Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This paper waa presented at the 23rd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May O-9, 1991.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee followingreview of informationormtained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offehore TechnologyConference and are subject to correctionby the author(a).The material, as presented, does not neceessrily reflect
any positionof the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstract should contain mnapicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented.
ABSTNACT
prove to be both costly and in some cases difficult
This paper reviews the methode generally used to perform. Where fracture test data are not avail-
by oil companies to determine the conductor eetting able, analytical methods have traditionally been
depth required to avoid hydrofracture of cohesive based on excess fluid pressures not exceeding the
soils during drilling for the first casing string. minor principal coil streae, These traditional
Traditional approaches are compared with an approach methode are suspected to give unnecessarily deep
developed by the authors, and the results of each setting depths, but no theoretically sound and
method are compared with teat data obtained during practically proven method of calculating shallower
geotechnical site investigations offshore. A case setting depths is known to the authors.
history is presented which showe the effect of the
authors’ deeign method on the required conductor From an oil company’s point of view, the deri-
setting depth, and indicates the considerable poss- vation of a reliable analytical tool that is less
ible cost savings and safety benefits available from conservative than the traditional methods could lead
effective conductor design. to considerable savings. It ia, however, important
that any such method should not underpredict the
required setting depth, since the cost and safety
INTRODUCTION implications of such underprediction may be consid-
erable. A detailed review of field teste has there-
The advancement of any kind of borehole ie fore been performed to assesa the reliability of the
dependent on the cuttinge being continually cleared new approach propoeed in this paper.
from the bit face. This is usually achieved by
direct circulation drilling, circulating fluid to
the bit through the drillstring with the returning FIELD TESTS
fluid and cuttinge passing up the annulus between
the drillstring and the borehole or casing. If the During the geotechnical site investigations
marine casing is not set deep enough, the pressure performed for platforms in the North Sea hydraulic
of the drilling fluid may lead to formation break- fracture tests (HFT’s) are often performed in order
down and loss of circulation. Apart from difficul- to determine ‘tin situ!! the fracture pressure which
ties in then advancing the borehole, this may also causes formation breakdown at various depths below
result in not being able to monitor and control mudline. The test is most frequently performed in
shallow gas effectively. Formation breakdown can hard clays using the type of apparatus preeented on
also lead to wash out and lees of support for the Fig. 1. The typical procedure for performing euch
foundation of a structure. Correct assessment of tests in the North Sea is as follows:
the required conductor setting depth may therefore
have not only economic but also safety implications 1. The borehole is advanced to the required depth
for the well-drilling operation. using open hole drilling with returns to mud-
line, with the bottom assembly including the
One poesible method of determining required test apparatus as shown in Fig. 1.
setting depth is to perform hydraulic fracture
testing (HFT’s) in the field. This may however 2. The string is pulled back to leave a length of
predrilled hole below the bit as the test
References and illustrations at end of paper. section,
167
2 ASSESSMENT OF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN OTC 671:
3. The packer is inflated to seal the test sec- Equation 1 represents the case of fracture
tion, and a wireline dart is lowered to the bit occurring prior to blow off, and equation 2 repre-
to measure pressure during the test. sents fracture occurring following blow off of the
soil from the piezometer.
4. The test section is pressurised by pumping
fluid into the drillstring at a given flow rate This assumption of a “perfect” installation and
and the test performed as outlined on Fig. 2. a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 (undrained response) re-
duces equations 1 and 2, respectively, to:
The test is therefore generally performed in a
pre-drilled section, and is flow controlled. The Au = ko.p ‘ + pt’
o ... (3)
measurement made during the test include the fol–
lowing: or Au = ko.p ‘ + pt’/2
o ... (4)
1. The initial fracture pressure. Bjerrum also notes that there is a possibility
of a horizontal crack forming if the excess head
2. The steady state pressure under a given flow exceeds p ‘. In his recommendations on allowable
rate. pressures,” derived from theory and field and labora-
tory observations, the tensile stress ptt was con-
3. The close up pressure after initial fracture. servatively ignored. These results then reduce to
the assumption adopted by many oil companiea in
4. The re-fracture pressure. estimating required conductor setting depth, that an
excess pressure equal to the lower of the principal
Whilst all stages of the HFT test may be used stresses in the ground should be assumed to cause
to infer geotechnical soil parameters, this paper
hydrofracture, i.e.:
concerns the pressure required to cause initial
fracture, which is generally adopted as the limit of
Au=p’ (ko>l) ... (5)
allowable excess fluid pressure during drilling o
operations. Initial fracture pressures from such Au = ko.p ‘ (ko<l) ... (6)
tests have been used to check the theoretical method o
presented in the following.
The analyses presented by Bjerrum et ai, are
based on observations of push-in piezometer installa-
tion and subsequent applied excess water pressure.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
However, in offshore operations the borehole is
advanced by drilling rather than pushing the string
into the soil. The method generally followed in
Minor Principal Stress Approach
HFT’s performed offshore also forms a pre-drilled
section of borehole prior to testing. The approach
The hydrostatic, drilling fluid and in situ
adopted by Bjerrum et al. to account for the distur-
soil pressures during drilling for the first casing
bance caused by a cavity expansion into the soil may
string are shown schematically on Fig. 3. The therefore not be applicable for this case.
drilling fluid pressure which may be expected to
fracture the soil formation has been the subject of
analysis by Bjerrum et al. (1972). This approach Shear Failure Approach
was developed following obaervationa of fracture
occurring whilst installing push-in piezometers.
The in situ total stress condition in the soil and
The excess pressure, Au, required to cause a ver-
the changes in total stress caused during an ideal-
tical crack in the soil as derived by.- Bierrum et al.
is given by: ised drilling and subsequent pressurisation opera-
tion for the HFT test are presented on Fig. 4. The
stress changea in the radial and circumferential
Au = Po’(l/v-l) [(l-~)ko + Pt’/po’] ... (1)
directions have been calculated from elasto-plastic
theory (Den Hartog (1972)) on the assumption that:
or Au = po’ (l-v) [(2+&c@ko + pt’/pol] ... (2)
1. the SOil response ia linear-elastic perfectly
where v = Poisson’s Ratio of the soil
plastic.
CY= effect of installation on circumferen-
2. the permeability of the soils is low enough
tial stress
that pressure changea due to flow are minimal.
effect of installation on radial stress
3. a Poisson’s Ratio of 0.5 is sssumed for, cohe-
sive soil under undrained loading.
Po’ = vertical effective stress in-situ
168
WC 6713 ALDRIDGE AND HAIMD ?
tial stress falls to zero or to any given value of RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS
tensile stress, pt’, as follows:
A review has been made of the reeults of 34
Au = 2,ko.p ‘ + uh + ptt ... (7) hydraulic fracture tests ‘(HFT’s) performed in pre-
o
drilled sections in geotechnical boreholes performed
where = hydrostatic pressure at the given depth during platform site-investigations in the North
‘h
Sea, The teste were performed at aix sites, at
Equation 7 is consistent with the results given depths of between 40 and 140 metres below mudline,
by Jaeger (1969) for a porous elastic medium, if the in hard clay strata. Of the 34 tests, three resul-
permeability of the medium is set to zero. It may ted in very high fracture pressures close to those
therefore be expected that hydrofracture will occur expected from cavity expaneion theory, as previously
at the preseure given by equation 7; unless a gen- reported by Overy and Dean (1986). Three resulted
eral shear failure of the clay at the wall of the in anomalously low pressures, believed to have been
borehole occurs at a lower pressure. Examination of due to leakage around the packer. Data from the
the three principal stresses given on Fig. 4 may be remaining 29 tests are reviewed below.
used to calculate the maximum deviator streea in the
clay material. If the maximum deviator stress The predicted and meaaured test results are
exceeds twice the undrained shear strength of the compared for the six test sites on Fig. 5. The
clay, then a plastic failure of the borehole wall dashed line representa the calculated minor princi-
may be expected to occur. The deviator stresses pal stress and the solid line is the lowest of the
derived from the vertical (v), radial (r) and cir- preseures derived from equations 11 to 13. The
cumferential (c) principal etresses are as followe: results chow graphically that the “shear failure!!
approach gives a closer fit to the HFT test data
or-u = Au- p , .,. (8) than the traditional “minor principal stress!!method
v o
at these sites.
Ur - IJC = 2.Au - ko.po’ ... (9)
The ratio of measured to calculated fracture
Uv-u ‘Au+p ’-2,ko.p ’ ... (lo) pressure has been plotted for the traditional ap-
c o 0 proach, i.e. equations 5 and 6, on Fig, 6, and for
Shear failure will occur when any of these the pressures given by the lowest of equations 11 to
deviator stresses exceeds twice the undrained com- 13 on Fig. 7, for all 29 sites. The valuee given by
preaaive ahear strength of the soil. Using equa- equation 7 are not plotted, since they are alwaYs
tions 81 to 10 it is therefore possible to derive higher than the values given by equations 11 to 13,
eqUatiOnS 11 to 13, respectively, defining the and the “shear failure” mechanism may therefore be
eXCeSS fluid pressure which would cause a shear assumed to control. It may again be seen from Figs.
failure in the borehole wall: 6 and 7 that the “shear failure!’ approach repre-
sented by equations 11 to 13 gives a significantly
Au = 2.su + Po’ ... (11) better overall fit to the data than the “minor
principal stress” method.
Au= S + kO.PO’ . . . (12)
u
Observations of drilling mud pressures and
Au = 2.au + po’(2ko-1) ... (13) returns or lack of returns during offshore drilling
operations are not generally available to the geotech-
where s = undrained ehear strength in compression nical consultant. Records obtained during drilling
u
from a semi-submersible drilling rig at the Draugen
An alternative possible mode of failure to that site in the Norwegian Sea are presented on Fig. 8.
considered above is a uniform cavity expansion, for This figure shows the mud preaeure actually applied
which the excees pressure to cause failure is of the during drilling and the estimated fracture pressure
order of 5.7 to 6.3 times the undrained shear based on the “minor principal stresstt and “shear
strength, depending on the overconsolidation ratio failure” methods. Again this data confirms that the
of the clay (Randolph et al. (1979)). “ahear failure” approach gives results which are
more coneiatent with observations, since although
It ia poaaible that a ahear failure, as given excess drilling fluid pressures exceeded those given
by the lowest of equations 11 to 13, will occur by the “minor principal stress” approach, no IOS5 of
prior to the tensile failure given by equation 7. returns waa encountered.
There are assumptions inherent in both theoretical
approaches, however. Observations made during The results of a statistical analysis of the
drilling for the first casing string are therefore data are also presented on Figa. 6 and 7, and show
reviewed below to assess the validity of each ap- that the measured test pressures are on average
proach. The results of these approaches are also almost exactly double those given by the “minor
compared with the method traditionally used, as principal strees” method but only 34 per cent higher
given by equations 5 and 6. than given by the “shear failure” method. The
statistical correlation, as measured by the standard
deviation, is also better for the ‘rehear failure”
method.
169
4 ASSESSNE??YOF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN OTC 6713
Whilst the above data is limited, the statis- shown on Fig. 11, whereas the “shear failure” ap-
tical correlations indicate that the “shear failure’ preach indicated that a setting depth of only 70
approach presented here is the more appropriate metres below mudline would provide an acceptable
method for calculating setting depth, From the data safety level of over 300kPa difference between the
analysed here, it is suggested that the excess calculated fracture pressure and the estimated mud
pressure calculated using the “shear failure” ap- pressure. This difference was equivalent to a
preach should be divided by a factor of safety of factor of safety of 1.39 on excess pressure, result-
1.3 to give an allowable drilling fluid pressure for ing in a greater than 97 per cent statistical confi-
assessing the required setting depth. This approach dence of avoiding hydrofracture. This probability,
should result in a greater than 95 per cent statis- in conjunction with the confidence given by the
tical confidence of avoiding hydrofracture. Records apparent lack of hydrofracture during drilling
from actual well-drilling operations and further in operations at the site, resulted in a 70 metre
situ HFT tests may allow this factor of safety to be penetration being considered an acceptable conductor
reduced with time. setting depth for this project.
For the gravity base structure, analyses were The use of the “shear failure” approach has led
performed relating to the condition following instal- to a saving of more than 50 metres on the Draugen
lation of the structure. Following placement of the conductor design, and has avoided the need for a
GBS structure, the increase in the total horizontal more expensive installation method using thicker
and vertical stresses beneath the structure were wall conductors and heavier plant. The shallower
calculated using elastic theory (Poulos and Davis setting depth has also eliminated the requirement
(1974)). Equations 5 and 6 were then modified to for special procedures to install the conductors
incorporate the increased stresses directly, and through a sand layer which would have presented a
equations 11 to 13 required modification ae follows: significant increased risk of encountering shallow
gas.
AU=2.Su+p ’+Ap . . . (14)
o v
-----
I [u
)TC 6713 A.LDRII!GE
ANI
.
I I ,, 1 I I I
II
I I I I I I I
1000 TJUF RF
STEAOY STATE
PREsSUBE
1 CLOSE UP
PRESSURE
800 I 1’ I
I ‘i k 4
/ “
600 I
\ ?w uP ‘
\ <
T
400
200 i
PUMP OFF - + PUMP O Jb
+ PUMP OFF
o
0 4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
TIME AFTER START OF TEST (rein)
171
1’ ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘, ‘, ‘, ‘1 ‘1 ‘1
I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,
,,!!! 1!: ““
,, II II J ,1
II II II II
I,,!!!!:I I I I I I I I
“’’”
I I I 1,1, 1,1, i,lll, II
1,1, l,
II II 1, i II II ,, ~ ~ ~ ~
II II II II II II II
I I I I I,;!!:”I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, 1 ! 1, 1, 1, I
II
II!! ““
II II II 1,1, II II ,,
II II II II II II
~ ~
,,
~ ~
I
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, i,i, i,lll, II
l,l,
1!!: “’’”
II II II II II
II II II II II II 1’
TOTAL STRESSESIN-SITU
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
1!!’ “’”
II II II II II II II ~ ~ ~
II II II II II II
,,,
I I I!!1!:I I I I I
“’’”
I I I I l,l,l,i,i,l~l~,~,~,
II
II II ) ;
II II II II II II
I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, 1, i, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1,
,,l!! 1!: “’’”
II II II ‘1
II II II II
koPo’+ Uh
1, 1, 1, 1, 1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,
;“’’’’l lllllllllll!l
,,
““““““““““““““
!!!!!:
1,1, l,i,
“’’”
i,lll, II
1,1, l, 200
II II II II II ~
II II II II II II II
I
0
I I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, 1 ~ 1, 1, 1, I
II .
,,!! 1!!: “’’”
-1
II II II II II
II II II II II II ‘1
I IO
TOTAL STRESSES DURING ORILLING
-200
I,,!!1!1’
I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
“’”
II II II II II II II ~ II ~
II II II II II II -ma
“’’” i!
!/l
II !, ,1 I
,,,,,,, 11111,! !1111!! ,’,,,
I I I I I,;!!:”I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, I ~ 1, 1, 1, I
II
““
II!!
II II II 1,1, l’, II Fig.3 Hydrostatic,Mud-umand Fig.4 Changes in TotalSoilStresses
II II II II II II
#
‘1
~
I InsituSoilStresses DuetoDriUingOperations
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, i,i, i,lll, II
l,l,
1!!: “’’”
II II II II II )
I 11111111111111 ‘1 ‘1
I,,!! I I I I
1!!’
I I I I
“’”
I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
II II II II II
II II II II II II
I
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I, I, i, i, 1, ~ 1 I 11 ,,!11
1!!’ “’”
EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPal EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPa)
0 1 z o 1 2
40 40 1-
●
1
I
60 60
● I
‘Y\\
1
I
1
I
) ●
\ \ /
80 \ 80
I
I
1
I ●
100 100
I ●
I
I
I
120 120
I
I
m
140 140
o i 2 0 2 4
50 60
I 1 ●
I \
I \
70 I ●
80 t
I ‘* ✼
✼
I I
1 ,. I
90 100 ,
1 I
1
x ● I ●
110 120
0 i 2 o 2 A
00 80
●
● 1
\ \
\
100 100 \
\
\ \ o
I
\ ● \
\ \ \ o
120 120 . (B
\ w
\
\ D
140 140
HFT RESULTS
‘-’-- MINOR PRINCIPAL STRESS PREDICTION
— SHEAR FAILURE PREDICTION
173
RATIO MEASURED/CALCULATED RATIO MEASURED/CALCULATED
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 o i 2 3 4 5 6
40
I I
-1 SD MEAN +1 SD I
I -1 SD MEAN +1 SD I
I
1
[
I
●
I
I
MEAN = 1.99
I L I
I
MEAN = 1.34
-1
S.D. = 0.52 S.D. = 0.32
I 4 .1
60 60
I ● I
I ●1 ● 1°
,
● ● I
b I m
I I I I I
1: ~ 1010’
10
ao
I dw I
I
I
● I ● D
● ● ●{
a
100
I I* 100
I I
●1 ● 18
I I ● I ●
I I -0 ● I
1° ● ‘1 ●
120 1- 1 I I I I
120
P q ●
I I
● I f 10!
I I
‘1 I Ill
140 140 J r I I I I I 1
Fig. 6 Ratio of Measured to Calculated Fracture Presaure- Fig. 7 Ratio of Measuxwl to Calculated Fracture Pres.sure-
Minor Principal Stress Method Shear-Failure Method
I
(-ah
&
——._
— —.
r
n
Y
.“
‘H
1!
g
H--l Hl---
Ill
:4
2?
c!”
–
:-.-—.
. ._.
.—
:::--H-I-W+H47H:H
,._.LLmtmTl i tilt<
. “-’”:F
.
—.
-:
—.
!1/
“l’’t-+’=t’;--’l:+:F+l<-l<-
.: :.— ;. .. .- —= 4 _. ._.,, .1 . . . - __ .
.-. ~>
m
.— .——. _.
.
08 8 e 8 8 z-. s g ~ ~ ~ t?
[W 3N11OW M013B H1d30
175
.
.
. —.—.. ..—
—....—.
=n
g“
~ ‘“- ..-_._ . . —.
~.-—-–
!#
——–—
z —..——
8
:. . .._ .
“
8
$ —.
s
s.
; )
- ,/’
“ -= .>= -—
-.. — . . .- -
“8 s
gl
e
r%
0
1+
.
2
.-
176