SPE 93747
Mechanics of Borehole Ballooning in Naturally-Fractured Formations
A. Lavrov, SPE, and J. Tronvoll, SPE, SINTEF Petroleum Research
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 12–15 March 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The mechanics of borehole ballooning caused by opening /
closing of a single fracture intersected during drilling in a
naturally-fractured reservoir is explained by means of a
coupled analytical model. Equations governing borehole
ballooning are summarized for different types of fluid
rheology. The effects of various parameters on the fluid flow
during a ballooning event are analyzed numerically.
Shortcomings of the developed modeling approach are
outlined.
Introduction
Borehole ballooning is the term used to describe reversible
mud losses and gains during drilling. Three main mechanisms
of borehole ballooning are usually quoted:
1) Variations in the temperature of the drilling fluid1:
Temperature increase at great depth makes the drilling fluid
expand, which may be incorrectly interpreted as formation
fluid influx. Temperature decrease makes the fluid contract
which may be incorrectly interpreted as a mud loss.
2) Elastic deformation of the borehole walls2: Borehole
pressure decrease results in a borehole volume decrease, while
its increase results in a borehole volume increase; thus, mud
gain and mud loss, respectively.
3) Opening / closing of natural fractures intersected during
drilling.
In naturally-fractured formations, the third of the above
mechanisms should play a major role. In this paper, we will
consider a possible approach to modeling borehole ballooning
induced by opening / closing of natural fractures.
The main motivation for this work is the industrial need for
an accurate detection and recognition of drilling problems
such as mud losses and kicks. Most drilling simulators
curently in use consider only fluid flow inside the borehole,
without account for the complex coupled processes inside the
fractures. An accurate model of the fracture-induced
ballooning phenomenon should provide an aid in mud
optimization and improve the well control procedures while
drilling in naturally-fractured reservoirs.
Basic Assumptions of the Model
We consider mud loss / mud gain events that occur when a
borehole intersects a single fracture. Fracture networks are not
considered at this stage. Formation fluid and fluid in the
borehole are assumed to have the same rheology and the same
properties. Both fluids are incompressible. The fracture has
impermeable walls, which is not unreasonable in carbonate
reservoirs. The fracture is horizontal and has a circular shape.
Why we consider a circular fracture?
It is known from structural geology that circular shape is a
good approximation for fractures in uniform or thin-bedded
rocks3,4. Circular fractures were used in the fracture network
model developed by Bruel et al.5 Circular fracture is not a
good approximation in case of fractures confined between two
bedding layers, e.g. subvertical fractures in a limestone layer
running between two shale layers.
Why we assume linear fracture deformation?
The key feature of fracture deformation (opening / closing)
when the pressure inside the fracture is increased / decreased,
is nonlinearity: fracture’s compressibility is a function of
pressure. Several attempts have been made to develop an
analytical model of fracture deformation based on the
assumptions about deformation of asperities on rough fracture
surfaces6-8. These models, although they describe fracture
deformation quite well, are still hardly appropriate for
incorporation into a ballooning model since they require a
good knowledge of the fracture surface geometry and
properties of asperities. Rather a simple analytical relation
between effective stress and fracture opening is needed for the
ballooning model. Such relations can be provided by empirical
fracture deformation laws established on the basis of
laboratory and in situ tests. Several types of empirical fracture
deformation laws are known at present. A hyperbolic function
was used by Bandis et al.9 and Cook10. Bruel et al.5 quote an
empirical exponential law given by:
w = w* exp ⎡⎣-β ( σ n − p ) 3⎤⎦ ……………………..…(1)
where w is the fracture aperture; p and σn are fluid pressure
and normal stress, respectively; β, measured in Pa-1, is an
empiric coefficient associated with the fracture’s normal
2 SPE 93747
compressibility. The value of w* corresponds to the fracture
aperture when the fluid pressure is equal to the fracture
gradient, i.e. this is the largest attainable fracture opening
before fracture starts to propagate. Fracture propagation is not
considered in our model, i.e. the fluid pressure is always lower
than the normal stress.
When the effective stress, i.e. the difference ( σn − p ) ,
increases, fracture compressibility given by
∂w ∂p = ( βw* 3) exp ⎡⎣-β ( σ n − p ) 3⎤⎦ decreases. At very
high effective stress, the fracture becomes almost completely
closed and the fracture compressibility becomes close to zero.
Deformation of a rock mass containing such a fracture is due
only to the compressibility of the intact rock.
An example of the fracture aperture versus fluid pressure
dependency described by equation (1) is given in Figure 1 for
the following values of parameters: β = 10-6 Pa-1; w* = 0.5
mm; σn = 25 MPa. As Figure 1 demonstrates, fracture
deformation at low pressure values is almost linear. This is
due to the fact that the fracture is almost completely closed at
these pressure values. Even at p = 15 MPa, the aperture-
pressure curve can be linearized as shown by the dotted line in
Figure 1.
When modeling fracture ballooning, we are interested in
variations of the pressure: Pressure in a given point of the
fracture is initially equal to the formation fluid pressure;
during a mud loss / mud gain event, the pressure increases /
decreases from that initial equilibrium value. This is why
linearization of the fracture deformation law becomes an
acceptable alternative. It should be noted that the accuracy of
such linearization depends on the range of pressure variation
during the ballooning event as well as on the location of the
initial equilibrium point on the pressure-aperture curve (Fig.1).
Nonlinearity is quantitatively described by
∂ 2 w ∂p 2 = ( β 2 w* 9 ) exp ⎡⎣ -β ( σ n − p ) 3⎤⎦ . This quantity
exponentially decreases with normal total stress, i.e. with
depth. Therefore, while nonlinearity may be important at
shallow depths, its effect on fracture deformation during
ballooning becomes less important at great depth (this may not
hold, however, in overpressured zones).
Similar argumentation in favour of representing the
fracture deformation, as a first approximation, by a linear law
is valid for other empirical pressure-aperture laws9,10
mentioned above.
Linearization of the aperture-pressure law yields the
following relationship11,12:
p Newtonian Fluid
w = w0 + ……………………………………...…..(2)
Kn
where Kn is the proportionality coefficient between aperture
increment and fluid pressure increment, called fracture’s
normal stiffness; w0 is a linearization parameter. As Figure 1
demonstrates, in case of strong nonlinearity the value of w0
can be even negative, for equation (2) to fit the original
nonlinear function with a linear one locally. If the fracture
were linear, w0 would have the meaning of fracture aperture at
zero fluid pressure.
It should be noted that, apart from the fluid pressure and
the total stress, fracture aperture is a function of fracture
surface morphology and mismatch as well as of the
mechanical characteristics of asperities and (if present) of the
gouge. All these factors are accounted for by integral
parameters β and w* in equation (1), or w0 and Kn in equation
(2).
Why we consider a horizontal fracture?
We consider a horizontal fracture because it tremendously
simplifies the model and reduces the computation time. In case
of a circular horizontal fracture with the vertical or inclined
borehole intersecting the fracture in the fracture center, the
problem becomes essentially one-dimensional.
The following arguments justify the abstraction of a
horizontal fracture. It was shown recently by Lavrov13, who
considered fluid flow from a high-pressure fracture into a
point sink (borehole drilled in underbalance), that the higher
the fracture normall stiffness, the less the effect of fracture
inclination on fluid flow into the sink is. In other words, flow
rate versus time curves for a horizontal and an inclined
fracture run close to each other when the fracture
compressibility is low and the borehole hits the fracture in the
center in both cases. The same should hold for the fluid flow
from a borehole into the fracture (borehole drilled in
overbalance). It means that the deeper the fracture is located,
the less error we make analyzing a horizontal instead of an
arbitrarily-oriented fracture, since fracture stiffness increases
with depth due to nonlinearity (see discussion above).
Another argument in favour of considering a horizontal
fracture is provided by the fact that in case of central location
of the borehole, the upward and downward parts of an inclined
fracture compensate each other’s effect on fluid flow into /
from the borehole11. This results in the fluid flow rate versus
time curve being on the average close to that for a horizontal
fracture.
It should be noted that the borehole location (in the central
area of the fracture, or at the edge) may have a significant
effect on fluid flow from / into the fracture13.
In summary, we will consider a horizontal circular fracture
intersected by a vertical or inclined (but not horizontal)
borehole in the central point. A polar coordinate system is
introduced with the origin being located in the intersection
point. Thus, the problem has radial symmetry, and the
governing equations are one-dimensional in polar coordinates.
Governing Equations and Modeling Results:
The fluid rheology is characterized by a single parameter, i.e.
dynamic viscosity, µ. Assuming that the cubic law for fluid
flow inside the fracture holds, the governing equation is given
by Reynolds equation:
∂w ∂ ⎡ w3 ∂p ⎤ w3 1 ∂p
− ⎢ ⎥− = 0 …….............….(3)
∂t ∂r ⎣12µ ∂r ⎦ 12µ r ∂r
SPE 93747 3

which is a straighforward result of the mass balance principle. n −1

∂v ∂v
In equation (3), r is the distance in the fracture plane from the τ = K ci ………………………………….…(4)
borehole center. ∂z ∂z
An example of a simulated mud loss / mud gain event is
given in Figure 2. A 20 m-diameter fracture is considered. with τ being the shear stress; v the fluid velocity; ∂v ∂z the
Fluid viscosity is equal to 0.001 Pa·s (water). Borehole hits the shear rate, i.e. the velocity gradient in the direction z
fracture at time t = 0. Positive values of fluid flow rate in perpendicular to the fracture walls; Kci is the consistency
Figure 2b correspond to the flow into the fracture; negative index; n is the power exponent. Power-law rheology is typical
values correspond to the influx into the borehole. Initial fluid of e.g. polimer muds.
pressure in the fracture is 20 MPa, initial pressure at the Cubic law ceases to hold for a power-law fluid. Instead,
fracture mouth is 20 MPa (this is the pressure value that exists
the following relationship between fluid average velocity v
immediately before the borehole hits the fracture and thus is
equal to the formation fluid pressure). Borehole pressure at the and pressure gradient is valid, under the lubrication theory
fracture mouth rapidly increases from 20 MPa to 30 MPa approximation:
during time interval 0 < t < 1 s (Fig. 2a). Thus, mud loss starts n −1
at t = 0: rate of fluid flow into the fracture increases, then nw( n +1) / n ∂p ∂p
decreases (Fig.2b). The new equilibrium is established inside
v =− ( n +1) / n
…………..(5)
(2n + 1)2 K ci ∂r
1/ n
∂r
the fracture, pressure in all points of the fracture being equal to
the borehole pressure. When afterwards, at t = 10 s, the The equation governing the mud loss / mud gain is given
borehole pressure is decreased to 20 MPa (Fig.2a), a mud gain by12:
event takes place, fluid flowing back from the fracture into the (1− n ) / n
borehole. Thus, the entire ballooning event is captured in ∂w nw(2 n +1) / n 1 ∂p ∂p
Figure 2. − ( n +1) / n
∂t (2n + 1)2 K ci r ∂r ∂r
1/ n
The mud loss / mud gain parts of the event in Figure 2b are
∂ ⎡ (2 n +1) / n ∂p ∂p ⎤
(1− n ) / n
quite short, lasting only for a couple of seconds. This is not n
what experience says. This short duration is due to the choice − ( n +1) / n ⎢w ⎥=0
of the fluid rheology (Newtonian) and fracture dimension (2n + 1)2 K ci
1/ n
∂r ⎢⎣ ∂r ∂r ⎥⎦
(only 20 m in diameter). By changing fracture dimensions and (6)
rheology and by making fluid non-Newtonian (see below) it is
possible to obtain as long events as we wish. This is, however, In case of n =1, the fluid is Newtonian, and equation (6)
at the expense of computation time. Therefore, we will degenerates into equation (3).
continue with short events keeping in mind that they can be Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the effect of fracture dimensions
easily extended to fit real observations. on fluid flow during a mud loss event. In Figure 3, rheological
Another reason for the fast approach to equilibrium in properties of the fluid are n = 0.8, Kci = 0.028 Pa·s0.8, while in
Figure 2b might be that we do not consider fluid flow inside Figure 4 these parameters are n = 0.8, Kci = 0.001 Pa·s0.8, i.e.
the borehole, merely assuming a pressure boundary condition the two Figures differ in the value of the consistency index of
at the fracture mouth. In our simulation, pressure rapidly the fluid.
increases from 20 MPa to 30 MPa during the time interval Both Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that the fracture
between t = 0 and t = 1 s, and then rapidly decreases from 30 extension significantly affects the fluid flow rate. In case of a
MPa to 20 MPa during the time interval between t = 10 and t = fluid with a higher consistency factor (Fig.3), fracture
11 s. Borehole dynamics should be considered in order to fit extension considerably increases the duration of the ‘tail’ of
observations accurately. the flow rate versus time curve, while only slightly affecting
Parts of the curve in Figure 2b corresponding to mud loss the height of the initial peak. In case of a lower (by more than
and mud gain look similar, with respect to their shape and the an order of magnitude) consistency factor (Fig.4), fracture
absolute values of the flow rate. Therefore, based on our extension has almost no effect on the ‘tail’, which is short
computation time optimization strategy, only mud loss events anyway, but affects considerably the initial part of the curve.
will be considered and discussed in the subsequent examples. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate also the effect of consistency
Figure 2c provides the plot of the cumulative fluid volume factor: increasing consistency factor results in a longer tail in
lost into the fracture versus time, which is the integral of the the flow rate versus time curve. This is conceivable since the
function shown in Figure 2b. The total amount of fluid lost consistency factor, Kci, plays for power-law fluids nearly the
during the mud loss event, is equal to approximately 60 l. This same role as dynamic viscosity does for Newtonian fluids.
amount of fluid is gained later, after the borehole pressure is A thorough analysis of the effects of other parameters
decreased. (formation fluid pressure, fracture aperture and extension,
borehole radius and pressure) on the flow rate, was given by
Governing Equations and Modeling Results: Power- Lavrov and Tronvoll12. Amongst other results, it was
Law Fluid established that the effect of fracture aperture on flow rate
Fluid rheology is given by dynamics is not so clear as that of fracture extension12 (see a
discussion below). It follows that mud loss data can be used to
estimate fracture extension. Its use for the estimation of
4 SPE 93747
fracture conductivity requires further work, both theoretical
and experimental.
Governing Equations and Modeling Results: Bi-
Viscous Fluid
Fluid rheology is given by14
∂v ∂v
τ=µ 0 for < γ& c
∂z ∂z
……………………(7)
∂v ∂v
τ=τ y + µ1 for > γ& c
∂z ∂z
where µ0, µ1 are dynamic fluid viscosities at low and high
shear rate, respectively; τy is a constant, termed yield stress of
a bi-viscous fluid; γ& c =τ y / (µ 0 - µ1 ) . Bi-viscous model is a
reasonable approximation for a Bingham fluid. Bi-viscous
model is more preferable than the latter since it ensures
continuity of shear stress versus shear rate at all shear rate
values. Besides, using bi-viscous instead of Bingham fluid
rheology in our model allows us to avoid the discussion
initiated by Lipscomb and Denn14, whether the yield surface
and hard core exist in a Bingham fluid flow, since no hard
core is formed in a bi-viscous fluid anyway. By setting µ0 / µ1
= 1000, a good approximation of a Bingham fluid is
possible15.
Figure 5 shows the simulated effect of the yield stress on
the total amount of fluid lost into the fracture by t = 2000 s. In
these simulations, the borehole pressure is increased from 20
MPa to 30 MPa at 0 < t < 1 s, and then is kept constant,
without a subsequent decrease. Increasing the yield stress, in
general, reduces the volume of the loss. The yield stress is
determined by the composition of the drilling fluid.
Summary of Basic Modeling Results
Main results obtained during simulation and common for
different fluid rheology types are summarized as follows11-
13,16
. Fluid flow dynamics during a mud loss / mud gain event
were found to be most sensitive to the fracture extension, to
the pressure difference between the borehole and the fracture,
and to fluid rheology. The dependency on borehole diameter is
negligible. Fracture inclination has an effect which is
decreasing with depth. The location of the point where the
borehole intersects the fracture (i.e. in the central area or on
the periphery of the fracture) has considerable effect: the flux
event peaks lower and lasts longer when the intersection point
is closer to the periphery.
The effect of the fracture aperture is not so clear as the
effect of the fracture extension is. The reason is that a higher
aperture may be either due to fracture roughness (higher Hurst
exponent, or higher surface landscape variance), or due to an
elevated formation fluid pressure12. In the former case, higher
aperture would result in an increased flux during both mud
loss and mud gain events. In the latter case, elevated formation
pressure would prevent fluid from coming into the fracture,
thus reducing mud loss and a subsequent mud gain. If the
borehole is drilled in underbalance, an elevated formation
pressure results in a higher mud gain, since no initial mud loss
happens (only a half of the ballooning scenario is present in
this case). Further work on the effect of fracture aperture on
the ballooning phenomenon is needed, especially with respect
to taking the effect of a realistic fracture surface morphology
into account.
Shortcomings of the Model and Further Work
The model developed has an important shortcoming: it
accounts only for fluid flow inside the fracture and does not
consider fluid flow dynamics inside the borehole. A step
further would be an integration of this model with a model for
fluid flow inside a borehole.
Other improvements on the model would include: 3-D
instead of planar fracture surface (the effect of fracture
roughness); fracture network instead of a single fracture;
permeable fracture walls; fracture plugging with solid particles
caused by crossflow filtration through the fracture walls into
the rock.
Conclusions
The mechanics of borehole ballooning phenomena caused by
opening / closing of a single fracture intersected during
drilling in a naturally-fractured reservoir is explained by
means of a coupled analytical model. Governing equations for
borehole ballooning are discussed for different types of fluid
rheology, i.e. Newtonian, power-law, and bi-viscous, the latter
one being a good approximation for a more troublesome
Bingham rheology. The effects of various formation properties
and operational factors, e.g. formation and borehole pressure,
fluid rheological parameters, fracture dimensions, are captured
and can be analyzed by the model. Further improvements of
the model should include: coupling to a borehole flow model;
intruduction of fracture roughness and 3-D fracture networks;
account for fracture plugging by solid particles contained in
the drilling mud (LCM).
Acknowledgements
Financial support of the Norwegian Research Council for this
work is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
β = one of the two parameters in the empirical nonlinear
fracture deformation law, Lt2/m, Pa-1
µ = dynamic viscosity of Newtonian fluid, m/Lt, Pa·s
µ0 = dynamic viscosity of bi-viscous fluid at low shear rate,
m/Lt, Pa·s
µ1 = dynamic viscosity of bi-viscous fluid at high shear rate,
m/Lt, Pa·s
τ = shear stress, m/Lt2, Pa
τy = yield stress, m/Lt2, Pa
Kci = consistency index, m/Lt(2-n), Pa·sn
Kn = normal fracture stiffness in the linearized fracture
deformation law, m/L2t2, Pa/m
n = power law exponent
p = pressure in a given point inside the fracture, m/Lt2, Pa
q = flow rate, L3/t, m3/s
r = distance from borehole axis to a given point in fracture
plane, L, m
t = time, t, s
v = fluid velocity, L/t, m/s
SPE 93747 5

v = fluid velocity averaged across fracture aperture, L/t, m/s

w = aperture in a given point inside the fracture, L, m
w0 = linearization parameter in the linearized fracture
deformation law, L, m
w* = one of the two parameters in the empirical nonlinear
fracture deformation law, L, m
z = one of cylindrical coordinates, directed along the borehole
axis, L, m

References

1. Ram Babu, D.: “Effect of P–ρ–T Behavior of Muds on

Loss/Gain During High-Temperature Deep-Well Drilling”,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (1998) 20, 49.
2. Gill, J.A.: “How Borehole Ballooning Alters Drilling
Responses”, Oil & Gas Journal (Mar. 13, 1989) 87, 43.
3. Twiss, R.J. and Moores, E.M.: Structural Geology.
W.H.Freeman and Company, New York (1990) 43.
4. Walsh, J.J. and Watterson, J.: “Displacement Gradients on Fault
Surfaces”, Journal of Structural Geology (1989) 11, 307.
5. Bruel, D., Cacas, M.C., Ledoux, E., and de Marsily, G.:
“Modeling Storage Behaviour in a Fractured Rock Mass”, J.
Hydrology (1994) 162, 267.
6. Nazarov, V.E., and Sutin, A.M.: “Nonlinear Elastic Constants of
Solids With Cracks”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (1997) 102, 3349.
7. Lebedev, A.V. and Nazarov, V.E.: “Nonlinear Elasticity of
Fractured Media and Stress State Diagnostics of Rocks”, Fizika
Zemli, (2000, issue 1) 50 [in Russian].
8. Pyrak-Nolte, L.J. and Morris, J.P.: “Single Fractures Under
Normal Stress: The Relation Between Fracture Specific
Stiffness and Fluid Flow”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. (2000)
37, 245.
9. Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C. and Barton, N.R.: “Fundamentals
of Rock Deformation”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. (1983) 20, 249.
10. Cook, N.G.W.: “Natural Joints in Rock: Mechanical, Hydraulic
and Seismic Behaviour and Properties under Normal Stress”,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1992) 29, 198.
11. Lavrov, A. and Tronvoll, J.: “Mud Loss into a Single Fracture
During Drilling of Petroleum Wells: Modeling Approach”,
Proc., 6th International Conference on Analysis of
Discontinuous Deformation, Trondheim (2003) 189-198.
12. Lavrov, A. and Tronvoll, J.: “Modeling Mud Loss in Fractured
Formations”, paper SPE 88700 presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu
Dhabi, U.A.E., 10–13 October 2004.
13. Lavrov, A.: “Newtonian Fluid Flow from an Arbitrarily-
Oriented Fracture into a Single Sink”, Acta Mechanica (in
review).
14. Lipscomb, G.G. and Denn, M.M.: “Flow of Bingham Fluids in
Complex Geometries”, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. (1984)
14, 337.
15. O’Donovan, E.J. and Tanner, R.I.: “Numerical Study of the
Bingham Squeeze Film Problem”, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid
Mech. (1984) 15, 75.
16. Lavrov, A.: “Modeling Flow of a Bi-Viscous Fluid from
Borehole into Rock Fracture”, Journal of Applied Mechanics (in
review).

SI Metric Conversion Factors

psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
bbl × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
6 SPE 93747

0.5 40

0.45
35
0.4

Borehole pressure, MPa

0.35
Fracture aperture, mm

30
0.3

0.25 25
0.2

0.15 20

0.1
15
0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 10
Fluid pressure, MPa 0 5 10 15
Time, s
(a)
Figure 1. An example of fracture aperture versus fluid pressure
-6 -1 0.08
dependency described by equation (1) with β = 10 Pa ; w* = 0.5
mm; σn = 25 MPa.
0.06

0.04
Flow rate, m3/s

0.02

−0.02

−0.04

−0.06
0 5 10 15
Time, s
(b)
0.07

0.06

0.05
3
Cumulative loss, m

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

−0.01
0 5 10 15
Time, s
(c)
Figure 2. Simulated mud loss / mud gain event in case of
Newtonian fluid and the following values of parameters: fracture
4 -3
stiffness Kn = 5·10 MPa/m; µ = 10 Pa·s; borehole diameter 0.2 m;
fracture diameter 20 m; initial fluid pressure inside the fracture 20
MPa: (a) borehole pressure at the fracture mouth vs time; (b) flow
rate into the fracture vs time; (c) cumulative fluid loss vs time.
SPE 93747 7

0.1 0.014

0.09
0.012

3
Cunulative loss by t = 2000 s, m
0.08 Fracture diameter 40 m
0.07 0.01
Flow rate, m3/s

0.06
0.008
0.05
Fracture diameter 20 m 0.006
0.04

0.03 0.004
0.02
0.002
0.01

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15
Time, s Yield stress, MPa

Figure 3. Simulated mud loss events in case of power-law fluid
0.8 4
with n = 0.8, Kci = 0.028 Pa·s ; fracture stiffness Kn = 5·10 MPa/m;
borehole diameter 0.2 m; initial fluid pressure inside the fracture
20 MPa; borehole pressure 30 MPa. Solid line corresponds to
fracture diameter of 40 m; dashed line corresponds to fracture
12
diameter of 20 m (based on ).
Figure 5. Simulated yield stress dependency of total fluid volume
lost into the fracture during time interval from t = 0 to t = 2000 s in
4
case of bi-viscosity fluid; fracture stiffness Kn = 5·10 MPa/m;
borehole diameter 0.2 m; initial fluid pressure inside the fracture
16
20 MPa; borehole pressure 30 MPa (based on ).

0.35

0.3
Fracture diameter 40 m
0.25
Flow rate, m /s
3

0.2
Fracture diameter 20 m
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time, s

Figure 4. Simulated mud loss events in case of power-law fluid

0.8 4
with n = 0.8, Kci = 0.001 Pa·s ; fracture stiffness Kn = 5·10 MPa/m;
borehole diameter 0.2 m; initial fluid pressure inside the fracture
20 MPa; borehole pressure 30 MPa. Solid line corresponds to
fracture diameter of 40 m; dashed line corresponds to fracture
12
diameter of 20 m (based on ).