SPE 136989

Mechanical Stability Analysis of Directional Wells: A Case Study in Ahwaz

Oilfield
M.R. Zare, S.R. Shadizadeh, and B. Habibnia, Petroleum University of Technology, Ahwaz, Iran

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract wall, depending up on the existing rock strength. Based on

Ahwaz oilfield is one of the southern Iranian fields in the
Middle East that are located in reverse fault stress regime.
Wells A and B are two deviated wells with same drilling
conditions that produce oil from Bangestan reservoir in
Ahwaz oilfield. Numerous cases of borehole instability,
stuck pipe, and borehole collapse have been reported while
drilling well B. These problems cause highly increasing of
drilling operation cost of well B. However, well A has been
drilled without any serious problems. To investigate and
avoid these problems and improving operating costs of
drilling, a comprehensive mechanical stability analysis is
essential. To do so, a computer program is developed to
analyze the mechanical stability of these deviated
wellbores. The mechanical stability analysis reveals that in
the reverse fault stress regime, drilling in direction of
maximum horizontal stress is the most stable direction. But
drilling in direction of minimum horizontal stress, leads
serious borehole instability and borehole collapse.
Comparing the results with trajectory of two deviated
wells, show that well A has been drilled in direction close
to the maximum horizontal stress while well B has been
drilled in direction of minimum horizontal stress. As result
well A must be more stable than well B. Base on the results
the best drilling direction in Ahwaz oilfield is parallel to
maximum horizontal stress.
the analysis of in situ stresses and rock properties, Hassan
et al. (1999) performed a wellbore stability evaluation for
several angle of deviation using log, core and drilling data.
They concluded that the mechanical factors play the
dominant role in wellbore stability. Zhang et al. (2006)
presented a comprehensive study of wellbore stability in
shale formation. They investigated the effects of borehole
configuration, rock properties, temperature, and drilling
fluid properties on wellbore stability using Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion. They studied the effect of well inclination
and azimuth on wellbore stability only in normal stress
state regime. They concluded that under normal fault
regimes the optimum well trajectory is along the minimum
horizontal stress. Recently Al-Ajmi et al. (2006) developed
the Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion, and showed that it is
reasonably accurate in modeling polyaxial failure data
from a variety of rocks. They concluded that the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion is significantly conservative in
estimating the collapse pressure; incorporating the Mogi–
Coulomb law into wellbore stability model has minimized
the conservative nature of the mud pressure predictions.
This study presented the effect of borehole inclination and
azimuth on borehole stability in reverse fault regimes. To
evaluate the borehole failure the Mogi-Coulomb failure
criterion has been used.

Introduction Mechanical Stability Analysis

Wellbore stability is dominated by the in situ stress system.
When a well is drilled, the rock surrounding the hole must
burden the load that was previously burdened by the
removed rock. As a result, the in situ stresses are
significantly modified near the borehole wall. This is
presented by a production of an increase in stress around
the wall of the hole, that is, a stress concentration. The
stress concentration can lead to rock failure of the borehole
To assess the potential of mechanical instability of a
borehole, a constitutive model and a failure criterion is
needed. In this study a linear elastic model and Mogi-
Coulomb failure criteria has been used.
In a linear elastic material, the largest stress concentration
occurs at the borehole wall. Therefore, borehole failure is
expected to initiate there (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006).
2 SPE 136989
The stresses at the deviated borehole wall are expressed as
follows (Hiramatsu and Oka, 1968). (Shown in Figure 1):
σ r = Pw
σ θ = σ xo + σ yo − 2(σ xo − σ yo ) cos 2θ − 4σ xyo sin 2θ − Pw
σ z = σ zo −ν [2(σ xo − σ yo ) cos 2θ + 4σ xyo sin 2θ ]
σ θz = 2(−σ xz0 sinθ + σ yz0 cosθ )
(1)
σ rθ = σ rz = 0
Where
σ = (σ H cos α + σ h sin α ) cos i + σ v sin i
o 2 2 2 2 2, the in situ stresses in the borehole wall can be estimated.
x
σ yo = σ H sin 2 α + σ h cos 2 α
σ zo = (σ H cos 2 α + σ h sin 2 α ) sin 2 i + σ v cos 2 i
σ xyo = 0.5(σ h − σ H ) sin 2α cos i
σ yzo = 0.5(σ h − σ H ) sin 2α sin i
(2)
σ o
xz = 0.5(σ H cos α + σ h sin α − σ v ) sin 2i
2 2
The Mogi-Coulomb failure criterion is one of numerous
shear failure criteria (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006).
τ oct = a + bσ m , 2
(3)
Where
1
τ oct = (σ 2 − σ 3 ) 2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 ) 2 + (σ 1 − σ 2 ) 2
3
(4)
The parameters a and b can be related exactly to the Mohr-
coulomb strength parameters, as follows:
2 2c cos φ
a=
3 (5)
2 2 sin φ
b=
3 (6)
This model does not neglect the intermediate principal
stress. Thus, it may be more realistic than the Mohr-
coulomb.
Modeling Procedure
To have a mechanical stability analysis, it is required to
compare stresses at borehole wall with a failure criterion.
To do so, determination of the minimum mud pressure to
prevent borehole collapse is essential. This paper studies
collapse pressure for different wellbore inclination (i = 0º
to 90º) and azimuth (α = 0º to 180º). The mechanical
stability analysis has been done using a computer program.
This analytical program requires the following input
parameters:
a) The depth of the studied formation
b) The gradients of the in situ stresses and pore
pressure
c) The cohesion 
d) The internal friction angle  
e) Poisson’s ratio
f) And, the borehole trajectory (azimuth and
inclination).            
Using the field stresses at the depth of interest and equation
Radial, tangential, axial and shear stresses are then
calculated using equation 1. As the shear stress, σθz , may
not be non-zero, the tangential and axial stresses are not
essentially principal ones. So the principal stresses should
be calculated. The equations of principal stresses presented
by Brady and Brown are in the Cartesian coordinate
system. These equations and their direction in cylindrical
coordinate system are written in the following form (Brady
and Brown,1999).
1 1
σ 1 ,σ 2 = (σ θd − Pw + σ z ) ± σ θ2z + (σ θd − Pw − σ z ) 2
2 4
(7)
1 2σ o
π
θ 1 = arctan( ), θ 2 = θ 1 +
xy
(8)
2 σ −σ
o
x
o
y 2
Where
σ θd = σ xo + σ yo − 2(σ xo − σ yo ) cos 2θ − 4σ xyo sin 2θ
(9)
The radial and tangential stresses, however, are functions
of the mud pressure. In this situation, an iterative loop is
applied to evaluate the collapse pressure for each failure
criterion. In this loop, the mud pressure can tolerate from
pore pressure to minimum in situ stress until the mud
pressure exceeds the collapse pressure. In this situation the
stable region is obtained and the program stops
immediately.
The evaluation of the collapse pressure is performed for
different inclination and azimuth. The lower collapse
pressure indicates the more stability. Thus, the optimum
drilling direction can be identified with respect to the
wellbore stability analysis.
Field Case Study
The developed analytical model will be applied to analyze
the mechanical stability of two deviated wells in the Ilam
formation of Bangestan reservoir in Ahwaz oilfield (wells
A and B). Figure 2 shows the location of Ahwaz oilfield.
SPE 136989
Well Data
Assessment of mechanical stability analysis involves
several parameters that may not be readily available. The
rock mechanics input data of analysis are complicated and
costly to acquire. As mentioned before the developed
model requires several input data. Some of these data are
available and some are not. The methodologies of
acquiring of these data in Ahwaz oilfield are presented in
following sections.
Density Prediction
Usually density logs are used for determination of the rock
density. But, the density log is run in the reservoir section
of wells not the whole interval. Gardner et al, 1974
conducted a series of controlled field and laboratory
measurements of saturated sedimentary rocks and
determined a relationship between P-wave velocity and
density that has long been used in seismic analysis.
ρ = a.V b
(10)
Where ρ is in gr/cm3, and V is in m/s, a= 0.31, b= 0.25
Using density log and sonic log data in the reservoir
section, the constant parameters of Gardner equation can
be estimated for Ahwaz oilfield. Data of six wells has been
used. Figure 3 shows the relation between bulk density and
P-wave velocity in Ahwaz oilfield. The following
correlation was obtained for density estimation along the
well A and B.
ρ = 0.2577V 0.2376 (11)
Where V is in ft/s and ρ is in gr/cm3. Figure 4 shows the
accuracy of predicted density.
Vertical Stress Gradient
The overburden is the weight of the column of sediments.
Although it is not measured directly, it can be easily
computed as the integral over depth of the bulk density:
h Δt × 10 −6
σ v = ∫ ρgdh
0 Most of available sonic logs in Ahwaz oilfield include only
(12)
Figure 5 shows the vertical stress gradient versus depth in
the Ahwaz oilfield. Figure 6 shows that the data points
have been fitted well with a following exponential
function:
σ v ( h) = ae b×h + ce d ×h (13)
Where
σv is in psi/ft, h is in ft, a=1.472, b=-1.514e-5,
0.5847 and d=-9.141e-5
Horizontal Stress Gradient
There is no horizontal stress measurement in the Ahwaz
oilfield. But it is obvious from word stress map (shown in
3
Figure 7) that most of the faults are reverse faulting
regimes.
The borehole enlargement or breakout is caused by shear
failure of borehole wall and is usually greatest in a
direction parallel to the direction of minimum horizontal
stress (Yaghoubi and Zeinali, 2009). It is shown in Figure
8. Figure 9 shows the results of breakout analysis in this
field. It is obvious that the direction of breakout and
minimum horizontal stress is N110º-N290º. The direction
of maximum horizontal stress is perpendicular to the
minimum horizontal stress direction, N20º-N200º (Figure
10).
Base on the word stress map and breakout analysis in this
field, the direction of maximum horizontal stress in this
region is N-S to N20ºE.
Poisson’s Ratio Prediction
Due to absence of laboratory data in studied wells, direct
calculation of Poisson’s Ratio is impossible. But the
Poisson's ratio is related to the sonic log with the physical
equation (Chardac et al, 2005):
2
1 ⎡ Δt s ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1 2
V p − 2Vs2
2 ⎣ Δt c ⎦
ν= =
2 2
2(V p − Vs2 ) (14)
⎡ Δt s ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1
⎣ Δt c ⎦
Where
∆ts and ∆tc are shear and compressional transit time
respectively,
Vp and Vs are compressional and shear sonic velocity.
The following equation related the sonic transit time in
μs/ft to sonic velocity in ft/s:
1
V =
(15)
the compressional or P-wave transit time. The DSI log data
are available in well A. The DSI tools record both shear
and compressional transit time. Figure 11 shows the
available shear velocity versus compressional velocity.
Figure 11 shows that the data points have been fitted well
with a following power law function:
0.8386
Vs = 2.5228V p ,
ft/s (16)
c=-
Figure 12 shows the prediction of shear velocity of well A
by equation 15 and Figure 13 shows the estimated
Poisson’s ratio of the well A.
4 SPE 136989

Results and Discussion Nomenclature

Table 1 includes the input data of well A and B for h Depth, ft
mechanical stability analysis. The formation is in the θ Angular position around wellbore, Degrees
reverse fault stress regime with anisotropic horizontal Borehole inclination, Degrees
stress. Using developed program and input data in table 1,
i
the collapse pressure of the formation will be evaluated. α Borehole azimuth, Degrees
Figure 14 shows the collapse pressure of the well with ν Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
different inclination and azimuth in reverse fault stress c Rock cohesion, psi
regime and Figure 15 shows 3-D plot of the collapse Φ Friction angle, Degree
pressure in reverse fault stress regime. Where i=0º the well Vertical in-situ stress, psi
is vertical and where i=90º there is a horizontal well. With
σv
respect to Figure 1 α=0º indicates a well parallel to the σH Maximum horizontal in-situ stress, psi
maximum horizontal stress and α =90º indicates a well σh Minimum horizontal in-situ stress, psi
parallel to the minimum horizontal stress. These Figures Pw Wellbore pressure, psi
show, in a reverse fault stress regime with anisotropic Po Formation pore pressure, psi
horizontal stress, the optimum drilling inclination Octahedral shear stress, psi
fluctuates between horizontal and vertical well depending
τoct
on the applied drilling direction. In a direction close to σm,2 fective mean stress, psi
minimum horizontal stress vertical boreholes are the most σr, σθ , σz, Radial, tangential and axial stresses, psi
stable. But in the direction close to maximum horizontal σθz,σrθ, σrz, Shear stresses, psi
stress horizontal boreholes are the most ones. Figure 14 σοxy, σοxz,
also shows that drilling in direction of minimum horizontal
stress regardless of the inclination, needs highest
σοyz
hydrostatic pressure to avoid borehole collapse. But σοx,σοy,σοz Normal virgin formation stress, psi
drilling in direction close to the maximum horizontal stress Δts, Δtc Shear and compressional transit time, μs/ft
needs lowest hydrostatic pressure to avoid borehole Vs, Vp Shear sonic and compressional velocity, ft/s
collapse. As mentioned before, the direction of maximum ρ Density, gr/cm3
horizontal stress in Ahwaz oilfield is in the region N-S to
N20ºE. As Figures 16 and 17 show, well A and B are in
same condition except of the well trajectory. The azimuths
of two wells are shown in Figures 18 and 19.Well A is
drilled at 35º deviation in a direction of N30º. Well B is
drilled at 30º deviation in a direction of N90ºE. Therefore, References
the well A has a drilling direction (α) in the range of
1. Ali A. Yaghoubi., M. Zeinali., “Determination of
around 10º-30º degrees from the maximum horizontal
magnitude and orientation of the in-situ stress from
stress. But well B has a drilling direction in the range of
borehole breakout and effect of pore pressure on
70º-90º. By using the mentioned results, well A is drilled in
borehole stability-Case study in Cheshmeh Khush oil
the optimum drilling direction (close to the maximum
field of Iran” Journal of Petroleum Science and
horizontal stress direction). But well B is drilled in the
Engineering, Vol.67, PP.116–126, 14 May 2009.
direction of minimum horizontal stress.
2. Al-Ajmi, A. M., and Zimmerman, R. W., “Stability
analysis of vertical boreholes using the Mogi-Coulomb
Conclusions failure criterion”, Int. J. Rock Mechanics & Mining
In this paper mechanical stability analysis of two deviated Science, Vol.43, PP.1200-1211, 8 June 2006.
boreholes in Ahwaz oilfield was investigated. This study
introduced an approach to evaluation of formation layers 3. Brady, B. H., and Brown, E. T., “Rock Mechanics for
density from sonic log, and generation of general Underground Mining”, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
correlation formulae of vertical stress gradient with depth Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1999.
and shear wave velocity versus compressional velocity in
Ahwaz oilfield. The analysis reveals that in reverse fault 4. Chardac, O., Murray, M., Marsden, J. R., “A proposed
stress regime optimum drilling direction is parallel to the data acquisition program for successful geomechanics
maximum horizontal stress. Drilling in direction of projects,” SPE 93182 presented at the SPE Middle East
minimum horizontal stress causes instability and collapse Oil & Gas Show and Conference in Bahrain, 12-15
problem such as well B. March 2005.

5. Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R.,

“Formation velocity and density the diagnostic basis for
Stratigraphic traps” Geophysics, Vol.39, 1974.
 SPE 136989 5

6. Hassan, S., klimentos, T., Badri, M., Sengul, M., Zeid,

A., “Optimizing drilling performance by wellbore
stability evaluation and directional drilling practices,”
SPE/IADC 57575 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle
East Drilling Conference, Abu Dhabi, 8-10 November
1999.

7. Hiramatsu, Y., and Oka, Y., “Determination of the stress

in rock unaffected by boreholes or drifts from measured
strains or deformations”, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci,
Vol.5, PP.337-353, 1968.

8. James, GA., and Wynd, J.G., “Stratigraphic

nomenclature of the Iranian oil consortium agreement
area”, AAPG Bulletin, Vol.49, 1965.

9. Jianguo Zhang, Mengjiao Yu., “Maintaining the Stability

of Deviated and Horizontal Wells: Effects of
Mechanical, Chemical and Thermal on Well Designs”,
SPE 100202 presented at SPE International Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition in China, 5-7 December
2006.

10. Rasouli V., “Geomechanics and Wellbore Stability

Analysis course”, Curtin University of Technology,
Perth, Australia, 2008.

11. Yaraie, A., Salimi, Gh., Godarzi, B., Mashayekhi, V.,

“Structural section through wells AZ-A and Az-B,”
NISOC, 2005.

 
 6 SPE 136989

Table 1: Input data of wells A and B in Ahwaz oilfield y = 0.2577x 0.2376

R2 = 0.4992

Well A B 3.5

Stress Regime RF RF 3

Depth (ft)

Density [gr/cm3]
11152 11152 2.5

C(psi) 1100 1100 2

ν 0.29 0.29 1.5

(degrees) 43 43 1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

v(psi/ft) 1.03 1.03 Velocity [ft/s]

Figure 3: Relation between density and velocity in

H(psi/ft) 1.2 1.2 Ahwaz oilfield.
h(psi/ft) 1.1 1.1
Recorded density Predicted density

Po(psi/ft) 0.46 0.46 Density [gr/cm3]

1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1
Inclination (degree) 35 30 10800

Azimuth (degree) 30 90 11000

11200

11400

11600
Depth [ft]

11800

12000

12200

12400

Figure 1: Stress transformation system for deviated 12600

borehole.
Figure 4: Predicted and recorded density.

Figure 2: location of Ahwaz Oil Field (James

and Wynd. 1965).
 SPE 136989 7

Sigma v [psi/ft]
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
0

2000

4000

6000
Depth [ft]

8000

10000

12000

Figure 7: Maximum horizontal stress orientations

in Iran (Yaghoubi and Zeinali,2009).
14000

Figure 5: Vertical stress gradient estimation.

Figure 8: Borehole breakout, induced fracture

direction (Rasouli,2008).
Figure 6: Fit equation of vertical stress gradient.
 8 SPE 136989

Real Predicted

Shear velocity [ft/s]

4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500 10500 11500
11540

11550

11560

11570

Depth [ft]
Figure 9: Minimum horizontal stress direction 11580
from breakout analysis.
11590

11600

11610

Figure 12: Predicted shear velocity in well A by

Equation 16.

Figure 10: Maximum horizontal stress direction.

13000
0.8386
y = 2.5228x
12000 2
R = 0.9191
11000
S-wave velocity [ft/s]

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000
8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
P-wave velocity [ft/s]

Figure 11: Relation between S-wave and P-

wave velocity in Ahwaz oilfield.
Figure 13: Poisson’s ratio prediction of well A.
SPE 136989 9

Figure 14: Collapse pressure of the wells with different

inclination and azimuth.

Figure 16: Trajectory of Well A (Yaraie et al, 2005).

Figure 15: 3-D plot of collapse pressure of the wells with

different inclination and azimuth.
10 SPE 136989

Figure 18: Drilling Azimuth of well A.

Figure 19: Drilling Azimuth of well B.

Figure 17: Trajectory of Well B (Yaraie et al, 2005).