, and the fracture
profile. A numerical example is carried out in this section to illustrate the capabilities
of the model.

3.3.2 Formulation of the Wellbore Ballooning Model

Borehole ballooning in a vertical wellbore is considered. The formation is assumed in

a 2D, plane-strain condition with unit thickness, as shown in Fig. 3.11. The wellbore is
modeled as a ‘U-tube’ geometry with the left and right side of the U-tube representing
drill pipe and wellbore annulus, respectively. During mud circulation, a fluid pump
rate is applied to the top of the drill pipe. The pump rate is then reduced to zero in the
pump-off period. Owing to symmetry, only one-half of the formation is modeled. The
path of a natural fracture is predefined perpendicular to the direction of the minimum
horizontal stress and intersecting with the wellbore as shown in Fig. 3.11.
3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning 37

Table 3.2 Input parameters for the borehole ballooning model

Parameters Values Parameters Values
Formation size 60 × 20 m Rock Young’s 7 GPa
modulus
Formation depth 1000 m Rock Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Wellbore radius 10 cm Rock permeability 5 mD
Drilling pipe radius 5 cm Rock porosity 0.25
Annulus clearance 5 cm Cohesive strength 0.4 MPa
Initial pore pressure 10 MPa Fracture toughness 28 J/m2
Minimum horizontal 13 MPa Leak-off coefficient 5 × 10−9 m/s/Pa
stress
Maximum horizontal 15 MPa Interface stiffness 80 GPa
stress
Pore fluid density 1000 kg/m3 Pumping rate 0.36 m3 /min
Drilling mud density 1200 kg/m3 Mud viscosity 10 cp
Gravity constant 10 m/s2 Natural fracture length 15 m

A uniform initial pore pressure is applied to the formation. The minimum and
maximum horizontal stresses are applied to the directions as shown in Fig. 3.11. A
symmetric boundary condition is defined on the left edge of the model. The nor-
mal displacements of all the other external boundaries are restricted, and the pore
pressure at these boundaries is restricted to the initial pore pressure during the entire
simulation. The end nodes of the wellbore annulus are connected to the nodes on the
wellbore wall to ensure fluid conservation between the wellbore and the formation.
In addition, another special constraint is imposed to assure the external force acting
on the wellbore wall is equal to the fluid pressure at the bottom of the annulus during
the simulations. The calculations are done using the Abaqus finite-element solver.

3.3.3 Results of the Wellbore Ballooning Model

Contrary to some existing models that only model the fracture itself with a given
aperture, the proposed model in this section allows for the hydraulic fracture to
grow and close with time-dependent aperture and length controlled by complex
interactions between mud circulation, fracture fluid flow, fluid leak-off, and rock
deformation. A wealth of information can be provided by the model, including the
fluid loss/gain rate, downhole pressure, fracture profile, as well as the pressure and
stress distribution in the local area. This section presents some simulation results
using input data reported in Table 3.2. For illustration purposes, a mud circulation
period of 50 s and a pump-off period of 100 s are considered.
38 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.12 Downhole pressure versus time during the wellbore ballooning event

Figure 3.12 shows the downhole pressure during the borehole ballooning event.
After the start of mud circulation, the downhole pressure increases rapidly from a
hydrostatic pressure of 12 MPa to a dynamic circulation pressure of 15.5 MPa. This
circulation pressure is higher than the reopening pressure of the natural fracture.
Therefore, the fracture opens as shown in Fig. 3.13, and consequently, mud flows
into the fracture as shown in Fig. 3.14. Note that in Fig. 3.14, the positive rate
means mud loss from the borehole into the formation during mud circulation, and
the negative rate is the rate of mud gain at the wellhead with pumps off.
Figure 3.12 indicates that the downhole pressure decreases after the initiation
of the natural fracture. At the early time of fracture propagation, downhole pressure
fluctuations are observed. This downhole pressure behavior is a part of the solution of
the simulation, which is quite different from existing models that assume a constant
downhole pressure (as an input) during mud loss. The fracture extends to the end of
the natural fracture at about 20 s. After that, the downhole pressure, fracture width,
and mud loss rate reach relatively constant values with continuing mud circulation.
At this period, the mud loss rate is dominated by fluid leak off into formation, rather
than by fracture growth.
With pumps stopped, the downhole pressure drops almost immediately to the
hydrostatic pressure of 12 MPa. As a result, the fracture aperture decreases to zero,
but at a rate slower than the decrease of downhole pressure. With fracture closing,
fluid flows out of the wellbore with a gradually decreased rate as shown in Fig. 3.14.
Figure 3.15 illustrates the cumulative fluid volume lost into the formation with
time during the circulation and pump-off periods, which is the time integral of the
flow rate in Fig. 3.14. The total amount of mud lost into the formation during drilling
3.3 Modeling Study of Wellbore Ballooning 39

Fig. 3.13 Fracture mouth aperture versus time during the wellbore ballooning event

Fig. 3.14 Fluid loss/gain rate versus time during the wellbore ballooning event

period is about 0.025 m3 , while the final fluid loss at the end of pump-off period
is 0.015 m3 , indicating a fluid gain of 0.01 m3 after the stop of drilling. The fluid
volume that does not return during pump-off period is the part of fluid filtration into
the formation. The results demonstrate that the proposed model can simulate the
entire process of a borehole ballooning event.
40 3 Lost Circulation Models

Fig. 3.15 Cumulative fluid loss versus time during the wellbore ballooning event

In summary, modeling borehole ballooning is a challenging endeavor due to

strong interactions between wellbore hydraulics, fracture opening/closing, and for-
mation deformation. The numerical model takes into account the non-linear coupling
amongst these phenomena. The numerical example indicates that the model is able
to capture dynamic fracture growth during mud circulation when downhole ECD is
higher than fracture reopening pressure of natural fractures, as well as fracture clo-
sure during the pump-off period when downhole pressure is lower. Time-dependent
wellbore pressure, fluid loss/gain rate, and fracture profile in borehole ballooning can
be obtained. The developed model aids in understanding the mechanisms involved
in wellbore ballooning in naturally fractured formations. It can be used to investigate
the effects of various operational and in situ parameters on wellbore ballooning, and
aids in mud optimization and drilling operations.

References

1. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Review of fundamental studies on lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening. J Pet Sci Eng 152:511–522
2. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2016) A review on fracture-initiation and -propagation pressures
for lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 31(02):134–144
3. Feng Y, Gray KE (2018) Modeling lost circulation through drilling-induced fractures. SPE J
23(01):205–223
4. Kostov N, Ning J, Gosavi SV, Gupta P, Kulkarni K, Sanz P (2015) Advanced drilling induced
fracture modeling for wellbore integrity prediction. In: SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition, 28–30 Sept, Houston, Texas, USA. [Link]
References 41

5. Lavrov A, Tronvoll J (2004) Modeling mud loss in fractured formations. In: Abu Dhabi inter-
national conference and exhibition, 10–13 Oct, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. [Link]
org/10.2118/88700-MS
6. Lietard O, Unwin T, Guillot DJ, Hodder MH (1999) Fracture width logging while drilling
and drilling mud/loss-circulation-material selection guidelines in naturally fractured reser-
voirs (includes associated papers 75283, 75284, 81590 and 81591). SPE Drilling Completion
14(03):168–177
7. Majidi R, Miska S, Thompson LG, Yu M, Zhang J (2010) Quantitative analysis of mud losses in
naturally fractured reservoirs: the effect of rheology. SPE Drilling Completion 25(04):509–517
8. Mehrabi M, Zeyghami M, Shahri MP (2012) Modeling of fracture ballooning in naturally
fractured reservoirs: a sensitivity analysis. In: Nigeria annual international conference and
exhibition, 6–8 Aug, Lagos, Nigeria. [Link]
9. Ozdemirtas M, Babadagli T, Kuru E (2009) Experimental and numerical investigations of
borehole ballooning in rough fractures. SPE Drilling Completion 24(02):256–265
10. Ozdemirtas M, Babadagli T, Kuru E (2007) Numerical modelling of borehole
ballooning/breathing-effect of fracture roughness. In: Canadian international petroleum con-
ference, 12–14 June, Calgary, Alberta. [Link]
11. Sanfillippo F, Brignoli M, Santarelli FJ, Bezzola C (1997) Characterization of conductive
fractures while drilling. In: SPE European formation damage conference, 2–3 June, The Hague,
Netherlands. [Link]
12. Ghalambor A, Salehi S, Shahri MP, Karimi M (2014) Integrated workflow for lost circulation
prediction. In: SPE international symposium and exhibition on formation damage control,
26–28 Feb, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. [Link]
13. Salehi S (2012) Numerical simulations of fracture propagation and sealing: implications for
wellbore strengthening. Doctoral Dissertations, Missouri University of Science and Technol-
ogy, Rolla, Missouri, USA
14. ABAQUS F (2014) ABAQUS 6.14 documentation. Dassault Syst Provid
15. Churchill SW (1977) Friction-factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes. Chem Eng
84(24):91–92
16. Zhang GM, Liu H, Zhang J, Wu HA, Wang XX (2010) Three-dimensional finite element
simulation and parametric study for horizontal well hydraulic fracture. J Petrol Sci Eng
72(3–4):310–317
17. Camanho PP, Davila CG (2002) Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation
of delamination in composite materials. NASA/TM-2002-211737. VA, USA: NASA Langley
Research Center
18. Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, Dávila CG (2006) A damage model for the simulation of delam-
ination in advanced composites under variable-mode loading. Mech Mater 38(11):1072–1089
19. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Parameters controlling pressure and fracture behaviors in field injec-
tivity tests: a numerical investigation using coupled flow and geomechanics model. Comput
Geotech 87:49–61
20. Zhao P, Santana CL, Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Mitigating lost circulation: a numerical assess-
ment of wellbore strengthening. J Petrol Sci Eng 157:657–670
21. Li Y et al (2017) Numerical simulation of limited-entry multi-cluster fracturing in horizontal
well. J Petrol Sci Eng 152:443–455
22. Yao Y, Gosavi SV, Searles KH, Ellison TK (2010) Cohesive fracture mechanics based analysis
to model ductile rock fracture. In: 44th U.S. rock mechanics symposium and 5th U.S. Canada
rock mechanics symposium, 27–30 June, Salt Lake City, Utah
23. Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12(2):155–164
24. Wang H (2015) Numerical modeling of non-planar hydraulic fracture propagation in brittle
and ductile rocks using XFEM with cohesive zone method. J Petrol Sci Eng 135:127–140
25. Zhong R, Miska S, Yu M (2017) Modeling of near-wellbore fracturing for wellbore strength-
ening. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 38:475–484
26. Morita N, Black AD, Guh GF (1990) Theory of lost circulation pressure. In: SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition, 23–26 Sept, New Orleans, Louisiana. [Link]
2118/20409-MS
42 3 Lost Circulation Models

27. Okland D, Gabrielsen GK, Gjerde J, Koen S, Williams EL (2002) The importance of extended
leak-off test data for combatting lost circulation. In: SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference,
20–23 Oct, Irving, Texas. [Link]
28. Onyia EC (1994) Experimental data analysis of lost-circulation problems during drilling with
oil-based mud. SPE Drilling Completion 9(01):25–31
29. Raaen AM, Skomedal E, Kjørholt H, Markestad P, Økland D (2001) Stress determination
from hydraulic fracturing tests: the system stiffness approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38(4):529–541
30. Raaen AM, Brudy M (2001) Pump-in/flowback tests reduce the estimate of horizontal in-situ
stress significantly. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 Sept–3 Oct, New
Orleans, Louisiana. [Link]
31. Lavrov A, Tronvoll J (2005) Mechanics of borehole ballooning in naturally-fractured forma-
tions. In: SPE middle east oil and gas show and conference, 12–15 March, Kingdom of Bahrain.
[Link]
32. Helstrup OA, Chen Z, Rahman SS (2004) Time-dependent wellbore instability and ballooning
in naturally fractured formations. J Petrol Sci Eng 43(1):113–128
33. Ziegler F, Jones J (2014) Predrill pore-pressure prediction and pore pressure and fluid loss mon-
itoring during drilling: a case study for a deepwater subsalt Gulf of Mexico well and discussion
on fracture gradient, fluid losses, and wellbore breathing. Interpretation 2(1):SB45–SB55
34. Bychina M, Thomas GM, Khandelwal R, Samuel R (2017) A robust model to estimate the mud
loss into naturally fractured formations. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition,
9–11 Oct, San Antonio, Texas, USA. [Link]
35. Shahri MP, Zeyghami M, Majidi R (2011) Investigation of fracture ballooning and breathing
in naturally fractured reservoirs: effect of fracture deformation law. In: Nigeria annual inter-
national conference and exhibition, 30 July–3 Aug, Abuja, Nigeria. [Link]
150817-MS
36. Majidi R, Miska SZ, Yu M, Thompson LG (2008) Fracture ballooning in naturally fractured
formations: mechanism and controlling factors. In SPE annual technical conference and exhi-
bition, 21–24 Sept, Denver, Colorado, USA. [Link]
Chapter 4
Wellbore Strengthening Models

Abstract This chapter presents theoretical models for the evaluation of wellbore
strengthening based on plugging/bridging lost circulation fractures using LCMs. An
analytical model and a finite-element numerical model are presented. The analytical
model is developed based on linear elastic fracture mechanics. It can be used for a
fast prediction of fracture pressure enhancement due to fracture bridging, consider-
ing near-wellbore stress concentration, in situ stress anisotropy, and different LCM
bridge locations. It can also be used to perform quantitative parameter sensitivity
analyses to illustrate the undying mechanisms of wellbore strengthening. However,
the analytical model cannot provide detailed stress and displacement information
local to the wellbore and fracture in wellbore strengthening treatments and it does
not consider the porous nature of the formation. To this end, a poroelastic finite-
element numerical model is also developed in this chapter. The finite-element model
can be used to quantify near-wellbore stress and fracture geometry, before and after
bridging fractures. Effects of various parameters are investigated through a compre-
hensive parametric study using the numerical model. Several useful implications for
field applications are obtained based on the parametric study.

4.1 Introduction

Wellbore strengthening operations attempt to “strengthen” the wellbore to prevent

or mitigate lost circulation by bridging/sealing lost circulation fractures with LCMs.
The ultimate objective is to increase the pressure that a wellbore can sustain without
significant fluid loss and widen the drilling mud weight window. While many suc-
cessful lab experiments and field applications have been reported, the fundamental
physics of wellbore strengthening are not thoroughly understood [1, 2]. A lot of dis-
agreement still exists in the drilling industry. There is still a lack of proper mathematic
models to quantitatively describe this problem. Thus, for a better understanding of
the underlying mechanisms of wellbore strengthening treatments based on bridging
lost circulation fractures, both analytical and numerical modeling studies have been
introduced in this chapter. The analytical model developed based on the theory

© The Author(s) 2018 43

Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
44 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

of linear elastic fracture mechanics provides a fast procedure to predict fracture

pressure change before and after bridging the fractures, while the numerical model
developed based on the finite-element method gives a more detailed description of
the distributions of local stress and fracture width in wellbore strengthening.

4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore

Strengthening

A common practice of wellbore strengthening is utilizing lost circulation materials

(LCMs) to bridge the fractures. A number of laboratory and field tests have demon-
strated that the fracture breakdown pressure (FBP—wellbore pressure required to
advance the lost circulation fractures) can be effectively increased by wellbore
strengthening operations [3–6]. Although these tests are very useful for understand-
ing the physics of wellbore strengthening, they are usually expensive and time-
consuming to perform and, therefore, only limited information has been obtained
from the tests.
Alternatively, theoretical modeling has been used to study wellbore strengthening.
Analytical models provide a concise way for wellbore strengthening analysis. A
parameter of particular interest in the analytical studies is the FBP of the wellbore,
before and after bridging the fractures. Knowledge of FBP is critical for optimizing
mud weight and controlling bottom hole pressure during drilling.
Analytical solutions provide equations that directly illustrate the influences of
various factors, e.g. in situ stresses, bridging locations, and pore pressure, on FBP.
For wellbore strengthening analysis, it is generally important to consider the effect
of near-wellbore stress concentration for small fractures within the wellbore vicinity
and the effect of pressure drop along the fracture for large fractures extending far
beyond the near-wellbore region [7, 8].
Two closed-form analytical models are presented in this chapter to investigate the
bridging of small and large fractures, respectively. The models are derived based on
linear elastic fracture mechanics and the superposition principle. They can be used
to assess FBP before and after bridging the fractures at different locations. A sensi-
tivity study is carried out to evaluate the effects of a number of factors on wellbore
strengthening, including the bridging location, field stress, and pore pressure.

4.2.1 Analytical Wellbore Strengthening Model for Bridging

Small Fractures

Two short fractures emanating from the wellbore in the direction of maximum hori-
zontal stress (S H max ) are considered in the small fracture model, as shown in Fig. 4.1.
The problem is under a plane strain condition. In wellbore strengthening treatments,
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 45

Fig. 4.1 Schematic of the short fracture model (after [9], with permission from Elsevier)

the two fractures are bridged at two symmetric locations. The portion of the fracture
from the wellbore wall to the bridge is referred to as invaded zone and the portion
from the bridge to the fracture tip is referred to as non-invaded zone. So the larger
the invaded zone length, the closer the bridge to the fracture tip.
It is assumed that the bridge can perfectly separate the pressure communication
between the invaded and non-invaded zones. Before bridging the fracture, the pres-
sure in the whole fracture is assumed to be equal to the wellbore pressure, considering
the negligible pressure drop along the short fracture. After bridging the fracture, the
pressure in the invaded zone is equal to the wellbore pressure, while the pressure
in non-invaded zone is equal to the formation pore pressure, considering that any
overpressure beyond pore pressure in the non-invaded zone will bleed off due to fluid
leak-off. Under these assumptions, the stress intensity factor at the fracture tip can
be calculated based on the theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics.
The net pressure (equal to fluid pressure in the fracture minus the normal stress
acting on the fracture surface) in the invaded zone and non-invaded zone can be
calculated as:

Pnet_inv  Pw − Sθθ (4.1)

46 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Pnet_noninv  Pp − Sθθ (4.2)

where Pnet_inv and Pnet_noninv are the net pressure in the invaded and non-invaded
zone, respectively; Pw is wellbore pressure; Pp is formation pore pressure; Sθθ is the
wellbore tangential stress along the fracture direction, which is equal to the normal
stress in the rock acting the fracture surface. Sθθ can be approximately determined
using the Kirsch solution, assuming the short fracture does not affect the stress
concentration around the wellbore [9].
   
1 R2 1 R4 R2
Sθθ  (S H max + Shmin ) 1 + 2 − (S H max − Shmin ) 1 + 3 4 − Pw 2
2 r 2 r r
(4.3)

where S H max and Shmin are the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses, respec-
tively; R is wellbore radius; r is the distance from wellbore center to a location along
the fracture.
Based on the superposition principle, the fracture-tip stress intensity for the prob-
lem shown in Fig. 4.1 can be obtained by calculating the following integrals [9].
   
D 2Pnet_inv r−R L 2Pnet_noninv r−R
KI  ∫ √ F dr + ∫ √ F dr (4.4)
R πa a D πa a

   5/4
r−R 1.3 − 0.3 r −R
F   
a
2
a
1 − r −Ra

where K I is the stress intensity factor; D is the distance from wellbore center to
the bridge location; a is the fracture length; L is the distance from wellbore center
to fracture tip. The first and second integrals on the right-hand side of Eq. (4.4)
denote contributions of the net pressures in the invaded and non-invaded zone to the
fracture-tip stress intensity factor, respectively.
According to the theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics, fracture extension
occurs when the stress intensity factor at the fracture tip reaches the fracture toughness
(K I c ) of the material, i.e.

KI  KIc (4.5)

The fracture breakdown pressure (i.e. the wellbore pressure required to advance
the fracture tip) after bridging the fracture can be obtained by combining
Eqs. (4.1)–(4.5):
1 1 1 F1 + F2
Pf s  · · KIC + · · (S H max + Shmin )
2 F1 + F2 − F4 2 F1 + F2 − F4
1 F1 + 3F3 F4
− · · (S H max − Shmin ) − · Pp (4.6)
2 F1 + F2 − F4 F1 + F2 − F4
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 47

L
F1  ∫ G 1 (r ) dr
R

L R2
F2  ∫ G 1 (r ) dr
R r2

L
R4
F3  G 1 (r ) dr
r4
R

L
F4  ∫ G 1 (r ) dr
D

 5/4
1 1.3 − 0.3 r −R
G 1 (r )  √  
a
2
πa
1 − r −R
a

where P f s is the breakdown pressure of the bridged fracture in the small fracture
model; F1 –F4 are terms determined by the dimensions of the wellbore-fracture sys-
tem (including wellbore radius R and fracture length a) and the bridge location D.
These terms are referred to as geometry terms in this paper.
Equations (4.6) illustrates that FBP is a function of the stress and pressure applied
to the system (S H max , Shmin and Pp ), the dimensions of the system (R and L), the
bridge location (D), and the material property (K I C ).

4.2.2 Analytical Wellbore Strengthening Model for Bridging

Large Fractures

The large fracture model considers two fractures extending symmetrically from the
wellbore wall and perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress Shmin . The length
of the fractures is much larger than the wellbore radius. Under this condition, effects
of the presence of the wellbore (i.e. near-wellbore stress concentration) and the far-
field stress S H max parallel to the fracture can be neglected [10–12]. Thus, the model
can be simplified to the problem shown in Fig. 4.2a. Different from the short fracture
model, the fluid pressure in the invaded zone in the large fracture model is no longer
uniformly equal to the wellbore pressure; instead, it is assumed the pressure drops
from the wellbore to the bridge location with a constant gradient. However, the
pressure in the non-invaded zone is still assigned equal to formation pore pressure,
assuming the bridge perfectly blocks the pressure transmission in the fracture and
the overpressure in the non-invaded zone bleeds off into the formation.
48 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.2 Schematic of the large fracture model (a). The model can be decomposed to: the fracture
subject to non-uniformly distributed fluid pressure in the invaded zone (b), the fracture subject to
uniformly distributed fluid pressure equal to the pore pressure in the non-invaded zone (c), and the
fracture subject solely to the field stress S h (d)

Based on the superposition principle of linear elastic mechanics, the problem

shown in Fig. 4.2a can be decomposed into three simpler problems: Problem 1—the
fracture subject to a decreasing fluid pressure in the invaded zone from the wellbore
to the bridge with a constant gradient (Fig. 4.2b), Problem 2—the fracture subject to
uniformly distributed fluid pressure (equal to the pore pressure) in the non-invaded
zone (Fig. 4.2c), and Problem 3—the fracture subject solely to the field stress Shmin
(Fig. 4.2d).
The pressure distribution in the fracture in Problem 1 with a constant pressure
gradient can be defined as:

P (x)  Pw − kx, (0 ≤ x ≤ a) (4.7)

where x is the distance from wellbore center to a location along the fracture; k is the
pressure gradient in the fracture.
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 49

Based on linear elastic fracture mechanics, the stress intensity factors at the frac-
ture tip induced by Problems 1, 2 and 3 can be determined as
  

L −1 D 
K I,1  2Pw sin − 2k L − (L − D) (L + D) (4.8)
π L
  
L D
K I,2  2Pp cos−1 (4.9)
π L
√
K I,3  − π L Shmin (4.10)

where K I,1 , K I,2 and K I,3 are the stress intensity factors of the Problems 1, 2 and 3,
respectively.
The stress intensity factor of the original problem shown in Fig. 4.2a can be found
by superposing the stress intensity factors given in Eqs. (4.8)–(4.10):

K I  K I,1 + K I,2 + K I,3 (4.11)

By combining Eqs. (4.8)–(4.11) and the fracture criterion Eq. (4.5), the fracture
breakdown pressure of the large fracture model can be obtained as:

P f l  C1 K I C + C2 Shmin + C3 k + C4 Pp (4.12)

   −1
L D
C1  2 sin−1
π L

  −1
D
C2  π 2 sin−1
L

  
D
 −1
−1
C3  L − L2 − a2 sin
L

    −1
D D
C4  cos−1 sin−1
L L

where P f l is the fracture breakdown pressure of the large fracture model; C1 –C4 are
geometry terms determined by the length of the fracture (L) and the bridge location
(D).
Equation (4.12) illustrates that fracture breakdown pressure of the large fracture
model are functions of the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin ), pore pressure (Pp ),
fracture length (L), bridge location (D), pressure gradient in the fracture (k) and the
material property (K I C ). Note that the terms of wellbore radius R and maximum
horizontal stress S H max are not involved in the equation because the large fracture
50 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

model ignores the effects of the wellbore and the maximum horizontal stress parallel
to the fracture.
The small-fracture wellbore strengthening model presented in Sect. 4.2.1 neglects
the pressure drop along the fracture; while the large-fracture model described in this
section neglects the influence of near-wellbore stress concentration. It is suggested
that the small fracture model should be used when the fracture length is less than
two wellbore radii, while the large fracture model should be used for fractures longer
than two wellbore radii.

4.2.3 Results of the Small Fracture Model

Results of the small-fracture wellbore strengthening models are presented in this

section. Effects of far-field stress (anisotropy), bridge location, and pore pressure are
investigated. The results are analyzed in term of fracture breakdown pressure.
The base input data for the small fracture model are summarized in Table 4.1. The
industry’s 6-in fracture length assumption is adopted for the analysis [8, 13, 14]. In
each of the following sensitivity analysis, the parameters are kept identical to those
in Table 4.1 unless otherwise stated. Fracture breakdown pressure calculated from
Eq. (4.6) for various load conditions and bridge locations is reported below.
Figure 4.3 shows the fracture breakdown pressure with various far-field stress
anisotropies and bridges locations. The bridge location is denoted by the ratio of
the invaded zone length to the fracture length, which increases from 0 to 1 as the
bridge moves from the fracture mouth to the fracture tip. The case with bridge
location at the fracture tip (i.e. a ratio of 1) is identical to the situation without
bridging the fracture. The stress anisotropy is denoted by the ratio of S H max /Shmin ,
which is increased from 1 to 2 by changing the value of S H max while keeping Shmin
constant at 3000 psi. Figure 4.3 shows the breakdown pressure increases quickly
as the invaded zone length decreases (i.e. the bridge location moves closer to the

Table 4.1 Base input parameters used in the proposed model

Parameter Unit Value
Wellbore radius (R) inch 6
Fracture length (a) inch 6
Minimum horizontal stress psi 3000
(Shmin )
Maximum horizontal stress psi 3600
(S H max )
Wellbore pressure (Pw ) psi 4000
Pore pressure (Pp ) psi 1800
Fracture toughness (K I C ) psi-in0.5 2000
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 51

Fig. 4.3 Fracture breakdown pressure for different stress anisotropies with various bridge locations
(after [9], with permission from Elsevier)

fracture mouth at wellbore all). This result implies that the best location to bridge the
fracture in wellbore strengthening is the region close to fracture mouth if the bridge
can effectively isolate the pressure commination ahead and behind it. Figure 4.3
also illustrates that the breakdown pressure decreases with the increase of far-field
stress anisotropy. This is because a larger field stress anisotropy results in a less
compressive stress acting normally on the fracture in the near-wellbore region, thus
a smaller wellbore pressure is required to extend the fracture. However, compared
with bridge location, the effect of field stress anisotropy on breakdown pressure
is relatively smaller, and the breakdown pressure becomes less sensitive to stress
anisotropy with the increase of the invaded zone length.
Figure 4.4 shows the breakdown pressure for different pore pressures with various
bridge locations. The variation of pore pressure is denoted by the ratio of pore pressure
Pp to the constant Shmin of 3000 psi. The results show that, before bridging the fracture
(i.e. the ratio of invaded zone length to fracture length is equal to 1), the breakdown
pressure is independent of pore pressure and equal to the value of Shmin . However,
the breakdown pressure becomes very sensitive to pore pressure after bridging the
fracture. With the increase of Pp /Shmin , the breakdown pressure decreases. This result
provides an important implication for the field applications of wellbore strengthening.
As aforementioned, two well-known scenarios of lost circulation are drilling through
depleted reservoirs and overpressured deepwater formations. The former scenario
52 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.4 Fracture breakdown pressure for different pore pressures with various bridge locations
(after [9], with permission from Elsevier)

usually has a relatively lower Pp /Shmin value due to pore pressure drop, while the
latter scenario usually exhibits a larger Pp /Shmin value because of the abnormally
high formation pressure and the relatively low field stress caused by the column of
seawater. Therefore, according to the result in Fig. 4.4, the wellbore strengthening
treatments based on bridging the lost circulation fractures should be more effective
in depleted reservoirs as compared to overpressued deepwater formations.

4.2.4 Results of the Large Fracture Model

In the above, results have been given for the small fracture model with a fracture
length of 6 in. In this section, sensitivity study results using the large fracture model
for a lost circulation fracture of 100 in. are presented. Different from the small
fracture model, a pressure gradient in the invaded zone is taken into account in the
large fracture model, considering the relatively large viscous pressure dissipation
along the fracture. However, the pressure in the non-invaded zone remains equal
to the pore pressure, assuming that the drilling fluid does not reach this zone after
bridging and the overpressure dissipates into the formation with fluid leak-off. It
is assumed that the fracture can be bridged in the region between its midpoint and
tip because it is generally very difficult to bridge a large fracture near the fracture
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 53

Fig. 4.5 Fracture breakdown pressure for different far-field stress with various bridge locations

mouth [10, 15]. The input parameters used in this section are the same as those
reported in Table 4.1, except the fracture length. Since the trends for the effects of
the corresponding parameters in the large fracture model are very similar to those in
the small fracture model, the results in this section are described very briefly.
Figure 4.5 shows the effect of Shmin on fracture breakdown pressure with different
bridge locations. When there is no bridge, the breakdown pressure is slightly higher
than Shmin . Similarly to the results of the small fracture model, the existence of a
bridge in the fracture contributes to maximize breakdown pressure. Because Shmin is
the normal stress acting to close the fracture, the results show that the larger the Shmin ,
the higher breakdown pressure is required to propagate the fracture, as expected.
Figure 4.6 shows the effect of pore pressure in the large fracture model. The results
again show that if Pp is much smaller than Shmin , the breakdown pressure can be
significantly enhanced after bridging the fracture. However, if Pp approaches Shmin ,
the increase in breakdown pressure is much more modest.
Figure 4.7 shows the effect of pressure gradient in the fracture. It can be seen that
the larger the pressure gradient, the higher breakdown pressure in the wellbore that
is required to extend the fracture. The case without considering pressure gradient
predicts a lower limit of breakdown pressure. The breakdown pressure is more sensi-
tive to pressure gradient when the invaded zone length is large due to the associated
larger amount of pressure drop.
54 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.6 Fracture breakdown pressure for different pore pressure with various bridge locations

Fig. 4.7 Fracture breakdown pressure for different fluid pressure gradient in the fracture with
various bridge locations

4.2.5 Discussions

The results of the small and large fracture models demonstrate that bridging the
fracture can effectively maximize the breakdown pressure. However, this conclusion
is only valid when the problem satisfies the following two prescribed conditions:
4.2 A Fracture-Mechanics Model for Wellbore Strengthening 55

• the LCM bridge is a perfect plug with zero permeability which separates the fluid
flow across it completely;
• the formation is relatively permeable and thus any overpressure beyond the pore
pressure in the non-invaded zone can dissipate due to fluid leak-off into the for-
mation.
A permeable or leaking LCM bridge will compromise the result of wellbore
strengthening [7, 16]. In order to form a qualify LCM bridge in the fracture, filtrate
loss from fracture surfaces to the formation is usually required [13, 17–19]. The
second prescribed condition implies that the proposed models are more applicable
to sandstone, and to a lesser extent, shale formations. The effectiveness of wellbore
strengthening treatments can be strongly limited by the low permeability of shale for
two reasons:
• the overpressure in the non-invaded zone is difficult to dissipate
• the slow filtration loss restricts the development of LCM bridge [21].
To solve lost circulation problems in low-permeability shales, chemical strategies
have been used to strengthen the wellbore, either by changing chemical composition
of the formation [20] or by forming chemical sealants in the fracture [21].
It is worth noting the limitations of the analytical models. The models are devel-
opment based on linear elasticity assumption, without considering the poroelasticity
effect. The fractures have fixed length and fluid flow within the fracture is not explic-
itly modeled. The LCM bridge has zero permeability and the location is prescribed;
the transportation, aggregation, and bridging of LCMs within the fracture are not
explicitly modeled. Numerical models may have the capabilities to take into account
one or more of these additional features. In the following section, a numerical study
on wellbore strengthening is presented.

4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening

While the analytical model described in the above section provides a fast procedure
to predict fracture pressure change before and after fracture bridging, it cannot pro-
vide detailed stress and displacement information local to the wellbore and fracture
in wellbore strengthening treatments. Moreover, it does not consider the porome-
chanical effect of the formation rock. However, numerical approaches, such as the
finite-element method, can be applied to obtain detailed information about the evo-
lution of local stress and deformation in wellbore strengthening operations.
To better simulate wellbore strengthening treatment, a poroelastic finite-element
numerical model, considering fluid flow and fluid leak-off is developed. The model
quantifies near-wellbore stress and fracture geometry, before and after bridging frac-
tures. Effects of various parameters on wellbore strengthening can be investigated
using the model. Although the numerical model cannot directly provide a solution for
maximum sustainable pressure of the wellbore in wellbore strengthening analysis,
56 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

there is no doubt that, from the points of view of both continuum mechanics and
fracture mechanics, increasing hoop stress—and, hence, stress acting on closing the
fracture—will facilitate the prevention of fracture growth, thus achieving wellbore
strengthening. The link between enhancing hoop stress and increasing maximum
sustainable pressure of the wellbore has also been discussed in detail in a series of
papers [13, 17, 18, 21–23].

4.3.1 Development of the Numerical Wellbore Strengthening

Model

Wellbore strengthening treatments for a vertical wellbore are considered. The well-
bore is assumed to be in a plane-strain condition. Owing to symmetry, only one
quarter of the wellbore is used in the finite-element numerical analysis, as shown in
Fig. 4.8. Wellbore radius is 4.25 in. The length and width of the quarter model are
40.25 in.
A pre-existing fracture is assumed on the wellbore as shown in Fig. 4.8, with
its face aligned with the maximum horizontal stress (S H max ) or X-axis direction.
The fracture length of 6 in. is used so as to be consistent with previous work by
other investigators [13, 14, 24, 25]. The fracture is plugged with LCMs as shown in
Fig. 4.8. Through this section, the plug formed inside the fracture by LCMs across
the fracture width is called an LCM bridge. The LCM bridge is assumed to be a
“perfect” bridge, i.e., a rigid body with zero permeability. So there is no fluid flow
across the bridge. To create the effect of bridging the fracture, the velocity in the Y
direction at the bridging location is set equal to zero. The quadrant angle is 0 in the
X-axis, and increases to 90° around the quarter wellbore.
Symmetric boundary conditions are applied to the left and top boundaries of the
model. The maximum horizontal stress (S H max ) along the X-direction and minimum
horizontal stress (Shmin ) along the Y-direction are applied to the right and bottom
outside boundaries, respectively. Wellbore pressure is applied to the inner wall of the
wellbore. Pressure in the fracture is equal to wellbore pressure before bridging the
fracture with LCM. After bridging the fracture, pressure in the fracture ahead of the
LCM bridge (from wellbore to the bridge) is still equal to wellbore pressure. However,
pressure behind the LCM bridge (from the bridge to fracture tip) is set equal to pore
pressure, because the pressure in this region will drop to formation pore pressure with
fluid leaking off into the formation and no continuous fluid supply from wellbore
due to the impermeable bridge. Fluid leak-off velocities are applied on the wellbore
wall and fracture faces to simulate fluid leak-off.
Table 4.2 provides the input parameters for the finite-element numerical simula-
tions in the following sections.
• Total size of the model is about ten times the wellbore size in order to eliminate
boundary effects on near-wellbore stress and strain states.
• Formation rock properties are selected for a typical sandstone.
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 57

Fig. 4.8 The wellbore strengthening model. a Geometry and boundary conditions of the model;
b detailed fracture process zone (after [9], with permission from Elsevier)
58 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Table 4.2 Input parameters for the finite-element model (after [2], with permission from Elsevier)
Parameter Values Units
Model length 40.25 inches
Model width 40.25 inches
Wellbore radius (R) 4.25 inches
Young’s modulus (E) 2 × 106 psi
Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.2
Minimum horizontal stress (Shmin ) 3000 psi
Maximum horizontal stress (S H max ) 1–1.5 Smin psi
Wellbore pressure (Pw ) 4000 psi
Pressure in fracture before bridging (P f o ) 4000 psi
Pressure ahead of bridge after bridging (P f a ) 4000 psi
Pressure behind of bridge after bridging (P f b ) 1800–4000 psi
Fracture length (a) 6 inches
Initial pore pressure (Pp ) 1800 psi
Permeability 0.0023 in/min
Void ratio 0.3
LCM bridge location away from wellbore 0.5, 2.0, 3.5, 5.0 inches

• Maximum and minimum horizontal stresses with different stress contrasts, from 1
(S H max /Shmin  1) to 1.5 (S H max /Shmin  1.5), are used to investigate the effect
of stress anisotropy.
• Different pressures behind the bridge P f b are used to simulate the sealing capacity
of the LCM bridge, from complete sealing (P f b  Pp  1800 psi) to no sealing
(P f b  Pp  40000 psi).
• Various LCM bridge locations are also selected for parametric sensitivity studies.
In the following, results from finite-element numerical simulations using the input
parameters in Table 4.2 are presented. Hoop stress around the wellbore and along the
fracture, and fracture width are investigated utilizing the list of influential parameters.

4.3.2 Hoop Stress and Fracture Width

Using the finite-element model described above, hoop stress states in the vicinity
of the wellbore and the fracture are analyzed for various combinations of influen-
tial parameters. Figure 4.9 shows the hoop stress state before and after bridging
the fracture with LCM. The bridge location is 2 in. away from the fracture mouth.
Throughout this section, negative and positive stress values mean compressive and
tensile stresses, respectively. It is clear that, before bridging, the fracture tip is under
tension and near-wellbore rock is under compression. However, after bridging the
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 59

Fig. 4.9 Hoop stress distribution before (left) and after (right) bridging the fracture in remedial
wellbore strengthening treatment (after [2], with permission from Elsevier)

Fig. 4.10 Vertical displacement distribution in the model before and after bridging the fracture in
wellbore strengthening (after [2], with permission from Elsevier)

fracture, there is a compressive stress increase area near the bridging location, mean-
ing the fracture is more difficult to open; whereas the tensile stress near the fracture
tip decreases, meaning the fracture is more difficult to propagate. After bridging the
fracture in wellbore strengthening, lost circulation is less likely to continue.
Figure 4.10 shows vertical displacement perpendicular to the fracture face, before
and after bridging the fracture using LCM. The bridge location is 2 in. away from the
wellbore wall. The displacement magnitude along the fracture face is the half width
of the fracture. The minus sign in Fig. 4.10 means the fracture opening displacement
is opposite to the direction of the Y-axis. The blue and red colors indicate larger
and smaller fracture opening displacement (or fracture width), respectively. Fracture
width decreases after bridging the fracture, especially in the region behind the bridge
location.
Note that in the fracture width plots in the following sections, a minus sign is still
used. But this sign only means the direction of fracture opening displacement, not a
negative fracture width.
60 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

4.3.3 Effect of Horizontal Stress Contrast S H max /S hmi n

Hoop stress on the wellbore wall from 0° to 90°, with different horizontal stress
contrasts, for scenarios without fracture, with unbridged fracture, and with bridged
fracture, are computed and shown in Figs. 4.11a–c, respectively. For wellbore with-
out fracture, hoop stress on the wellbore within 30° to X-axis (S H max direction) is
tension. With increase in horizontal stress contrast, the tensile stress increases. When
there is a fracture created as shown in Fig. 4.11b, the tensile stress on the wellbore
wall close to fracture changes to compression. Figure 4.11c is the hoop stress after
bridging the fracture at 2 in. away from the wellbore. It’s not easy to see the stress
differences between wellbore with unbridged fracture and wellbore with bridged
fracture from Figs. 4.11b and c. To facilitate the observation, hoop stresses in a sin-
gle case with S H max /Shmin  1.3 before and after bridging the fracture are compared
in Fig. 4.11d. It is clearly shown that compressive hoop stress on the wellbore wall
increases in the area near the fracture mouth from 0 to 45° and decreases in the area
beyond 45°. This is because after bridging the fracture, fluid pressure behind the
bridging point will decrease, as a result the fracture will try to close. The healing
of the fracture will stretch the formation around it, leading to an increased tension
(decreased compression). However, a rigid bridge restrains the healing of the fracture
portion near the fracture mouth, resulting in a locally increased compression; in the
far area beyond 45° increased tension still occurs due to the overall healing behavior
of the fracture. Increased compression near the fracture means that the fracture is
less likely to be opened after bridging. Decreased compression beyond 45° means
bridging the fracture actually weakens this wellbore portion and new fractures may
generate here with increased wellbore pressure.
Figures 4.12a, b and c show hoop stress along the facture faces with different
horizontal stress contrast for scenarios without fracture, with unbridged fracture,
and with bridged fracture, respectively. The horizontal axis is the distance away
from the wellbore wall along the fracture direction. Before fracture creation, as
shown in Fig. 4.12a, hoop stress along the fracture direction is tensile in the near
wellbore region, and becomes compressive with increase of distance away from the
wellbore wall. The higher the horizontal stress contrast, the larger the tensile stress
and tensile area. However, the near-wellbore tensile hoop stress becomes compressive
when a fracture is created, as illustrated in Fig. 4.12b; whereas the near-fracture-
tip compressive stress becomes tensile. Figure 4.12b also shows horizontal stress
contrast has negligible influence on hoop stress along fracture faces. Note that in
this study, different S H max values are utilized to change horizontal stress contrast,
whereas Shmin is kept as a constant value. Figure 4.12c is the stress after bridging the
fracture. Horizontal stress contrast still has negligible influence on hoop stress along
the fracture. But there is a significant compression increase near the bridge location
at 2 in. away from wellbore wall. Hoop stresses along fracture, with horizontal
stress contrast equal to 1.3, before and after wellbore strengthening are compared in
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 61

Fig. 4.11 Hoop stress on

wellbore wall for different
horizontal stress contrasts: a
without fracture, b with
unbridged fracture, c with
bridged fracture, and d
comparison of hoop stresses
before and after bridging for
horizontal stress contrast
equal to 1.3 (after [2], with
permission from Elsevier)
62 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.12 Hoop stress along

fracture face for different
horizontal stress contrasts: a
without fracture, b with
unbridged fracture, c with
bridged fracture, and d
comparison of hoop stresses
before and after bridging the
fracture for horizontal stress
contrast equal to 1.3 (after
[2], with permission from
Elsevier)
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 63

Fig. 4.13 Fracture

half-width distribution for
different horizontal stress
contrasts: a before bridging
the fracture, b after bridging
the fracture, and c
comparison of fracture
half-widths before and after
bridging the fracture for
horizontal stress contrast
equal to 1.3 (after [2], with
permission from Elsevier)

Fig. 4.12d. It is clearly indicated that bridging the fracture will significantly increase
the compressive hoop stress near the LCM bridge location, which makes the fracture
harder to reopen.
Figures 4.13a and b show fracture half-width distribution along the fracture length
with different horizontal stress contrasts with unbridged and bridged fracture, respec-
tively. The bridge location is 2 in. away from the wellbore. For both cases, with
increase in horizontal stress contrast, fracture half-width increases, especially in the
64 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

area close to the wellbore. Figure 4.13b shows that horizontal stress contrast has a
very small effect on fracture width behind the LCM bridge after strengthening. Frac-
ture widths before and after bridging the fracture for a particular case with horizontal
stress contrast equal to 1.3 are compared in Fig. 4.13c. The results shows that the
fracture width behind the LCM bridge has a significant decrease after bridging the
fracture, which means the fracture is trying to close after the strengthening opera-
tion. However, fracture width experiences a much smaller decrease ahead of bridge
location, likely due to the relatively higher fluid pressure in this part of the fracture.

4.3.4 Effect of LCM Bridge Location

Figure 4.14 shows hoop stress on the wellbore wall before and after bridging the
fracture at 0.5, 2 and 5 in. away from wellbore. When the LCM bridge is close to
the wellbore wall, e.g. the 0.5-in. case, there is a dramatic compressive hoop stress
increase on the wellbore wall near the fracture. However, with the bridging location
further away from the fracture, e.g. the 2.0-in. case, there is less hoop stress increase.
For a bridge at 5.0 in., there is no clear hoop stress change—the stress curve in
Fig. 4.14 overlaps with the one before bridging the fracture. The result illustrates
that, from a hoop stress enhancement point of view, the best place to bridge the
fracture is at the fracture mouth.
Figure 4.15 shows hoop stress along the fracture face with different bridging
locations. When the bridge is very close to the wellbore wall, e.g. the 0.5-in. case,
there is a dramatic compressive hoop stress increase around the bridge location.
However, with the bridge is away from the wellbore wall, the increase of compressive

Fig. 4.14 Hoop stress on wellbore wall for different bridging locations (after [2], with permission
from Elsevier)
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 65

Fig. 4.15 Hoop stress along fracture face for different bridge locations (after [2], with permission
from Elsevier)

hoop stress becomes smaller. There is almost no hoop stress change while bridging
the fracture near the fracture tip. For example, for the case with bridge at 5.0 in. away
from wellbore wall, the stress after bridging is almost the same as that before bridging,
indicated as two overlapping curves in Fig. 4.15. These results also demonstrate that
the best place to bridge the fracture is near the wellbore wall, and it is important to
determine pre-existing fracture width for designing LCM particle size distribution
and optimizing bridging location.
Fracture half-widths before bridging the fracture and after bridging it at 0.5, 2.0,
3.5 and 5.0 in. away from the wellbore wall are computed and shown in Fig. 4.16.
When the fracture is bridged near the wellbore wall, for example the 0.5-in. case,
the fracture experiences a larger decrease in its width, compared with bridging away
from the wellbore. For a bridge at 5.0 in., there is no clear width change—the width
curve in Fig. 4.16 overlaps with that before bridging the fracture. Since the objective
of wellbore strengthening is to prevent fracture opening and propagation, Fig. 4.16
also shows that the best place to bridge the fracture is at the fracture mouth.

4.3.5 Effect of Pressure Behind LCM Bridge (Bridge

Permeability)

For the numerical studies above, the bridge is assumed to be impermeable and there-
fore prevents pressure communication across the bridge. It is assumed that pressure
behind the LCM bridge will decline to formation pressure as the fluid leaks off.
However, in real situations, the bridge is likely not completely impermeable in real
situations, and fluid can flow across the bridge due to pressure differential. Depend-
66 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.16 Fracture half-width distribution for different LCM bridge locations (after [2], with per-
mission from Elsevier)

ing on fluid penetration across the bridge or the permeability of the bridge, pressure
behind the LCM bridge can vary from formation pressure (perfectly impermeable
bridge) to wellbore pressure (fully permeable bridge). Figure 4.17 shows hoop stress
along the fracture faces for pressure behind the LCM bridge varying from formation
pressure, 1800 psi, to wellbore pressure, 4000 psi. The higher the pressure behind
the LCM bridge, the smaller the compression near the bridge location and the higher
the tension at the fracture tip. This lessens the effectiveness of wellbore strengthen-
ing. The results in Fig. 4.17 illustrate the importance of forming a low permeability
bridge.
Figure 4.18 shows the fracture half-width distribution for pressure behind the
LCM bridge varying from formation pressure, 1800 psi, to wellbore pressure, 4000
psi. The lower the pressure behind the LCM bridge, the smaller the fracture width
behind the LCM bridge. This, again, means the less permeable the LCM bridge, the
more effective the strengthening operation.

4.3.6 Field Implications of the Numerical Study

For effectively strengthening a wellbore, it is necessary to understand the fun-

damentals of lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. Because the fracture
growth/closure behavior and corresponding stress and dimension changes are diffi-
cult to measure in the field, numerical simulation is especially useful for studying
these processes and revealing useful information for field applications. Regarding
hoop stress as an important consideration in wellbore strengthening, the following
field implications are indicated from the above finite element modeling analysis.
4.3 A Numerical Model for Wellbore Strengthening 67

Fig. 4.17 Hoop stress along fracture face for different pressures behind LCM bridge, varying from
formation pressure of 1800 psi to wellbore pressure of 4000 psi (after [2], with permission from
Elsevier)

Fig. 4.18 Fracture half-width distribution for different pressure behind LCM bridge, varying from
formation pressure 1800 psi to wellbore pressure 4000 psi (after [2], with permission from Elsevier)

• Hoop stress around the wellbore can be substantially increased by bridging the
fracture near the wellbore wall. Bridging the fracture near the fracture tip does little
to increase hoop stress and strengthen the wellbore. It is important to correctly pre-
dict fracture width and optimize LCM size distribution in wellbore strengthening
design.
• The LCM plug should have no or very low permeability in order to effectively
block wellbore fluid penetration and so that fluid in the fracture tip region can
freely dissipate into the nearby permeable formation. This ultimately leads to
68 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

fluid pressure in the fracture tip region becoming equal to formation pore pressure,
resulting in a closed fracture. The permeability of the bridging plug is a property
as important as the bridge strength.
• After effectively bridging the fracture, the hoop stress increases locally on the
wellbore wall near the fracture mouth. If the wellbore pressure increases further,
subsequent fractures may initiate on the wellbore in some places away from the
fracture mouth rather than in the near fracture region.
• With bridging the fracture near its mouth, a substantial hoop stress increase can
be achieved. But the hoop stress increase is limited only to the region near the
bridging location; after this location, hoop stress decreases quickly to tension.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate the potential of hoop stress increase for
wellbore strengthening to make sure the downhole pressure or ECD is less than
the maximum hoop stress that can be obtained. Wellbore strengthening operations
do not work when bridging the fracture far away from its mouth from the point of
view of hoop stress enhancement.
• It is well-known from fracture mechanics that the longer the fracture the less
net pressure (difference between fluid pressure inside the fracture and field stress
acting on fracture faces) is needed to propagate the fracture. However, in a real field
situation, the fracture length is hard to predict. However, from these simulation
results the best place to bridge the fracture, from a point of view of hoop stress
enhancement, is at its mouth or entrance on the wellbore wall. This simplifies
the problem, i.e., bridge the fracture mouth, then fracture length is of much less
consequence.

4.4 Some Experimental Results of Wellbore Strengthening

In laboratory and field experimental studies of wellbore strengthening, repeated leak-

off tests are commonly used to investigate the effectiveness of wellbore strength-
ening treatments. By performing repeated leak-off tests in a wellbore with and
without LCMs in the injection fluid, the fracture pressure for strengthened and un-
strengthened wellbore can be compared. In this section, a few selected experimental
results of wellbore strengthening are presented.
Figure 4.19 compares the fracture pressure of a wellbore without and with wellbore
strengthening treatment in one experimental study of the DEA 13 project [6]. The
experiment was conducted on 30 × 30 × 30 in sandstone blocks with a 1.5 in. vertical
borehole. The maximum and minimum horizontal stresses applied to the block are
2500 and 1800 psi, respectively. A leak-off test with three cycles is conducted. In the
first cycle, oil-based mud with 40-lb/bbl LCMs (calcium carbonates) was injected to
fracture the borehole until breakdown. A relatively high FBP and FPP is observed.
A fracture must have been created after this cycle. In the second injection cycle, oil-
based mud without LCM was used to re-fracture the borehole. A much lower FBP
and FPP was measured due to loss of tensile strength and removal of LCM. In the
third cycle, oil-based mud with LCM was reused to strengthen the borehole. FBP and
4.4 Some Experimental Results of Wellbore Strengthening 69

Fig. 4.19 A typical set of DEA-13 experimental data (reproduced after [6], with permission from
SPE)

FPP in this cycle with LCM were about 5000 psi higher than those in the previous
cycle without using LCM. As an early effort focusing on resolving lost circulation
problems, the DEA-13 experimental study for the first time clearly substantiated
that pressure-bearing capacity of a wellbore can be effectively enhanced by wellbore
strengthening treatments.
Figure 4.20 is the result of an experimental study on remedial wellbore strength-
ening performed by [3]. A rock block of 6 × 6 × 6 in. with a 0.1-in.-diameter vertical
borehole was used in the test. The rock sample used in this test was Grinshill sand-
stone. The maximum and minimum horizontal stresses applied to the block were
800 and 200 psi, respectively. Drilling mud without LCM was first injected to frac-
ture the intact wellbore and a fracture breakdown pressure of 870 psi was achieved.
Subsequently, two repeated injection cycles using the same drilling mud without
LCM were conducted to test the strength of the wellbore with existing fractures.
The breakdown pressure in these two cycles was about 400 psi lower than that of
the intact wellbore due to the loss of tensile strength. In a final cycle, drilling mud
including 30-lb/bbl graphitic LCM was used to strengthen the wellbore. Figure 4.20
shows an enhanced fracture breakdown pressure of about 1700 psi was achieved in
this cycle, which is about 800 and 1200 psi higher than the breakdown pressure of the
intact wellbore and fractured wellbore, respectively. This example again evidences
the effectiveness of wellbore strengthening treatments.
Figure 4.21 shows a field wellbore strengthening test by [17]. The test was con-
ducted at a depth of 3012 ft in a vertical well in the Arkoma basin, USA. A base
mud free of LCM was first pumped to fracture a vertical wellbore, and an original
70 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

Fig. 4.20 Results of a laboratory wellbore strengthening test (reproduced after [3], with permission
from SPE)

Fig. 4.21 Results of LOT field tests before and after taking remedial wellbore strengthening treat-
ment (reproduced after [17], with permission from SPE)
4.4 Some Experimental Results of Wellbore Strengthening 71

breakdown pressure of 1200 psi was observed. In a following test, the base mud was
replaced by a designed mud containing 80-lb/bbl LCM solids to investigate the effect
of remedial wellbore strengthening. The solid curve in Fig. 4.21 shows the pressure-
time curve using LCMs. A fracture (breakdown) pressure about 2050 psi was reached
in this case, which is about 850 psi higher than the original state. This significant
increase in fracture (breakdown) pressure clearly indicates that the fractures can be
successfully bridged using remedial wellbore strengthening treatment.

References

1. Arlanoglu C, Feng Y, Podnos E, Becker E, Gray KE (2014) Finite element studies of wellbore
strengthening. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference and exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort Worth, Texas,
USA. [Link]
2. Feng Y, Gray KE (2016) A parametric study for wellbore strengthening. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
30:350–363
3. Guo Q, Cook J, Way P, Ji L, Friedheim JE (2014) A comprehensive experimental study on
wellbore strengthening. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference and exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort
Worth, Texas, USA. [Link]
4. Morita N, Black AD, Fuh GF (1996) Borehole breakdown pressure with drilling fluids—I.
Empirical results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(1):39–51
5. Morita N, Black AD, Guh GF (1990) Theory of lost circulation pressure. In: SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition, 23–26 September, New Orleans, Louisiana. [Link]
org/10.2118/20409-MS
6. Onyia EC (1994) Experimental data analysis of lost-circulation problems during drilling with
oil-based mud. SPE Drilling Completion 9(1):25–31
7. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Review of fundamental studies on lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening. J Petrol Sci Eng 152:511–522. [Link]
8. Zhong R, Miska S, Yu M (2017) Modeling of near-wellbore fracturing for wellbore strength-
ening. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 38:475–484
9. Feng Y, Gray KE (2016) A fracture-mechanics-based model for wellbore strengthening appli-
cations. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 29:392–400
10. Ito T, Zoback MD, Peska P (2001) Utilization of mud weights in excess of the least prin-
cipal stress to stabilize wellbores: theory and practical examples. SPE Drilling Completion
16(4):221–229
11. Morita N, Fuh G-F (2012) Parametric analysis of wellbore-strengthening methods from basic
rock mechanics. SPE Drilling Completion 27(2):315–327
12. van Oort E, Razavi OS (2014) Wellbore strengthening and casing smear: the common under-
lying mechanism. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference and exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort Worth,
Texas, USA. [Link]
13. Alberty MW, McLean MR (2004) A physical model for stress cages. In: SPE annual technical
conference and exhibition, 26–29 September, Houston, Texas. [Link]
MS
14. Wang H, Towler BF, Soliman MY (2007) Near wellbore stress analysis and wellbore strength-
ening for drilling depleted formations. In: Rocky mountain oil & gas technology symposium,
16–18 April, Denver, Colorado, USA. [Link]
15. Zoback MD (2010) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press
16. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2016) A review on fracture-initiation and -propagation pressures
for lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 31(2):134–144
17. Aston MS, Alberty MW, McLean MR, De Jong HJ, Armagost K (2004) Drilling fluids for
wellbore strengthening. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference, 2–4 March, Dallas, Texas. https://
[Link]/10.2118/87130-MS
72 4 Wellbore Strengthening Models

18. Dupriest FE (2005) Fracture closure stress (FCS) and lost returns practices. In: SPE/IADC
drilling conference, 23–25 February, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [Link]
MS
19. van Oort E, Friedheim JE, Pierce T, Lee J (2011) Avoiding Losses in depleted and weak zones
by constantly strengthening wellbores. SPE Drilling Completion 26(4):519–530
20. Growcock FB, Kaageson-Loe N, Friedheim J, Sanders MW, Bruton J (2009) Wellbore stability,
stabilization and strengthening. In: Offshore mediterranean conference and exhibition, 25–27
March, Ravenna, Italy
21. Aston MS, Alberty MW, Duncum SD, Bruton JR, Friedheim JE, Sanders MW (2007) A new
treatment for wellbore strengthening in shale. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhi-
bition, 11–14 November, Anaheim, California, USA. [Link]
22. Dupriest FE, Smith MV, Zeilinger SC, Shoykhet N (2008) Method to eliminate lost returns and
build integrity continuously with high-filtration-rate fluid. in: IADC/SPE drilling conference,
4–6 March, Orlando, Florida, USA. [Link]
23. Feng Y, Arlanoglu C, Podnos E, Becker E, Gray KE (2015) Finite-Element studies of hoop-
stress enhancement for wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 30(1):38–51
24. Wang H, Soliman MY, Towler BF (2009) Investigation of factors for strengthening a wellbore
by propping fractures. SPE Drilling Completion 24(3):441–451
25. Wang H, Towler BF, Soliman MY (2007) Fractured wellbore stress analysis: sealing cracks to
strengthen a wellbore. in: SPE/IADC drilling conference, 20–22 February, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. [Link]
Chapter 5
Lost Circulation Materials

Abstract Numerous LCMs have been proposed for curing lost circulation. However,
due to the complexity of formation properties and fluid loss mechanisms, there is
not a universal LCM suitable to all types of losses. The selection of LCMs is highly
dependent on the formation types, fluid loss mechanisms (e.g. loss into pores, natural
fractures, induced fractures, and vugs), and the loss severity. This chapter gives a brief
overview of the LCMs that can be used to mitigate fluid losses in high-permeability
formations, low-permeability shales, and vugular/fractured carbonates.

5.1 Introduction

Lost circulation materials (LCMs) are the materials used to bridge and seal the
flow channels (pores, fractures, vugs) through which the drilling fluids lost into the
formation. Based on their appearances, LCMs are usually divided into four categories
[1, 2]:
• Granular: synthetic graphite, calcium carbonate, nut shells, gilsonite, asphalt, etc.,
• Fibrous: cellulose fibers, nylon, mineral fibers, cedar bark, shredded paper, etc.,
• Flaky: mica, cellophane, etc.,
• Blends of two or more of these materials.
Granular LCMs are used to form a bridge within the pores or fractures to prevent
fluid loss. The have relatively high stiffness and are available in a wide range of
particle size distribution (PSD). The design of PSD of granular materials is critical
for wellbore strengthening. Generally, large particles are used to bridge the fractures,
while sufficient small particles should also be included to fill the spaces between the
large ones to form a low-permeability seal. So LCMs with a broad PSD usually
perform better than those with a narrow PSD [3].
Fibers are flexible and slender materials. Due to their very low stiffness, using
fibers alone in wellbore strengthening treatments may not be able to create an effective
bridge. Therefore, fibers are usually used together with granular LCMs. A major
function of fibrous LCMs is to create a mat-like bridge which serves as a filtration
medium for granular materials to deposit and to form a tight seal, eventually [4].
© The Author(s) 2018 73
Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
74 5 Lost Circulation Materials

Using fibers in combination with granular materials can also improve the mechanical
properties and seepage characteristic of the bridge.
Flaky materials are thin and flat in shape. Flaky LCMs can establish seal over
many permeable formations to stop mud loss [5]. However, due to their relatively
low strength, flaky LCMs are more likely to be destroyed during placement. An
experimental study shows that a flaky LCM is not effective in sealing lost circulation
fractures when used alone [6].
A blend of different types of LCMs can yield better performance by leveraging
the property and advantage of each material. A commonly used prescription for
curing lost circulation in permeable and fractured zones is a blend of sized calcium
carbonate and resilient synthetic graphite, sometimes supplemented with fibers [7].
According to the settability of the materials, LCMs can be classified into:
• Settable materials: cement, resin, cross-linked material, etc.,
• Non-settable materials,
• Blends of settable and non-settable materials.
Settable materials solidify chemically in the pores, fractures, or vugs to block
the fluid loss channels. Non-settable LCMs consolidate and pack in the openings to
prevent fluid loss, which is usually dependent on fluid leak-off.
Based on the requirement of fluid loss for forming the seal within the fracture,
LCM treatments can be classified into [7]:
• Low-fluid-loss treatment,
• High-fluid-loss treatment.
Low-fluid-loss treatments are effective when the fracture can be sealed rapidly
by using materials such as cement, cross-linked polymers, and particulates that pack
quickly. High-fluid-loss treatments form seals within the fracture as the materials
deposit in the fracture by a process of de-fluidization. Fluid leak-off is required for
this process, and thus this approach is effective only in high-permeability formations
or fractured formations exhibiting high fluid loss [7].
No universal LCM can treat all lost circulation events due to the complexity of the
problem. The selection of LCMs are usually based on the mechanisms and severity
of fluid losses. The fluid loss mechanisms mainly include loss into:
• pores of high-permeability rocks,
• natural fractures,
• drilling-induced fractures,
• vugs/caverns.
The severity of fluid loss is generally classified into four grades based on the loss
rate [8]:
• seepage loss: 1–10 bbl/h,
• partial loss: 10–100 bbl/h,
• severe loss: >100 bbl/h,
• total loss: no returns.
5.2 Lost Circulation Materials for High-Permeability Formations 75

Both the mechanisms and severity of fluid loss are determined by the properties
of the formation. In this chapter, a brief overview of LCMs for different types of
formations is presented.

5.2 Lost Circulation Materials for High-Permeability

Formations

High-permeability formations where lost circulation events are usually encountered

include unconsolidated sands, pea gravels, and depleted reservoirs [9]. Large pore
spaces and drilling-induced fractures (in depleted zones) are typical channels for
fluid loss in these formations. The loss severity can range from seepage loss to total
loss dependent on the size of the openings [8].
It is relatively easier to form a bridge or seal inside a fracture in permeable for-
mations thanks to the high fluid leak-off rate [10–13]. Therefore, non-settable LCMs
should be first considered in high-permeability formations unless very large loss
occurs. The non-settable materials can be granular, fibrous, and flaky materials.
A most commonly used LCM to create a seal is calcium carbonate. Experimental
results have shown that blending calcium carbonate with synthetic graphite can sig-
nificantly improve the sealing performance because of the unique resilient property
of the graphite [14, 15]. A 3/2 graphite to calcium carbonate ratio shows much less
fluid loss compare with using just one type of the materials [16].
High-fluid-loss treatment can be used in high-permeability formations because
the fluid leak-off can ensure the creation of a tight seal in the fracture [17, 18]. It
is important to minimize the fracture surface contamination in order to facilitate
leak-off and material deposition in the fracture. Therefore, LCM pills are suggested
for high-fluid-loss treatments to minimize fracture contamination, rather than using
LCMs in the whole drilling mud. It may be difficult to seal fractures with aperture
larger than 2 mm using high-fluid-loss treatment because the large flow rate in the
fracture may impede the form of the seal [7].
Properly sized LCMs should be used to plug fractures in high-permeability forma-
tions based on the size of the fractures. The fracture size (aperture) can be estimated
from rock mechanical modeling [19], such as the models presented in Chap. 3. Large
enough LCM particles are required to form a bridge in the fracture and, on the other
hand, there should be plenty of fine particles sealing the spaces between the large
particles. The ideal packing theory can be used to optimize the PSD of LCMs, which
suggests that the D90 value of the PSD should be equal to the size of the fracture
opening [20, 21]. Another criterion suggests that D50 of the PSD should match the
median opening of the fracture [3, 8]. A multimodal PSD criterion is also used for
LCM selection and shows better results than a normal PSD distribution [22].
Fibers and cement have been recommended for curing severe losses in high-
permeability formations [3, 9, 23]. Cross-linked materials are also used for lost
circulation control in depleted sands and unconsolidated formations [24, 25].
76 5 Lost Circulation Materials

However, many high-permeability formations are pay zones. Reservoir-friendly

LCMs are needed in such zones to avoid formation damage. An advantage of
the most commonly used calcium carbonate is its acid-soluble feature, so it is
reservoir-friendly. Traditional fibers and cement are usually not reservoir-friendly
because they are not removable by acid or other treatments. To this end, acid-soluble
fibers and self-degradable fibers have been developed for curing lost circulation
in pay zones [26–28]. Acid-soluble cements are also proposed and applied to pay
zones [29, 30]. Such cement can form seals with comparable strength to traditional
cement, but the seals can be removed later with acid to minimize formation damage.
Some acid-soluble crosslinked gels are also reported for severe lost circulation in
depleted reservoirs [31].

5.3 Lost Circulation Materials for Low-Permeability Shales

In low-permeability shales, fluid losses are mainly caused by natural fractures or

drilling-induced fractures. The loss can vary from partial loss caused by small natural
or induced fractures to total loss caused by large fractures.
As described in Sect. 1.3.2 “Physical Models of Wellbore Strengthening”, all the
current wellbore strengthening theories are based on the presence of sufficient fluid
leak-off from the fracture to form an effective seal. A critical issue for wellbore
strengthening in low-permeability shales is the limited leak-off of the trapped fluid
within the fracture. LCMs may not deposit and de-fluidize in the fracture. As a
result, the wellbore pressure can readily transmit to the fracture tip and drive fracture
propagation [12, 13, 32]. During temporarily drop in wellbore pressure associated
with normal drilling stops, the loose LCM deposition in the fracture will be carried
back into the wellbore with fluid back flow, destroying the seal of the fracture.
Contrarily, in a permeable formation, rapid leak-off of the trapped fluid in the fracture
permits the development of a much stronger seal. In addition, the bleed-off of the
trapped pressure will prevent fluid back flow during regular drilling stops [11, 33].
Therefore, the key to cure losses in shales is to develop a technology to create a tight
seal in the fracture that does not depend on fluid leak-off [11].
An effective approach is using settable materials. A settable treatment pill has
been proven effective for strengthening shales [11]. The pill is formulated with the
ingredients of base oil, gelling agent, cross-linked polymers, hardening agent, vis-
cosifier, and bridging particles. The pill sets with time and the setting time can be
controlled by modifying the concentrations of the additives. A field trial conducted in
the US Arkoma basin shows that this settable pill raised the fracture reopening pres-
sure and fracture breakdown pressure of a formation at 4020 ft by 550 and 150 psi,
respectively.
Lost circulation in sub-salt shales has always been a challenging drilling problem
[34–36]. The sub-salt thief zone is usually highly fractured, with complex fracture
networks. Sized solids, gunk, and cement have all been applied to solve losses in sub-
salt zones. A pill blend of cross-linking polymers and fibers was successfully used
5.3 Lost Circulation Materials for Low-Permeability Shales 77

for controlling lost circulation in Gulf of Mexico sub-salt thief zones [37, 38]. The
pill sets with time and produces a rubbery, spongy, and ductile seal in the fracture.
The design of LCM PSD for sealing fractures in shales shares the same criteria
for sealing fractures in permeable formations. The particles should be able to enter
the fracture and deposit close to the wellbore. Sealing the fracture near the wellbore
can maximize the wellbore strengthening effect and minimize the loss volume. This
requires that the particle size should not be very small, otherwise the particles will
move deep into the fracture. On the other hand, the particles should not be too large,
otherwise they will not enter the fracture and will deposit on the wellbore wall which
can be destroyed easily by drilling operations.
In recent years, nanoparticles technology has gained an increasing interest in
overcoming lost circulation and wellbore instability problems in shales [39–43].
Nanoparticles are the particles with a size in the range of 1–100 nm. They are much
smaller than the fine particles used in traditional muds (about a magnitude smaller
than the size of bentonite). Nanoparticles can enter the small openings of shales
and form an effective seal to the micro cracks in shales. Plugging of shale pores
by nanoparticles provides a powerful new solution for lost circulation and wellbore
instability. Another important merit of nanoparticles is their ability to modify the
properties of LCM slurries/pills. A cross-linked nanocomposite gel pill has been
proposed for combating severe fluid losses [24]. The pill consists of four major
components: an aqueous viscous polymer base, a cross-linking agent, swelling cross-
linked grains, and colloidal particles. This pill is a settable system which gels to seal
off loss zones.

5.4 Lost Circulation Materials for Carbonate Formations

Lost circulation in carbonate formations are usually caused by the presence of vugs
and fractures in the formation. Losses in vulgar and fractured carbonate formations
can be severe to total losses, which are among the most challenging lost circulation
problems. Curing such losses can be difficult with particulate LCM treatments.
Cement is a commonly used and effective material to combat losses in carbonate
formations because cement can easily enter the vugs or fractures and obstruct them
quickly. However, cement can also plug formation pores and make the subsequent
production impossible if the carbonate formation is a pay zone. For solving this
problem, reservoir-friendly, acid-soluble cements have been developed to cure fluid
loss in carbonate pay zones [9, 29, 30]. Customized thixotropic and ultra-thixotropic
cement slurries containing falkes, mica, calcium carbonate (for improving mechan-
ical properties of the seal), and unique spacer and surfactant were also applied to
control losses [23].
Crosslinking gels can also be effective for sealing fractures and vugs in carbon-
ate formations. Crosslinking polymers produce a gel structure in the openings by
the formation of crosslinked bonds between the polymer chains [24]. Acid-soluble
crosslinking gels were also developed for using in pay zones [31].
78 5 Lost Circulation Materials

LCM pills consisting of particle materials and fibers were also used for fixing lost
circulation in vugular and fractured formations [44]. Adding fibers provides a bridge
structure as a support for the particulate materials and promotes an increase in the
mechanical strength of the seal.
Last but not least, no matter the lost circulation scenario, it is always a wise choice
to avoid lost circulation by carefully design of the mud density and rheology, before
considering using LCMs. If this fails to avoid losses, non-settable LCMs, such as
calcium carbonate and fibers, should be considered first. If such materials still do
not solve the problem, settable LCMs, such as cement, cross-linking polymers, and
gels, can be used.

References

1. Canson BE (1985) Lost circulation treatments for naturally fractured, vugular, or cavernous
formations. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference, 5–8 March, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://
[Link]/10.2118/13440-MS
2. White RJ (1956) Lost-circulation materials and their evaluation. In: Drilling and production
practice. Am Pet Inst, New York
3. Lavrov A (2016) Lost circulation: mechanisms and solutions, 1st edn. Gulf Professional Pub-
lishing, Cambridge
4. Alsaba M, Nygaard R, Hareland G, Contreras O (2014) Review of lost circulation materials
and treatments with an updated classification. In: AADE national technical conference and
exhibition, Houston, pp 15–16
5. Nayberg TM (1987) Laboratory study of lost circulation materials for use in both oil-based and
water-based drilling muds. SPE Drilling Eng 2(03):229–236. [Link]
PA
6. Whitfill DL, Hemphill T (2003) All lost-circulation materials and systems are not created equal.
In SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 5–8 October, Denver, Colorado. https://
[Link]/10.2118/84319-MS
7. Growcock FB, Kaageson-Loe N, Friedheim J, Sanders MW, Bruton J (2009) Wellbore stability,
stabilization and strengthening. In: Offshore mediterranean conference and exhibition, 25–27
March, Ravenna, Italy
8. Nelson EB (1990) Well cementing, vol 28. Newnes
9. Luzardo J et al (2015) Alternative lost circulation material for depleted reservoirs. In: OTC
Brasil, 27–29 October, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [Link]
10. Alberty MW, McLean MR (2004) A physical model for stress cages. In: SPE annual technical
conference and exhibition, 26–29 September, Houston, Texas. [Link]
MS
11. Aston MS, Alberty MW, Duncum SD, Bruton JR, Friedheim JE, Sanders MW (2007) A new
treatment for wellbore strengthening in shale. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhi-
bition, 11–14 November, Anaheim, California, USA. [Link]
12. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2016) A review on fracture-initiation and -propagation pressures
for lost circulation and wellbore strengthening. SPE Drilling Completion 31(02):134–144
13. Feng Y, Gray KE (2017) Review of fundamental studies on lost circulation and wellbore
strengthening. J Petrol Sci Eng 152:511–522
14. Savari S, Whitfill DL, Kumar A (2012) Resilient lost circulation material (LCM): a signif-
icant factor in effective wellbore strengthening. In SPE deepwater drilling and completions
conference, 20–21 June, Galveston, Texas, USA. [Link]
References 79

15. Whitfill D (2008) Lost circulation material selection, particle size distribution and fracture
modeling with fracture simulation software. In: IADC/SPE Asia Pacific drilling technology
conference and exhibition, 25–27 August, Jakarta, Indonesia. [Link]
MS
16. Fekete PO, Dosunmu A, Kuerunwa A, Ekeinde EB, Chimaroke A, Baridor OS (2013) Well-
bore stability management in depleted and low pressure reservoirs. In: SPE Nigeria annual
international conference and exhibition, 5–7 August, Lagos, Nigeria. [Link]
167543-MS
17. Sanders MW, Scorsone JT, Friedheim JE (2010) High-fluid-loss, high-strength lost circulation
treatments. In: SPE deepwater drilling and completions conference, 5–6 October, Galveston,
Texas, USA. [Link]
18. Wang H, Sweatman RE, Engelman RE, Deeg WF, Whitfill DL (2005) The key to successfully
applying today’s lost circulation solutions. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition,
9–12 October, Dallas, Texas. [Link]
19. Feng Y, Gray KE (2018) Modeling Lost circulation through drilling-induced fractures. SPE J
23(01):205–223
20. Dick MA, Heinz TJ, Svoboda CF, Aston M (2000) Optimizing the selection of bridging particles
for reservoir drilling fluids. In: SPE international symposium on formation damage control,
23–24 February, Lafayette, Louisiana. [Link]
21. Kageson-Loe NM et al (2009) Particulate-based loss-prevention material–the secrets of fracture
sealing revealed! SPE Drilling Completion 24(04):581–589
22. Savari S, Whitfill DL (2015) Managing losses in naturally fractured formations: sometimes
nano is too small. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition, 17–19 March, London,
England, UK. [Link]
23. Fidan E, Babadagli T, Kuru E (2004) Use of cement as lost-circulation material: best practices.
In: Canadian international petroleum conference, 8–10 June, Calgary, Alberta. [Link]
10.2118/2004-090
24. Lecolier E, Herzhaft B, Rousseau L, Neau L, Quillien B, Kieffer J (2005) Development of a
nanocomposite gel for lost circulation treatment. In: SPE European formation damage confer-
ence, 25–27 May, Sheveningen, The Netherlands. [Link]
25. Wang H et al (2008) Best practice in understanding and managing lost circulation challenges.
SPE Drilling Completion 23(02):168–175
26. Droger N et al (2014) Degradable fiber Pill for lost circulation in fractured reservoir sections.
In: IADC/SPE drilling conference and exhibition, 4–6 March, Fort Worth, Texas, USA. https:
//[Link]/10.2118/168024-MS
27. Ghassemzadeh J (2013) Lost circulation material for oilfield use. U.S. Patent No. 8,404,622
28. Halliday WS, Clapper DK, Jarrett M, Carr M (2004) Acid soluble, high fluid loss pill for lost
circulation. U.S. Patent No. 6,790,812
29. Al-yami AS, Al-Ateeq A, Wagle VB, Alabdullatif ZA, Qahtani M (2014) New developed acid
soluble cement and sodium silicate gel to cure lost circulation zones. In: Abu Dhabi international
petroleum exhibition and conference, 10–13 November, Abu Dhabi, UAE. [Link]
2118/172020-MS
30. Vinson EF, Totten PL, Middaugh RL (1992) Acid removable cement system helps lost circu-
lation in productive zones. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference, 18–21 February, New Orleans,
Louisiana. [Link]
31. Suyan KM, Sharma V, Jain VK (2009) An innovative material for severe lost circulation control
in depleted formations. In: Middle East drilling technology conference & exhibition, 26–28
October, Manama, Bahrain. [Link]
32. Feng Y, Jones JF, Gray KE (2015) Pump-in and flow-back test for determination of fracture
parameters and in-situ stresses. In: AADE 2015 national technical conference and exhibition,
8–9 April, San Antonio, Texas, USA
33. Dupriest FE (2005) Fracture closure stress (FCS) and lost returns practices. In: SPE/IADC
drilling conference, 23–25 February, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [Link]
MS
80 5 Lost Circulation Materials

34. Fredrich JT, Engler BP, Smith JA, Onyia EC, Tolman D (2007) Pre-drill estimation of sub-
salt fracture gradient: analysis of the Spa prospect to validate non-linear finite element stress
analyses. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference, 20–22 February, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[Link]
35. Power D, Ivan CD, Brooks SW (2003) The top 10 lost circulation concerns in deepwater
drilling. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference, 27–30
April, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. [Link]
36. Willson SM, Fredrich JT (2005) Geomechanics considerations for through-and near-salt well
design. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 9–12 October, Dallas, Texas. https:
//[Link]/10.2118/95621-MS
37. Caughron DE et al (2002) Unique crosslinking pill in tandem with fracture prediction model
cures circulation losses in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In: IADC/SPE drilling conference, 26–28
February, Dallas, Texas. [Link]
38. Ferras M, Galal M, Power D (2002) Lost circulation solutions for severe sub-salt thief zones. In:
AADE 2002 Technology Conference Drilling & Completion Fluids and Waste Management,
2–3 April, Houston, Texas, USA
39. Contreras O, Hareland G, Husein M, Nygaard R, Al-saba MT (2014) Experimental investigation
on wellbore strengthening in shales by means of nanoparticle-based drilling fluids. In: SPE
annual technical conference and exhibition, 27–29 October, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[Link]
40. Friedheim JE, Young S, De Stefano G, Lee J, Guo Q (2012) Nanotechnology for oilfield
applications-hype or reality? In: SPE international oilfield nanotechnology conference and
exhibition, 12–14 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. [Link]
41. Hoelscher KP, De Stefano G, Riley M, Young S (2012) Application of nanotechnology in
drilling fluids. In: SPE international oilfield nanotechnology conference and exhibition, 12–14
June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. [Link]
42. Li G, Zhang J, Hou Y (2012) Nanotechnology to improve sealing ability of drilling fluids for
shale with micro-cracks during drilling. In: SPE international oilfield nanotechnology confer-
ence and exhibition, 12–14 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. [Link]
MS
43. Nwaoji CO (2012) Wellbore strengthening- nano-particle drilling fluid experimental design
using hydraulic fracture apparatus. Thesis, University of Calgary
44. Kumar A, Savari S, Whitfill D, Jamison D (2011) Application of fiber laden pill for control-
ling lost circulation in natural fractures. In: AADE 2011 national technical conference and
exhibition, 12–14 April, Houston, Texas, USA
Chapter 6
Recommendations for Future Work

Abstract Although there have been a lot of studies dedicated to lost circulation
control and great successes have been achieved, the problem continues, with the
increasing drilling operations in more complicated environments. Knowledge gaps
and unsolved problems still exist and the need for further studies remains. A few
recommendations for future work are presented in this chapter.

6.1 Recommendations for Future Work

This short monograph is a brief study on lost circulation and wellbore strengthening.
Several analytical and numerical models were developed to model dynamic fluid
loss while drilling, preventive wellbore strengthening based on bridging/plugging
lost circulation fractures. Unsolved problems still exist as more complicated drilling
conditions are encountered. This last chapter suggests some recommendations for
future research related to lost circulation and wellbore strengthening:
• It is highly recommended to consider the effect of pre-existing fractures on the
wellbore wall in modeling lost circulation. Lost circulation fractures may not
propagate perfectly along the direction of maximum horizontal stress under this
condition.
• Thermal effects should be considered in modeling studies of lost circulation and
wellbore strengthening, especially for HPHT wells and geothermal wells.
• Studies can be extended to lost circulation based on forming a layer of tight mud-
cake on the wellbore wall. Dynamic mud filtration should be investigated to under-
stand time-dependent developments of both external and internal mudcake.
• Advanced numerical models with capabilities of simulating transportation and
deposition of LCMs in the lost circulation fractures would be very useful for
modeling dynamic fracture bridging/plugging process in wellbore strengthening.
• For better application of wellbore strengthening techniques, it is important to
accurately and quickly estimate/measure the geometry of lost circulation fractures
during drilling for selecting/adjusting the size distribution of LCMs in real time.

© The Author(s) 2018 81

Y. Feng and K. E. Gray, Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening,
SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering,
[Link]
82 6 Recommendations for Future Work

Improved or new logging while drilling techniques are needed for acquiring better
knowledge of drilling-induced or pre-exiting natural fractures on the wellbore
wall.
• Current wellbore strengthening studies mainly focus on addressing fluid loss
through hydraulically induced fractures in sand/shale formations. Severe losses
are also commonly encountered in carbonate formations with vugs, cavities, and
large fractures. More efforts are needed to address lost circulation in carbonates.
• Lost circulation events in anisotropic/heterogeneous formations with complex
lithology, stress, and pressure profiles have posed great challenges to drilling and
wellbore strengthening. Efforts on addressing problems in such formations are
needed.
• More advanced environment-friendly LCMs and reservoir-friendly LCMs need
development.