SPE 171132-MS

Geomechanics Coupled Fluid Flow in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Considering

Cold Production
L.L. Alvarez, G.A. Alzate, A. Naranjo, Universidad Nacional De Colombia.


Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Conference - Latin America held in Medellin, Colombia, 2426 September 2014.

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 posi tion 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
Historically, the geomechanical behavior of a hydrocarbon reservoir has been modeled based on the classical theory of poro-
elasticity, which considers absolute reversibility of deformation, which is liable to a porous medium when the mechanical state
of the rock is altered. The sands associated with heavy oil formations are generally characterized by low levels of cohesion and
density, which is viewed in an increased sensitivity of the rock to permanent deformation and hysteresis; hence it is not
suitable to model these formations as if their rheological behavior is elastic. This set the need to construct a model, which
describes the permanent plastic deformation that rocks from this kind of reservoir have.
The modeling of the stress-strain behavior of plastic porous media aims to evaluate the permanent deformation that the
rock suffers and to study the impact of this phenomenon on the behavior of the reservoir permeability porosity and mechanical
stability of the layers overlying (compaction, subsidence). Several theoretical research and experimental surveys have defined
that most heavy oil reservoirs can be studied as elasto-plastic materials.
The purpose of this paper is to show the couple model of constitutive equations (stress-strain model) and fluid flow
equations that describe the dynamic behavior of a heavy oil reservoir during an isothermal process, which deforms elasto-
plastically, and thereby, to predict several geomechanical phenomena or consequence as productivity drop due to changes in
the permeability, pore collapse, cap rock integrity, subsidence, among others, that allow an approach to the behavior of these
kind of reservoirs in order to improve production processes and simulation.

Introduction
Usually in natural conditions heavy oil reservoirs exhibit significant induced shear volume expansion or dilation. The dilation
of the sand skeleton increases the pore space and hence the permeability increases and the pore pressure reduces. These
changes have significant effect in the overall deformation and flow prediction. Therefore, actual modeling of dilation is
important.
Generally, oil recovery methods are cyclic processes and cause the sand skeleton undergoes from loading and unloading
and vice versa, resulting in irrecoverable plastic strains. This requires the use of an elastoplastic model.
The deformation and flow behavior in heavy oil reservoirs are governed by several factors. However, it can be categorized
into two major components: the behavior of pore fluids and the behavior of sand skeleton. Considering these factors, the
geomechanical equation will work with an elasto-plastic model, initially considering elastic behavior of the reservoir, where
the deformation phenomenon starts and then the rock shows plastic strain variations, likewise the fluid flow equations are
associated with correlations of highly viscous fluids to describe the behavior of pore fluids.
The coupled model obtained above is highly nonlinear because of the complexity of the equations, and therefore it needs to
build a numerical model to obtain optimum results for the physical interpretation of the deformation phenomenon in the
reservoir. The development of the mathematical model is the first step for the building of a computational tool to analyze the
mentioned phenomena in the rock.

Elastoplastic Model in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
This constitutive model defines the elastic and plastic behavior of unconsolidated sands that contain heavy oil. Many authors
have based their analytical and laboratory works on predicting the strains and stresses with these models.
Initially, Vaziri, H. (1989) [1] based his study on characterizing the geomechanical behavior of a heavy oil formation to
find the boundary conditions in practice, to propose a new stress-strain constitutive model. The mathematical concept
2 SPE 171132-MS
developed for this model is based on three established theories: hyperbolic nonlinear elastic behavior after the failure of the
formation, elasto-plastic behavior at critical condition after material failure and Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This model
provides a combination of these three theories and therefore obviates the assumptions on the behavior of the unconsolidated
sands. It also can be numerically described using geomechanical parameters, which can be obtained by normal laboratory tests.
Another advantage is that it involves the study of post-failure rock behavior, which had not been considered for numerical
stability problems.
Veeken, C. et al. (1989) [2] considered an approach to an elasto-plastic model from the discretization of the equations in
finite elements method, incorporating the friction behavior and cohesion weakening exhibited in practice, and used it for
wellbore stability prediction. The model is based on stress laboratory tests with a triaxial cell. The results obtained from this
model show localized failure points similar to those obtained experimentally, concluding that the drilling mud pressure should
be as low as possible to prevent the well collapse.
Wan, R. et al. (1991) [3] presented a model associated to plastic behavior of unconsolidated sands under 3D stress
conditions based on laboratory tests in triaxial cells at different confining pressures and temperatures, obtaining results as
plastic volumetric expansion, material shrinkage, among others. When they implemented sand analysis in ABAQUS simulator,
which works with a finite element solution, it was interesting to note that the results were close to those obtained in practice,
providing a satisfactory approximation to the geomechanical behavior of the rock and considering phenomena such as the
production sand under thermal recovery processes.
Raaen, A. (1996) [4] showed a model for the direct estimation in laboratory of parameters such as hardening, swelling,
among others, involved in the elasto-plastic model of unconsolidated sands; and then he used this results as input in numerical
simulation which is solved by finite difference method. This model was applied in a well with sand production in the North
Sea, giving a good accurate assessment of the stresses state calculation.
As the previous work, Vardoulakis, I. (1996) [5] developed a study based on triaxial laboratory tests using weak sand
called "Red Wildmoor", which exhibits nonlinear elasticity behavior, damage, increment of the friction between grains and
rock weakening due to cohesion reduction and dilation. The sand behavior is based on a constitutive elasto-plastic model,
which is described and calibrated by experimental data and its validation is made by triaxial cell tests.
Papamichos, E. et al. (1999) [6] performed a work which is one of the most important bases of the currently understanding
of geomechanical behavior of poorly consolidated sands. It is based on an extensive program of asymmetric triaxial
compression and tension experiments to understand the mechanical behavior of Red Wildmoor Sandstone. The model is
developed within the framework of the elasto-plastic theory, emphasizing on calibration with laboratory tests already known.
The nonlinear elasticity and damage are incorporated in the model. The pressure sensitivity of plastic behavior is described
entirely by the nonlinear model of Mohr-Coulomb, considering friction and cohesion. In this model, a compaction study is
performed with data obtained from rock dilation, according to plastic behavior, and considering other simplifications such as
the elastic constant and the linear yield surface.
Hilbert, L. et al. (2011) [7] presented the development and results of geomechanical models, and also the analysis used to
assess the risks in an unconsolidated reservoir located in deep water. The formations had a high risk of compaction induced by
depletion, which could produce large deformations and potential failure of completion in horizontal wells. The results of the
geomechanical model indicated that the overall compaction loading should not cause significant completion deformation.

Comparison between Elastic and Elastoplastic Models in Heavy Oil Reservoirs
As previously mentioned, the deformation and fluid behavior in unconsolidated sands is governed by the pore fluid behavior
and the sand skeleton behavior. An analytical model for poorly consolidated sands may describe these phenomena. Harris and
Sobkowicz (1977) [8] initially developed it, and later were improved by Byrne and Grigg (1980) [9], Byrne and Janzen [10]
(1984) and Byrne and Vaziri (1986) [11]. However, these analytical models considered linear and nonlinear elastic behavior
for the sand skeleton. Unconsolidated sands have low density in its natural state and show a significant dilation under shear.
Elastic models, both linear and nonlinear, are not capable of modeling effectively the expansion exhibited by these sands, as
evidenced in Srithar, T. (1994) [12].
Settari and Walters (2001) [13] presented a geomechanical model coupled to fluid flow to analyze the compaction in
several heavy oil fields. This study evaluated the geomechanical behavior based on two constitutive models, nonlinear elastic
and elasto-plastic. The nonlinear elastic model is a modified hyperbolic model based on the variation of Young's elastic
modulus and overall elastic modulus, as a function of average stress, and the elasto-plastic model is a generalized Drucker and
Pragger failure criterion.
The two constitutive models, nonlinear and elasto-plastic, are capable of predicting nonlinear stress-strain behavior. The
elasto-plastic formulation is a more rigorous approach to the post-failure material behavior. The nonlinear elastic formulation
was historically developed for pre-failure behavior; it is a good representation for the stress-strain response of many soils and
soft rocks under standard triaxial loading at constant confining stress up to a shear induced failure. Once shear failure occurs,
the hyperbolic model is unable to implement post-failure phenomenon as strain by hardening or softening; rather, the stress
path is restricted to the elastic stress space.

Elastoplastic Mathematical Model
Han. G. et al. (2005) [14], presented elasto-plastic stress calculations that include an incremental stress-strain relation, a yield
SPE 171132-MS 3
surface and a hardening law. This work is the basis for the description of the elastoplastic model because it works in a simple
way and specifies the basic components of the theory of plasticity, and allows clarifying several criteria leaving available the
use of one or the other depending on the phenomenon to be analyzed.
Generally, the total strain increment, of a soil element can be expressed as a summation of an elastic component,

and a
plastic component,

. Then, the incremental strain can be expressed,

(1)

In the theory of plasticity, the stressstrain relation is formulated from a yield function, a plastic potential function (or a flow
rule) and a strain hardening function.

The flow rule defines the direction of the plastic strain increments at every stress state and can be defined as,

(2)

Where

is a plastic potential surface, and

is a scale multiplier.

Under isotropic compression, an isotropic soil shows equal strains in the three principal directions. Therefore, the direction of
the strain increment vector should coincide with the hydrostatic axis pointing outwards from the origin. To satisfy this
condition, the plastic potential function must be identical to the yield function. This implies that the flow rule is associative
and is given by the following equation,

(3)

where

is a function of both stress and strain,

(4)

Therefore, comparing to perfect plasticity where the failure surface is only related to rock stresses,

, the
consistency conditions becomes,

(5)

Introducing the equation (3) in (5),

(6)

The scalar

is,

(7)

Initially, the elastic strains, which are recoverable upon unloading, can be evaluated using Hookes law considering the soil as
an isotropic elastic material. The elastic strain increment can be defined by,

(8)

where

is the first deviatoric tress invariant.

Then the total strain increment,

, resulting from rock elasto-plastic

4 SPE 171132-MS

(9)

Rearranging (9) gives,

(10)

With,

) (11)

Now, substituting

in equation (5) the scalar

becomes,

}
{

){

(12)

Finally, the elasto-plastic stress increment can be determined from,

(13)

where the elastic modulus

is defined by,

) (14)

In function of Lame Parameter, modulus

can be expressed by,

(15)

The terms

and

in equation (13) are unknowns and can be determined by the yield criteria and hardening law
as follows

Yield Criteria
The yield criterion defines the boundary between the elastic and plastic zones. This boundary is where plastic deformation
starts.
In this part, be defining two models, DruckerPrager criteria and Modified Cam-Clay model that are expressed in the form
of stress invariants.

Drucker-Prager Criteria
This criterion is the most used in the plasticity theory because it takes into account the variables that M-C criterion despises,
like the dependence of intermediate stress,

, the D-P criteria can be expressed by,

(16)

where

is function of,

SPE 171132-MS 5

) (17)

Apply chain rule, the equation 16 can be written,

(18)

Where

knows like Lode Angle, which is represented by,

(19)

Resolving equation 18,

can be expressed,

[(

(20)

and equation 20 can be written as,

(21)

Agree to the equation 16,

(22)

(23)

It is important to say that the defined constants in equations 21 and 23 depend of cohesion and friction angle .

Agree to equation 21,

and

are defined by,

(24)

(25)

(26)

and the flow vector coefficients will be the showed in equations 24, 25 and 26.

In this way the equation 16 can be written as,

(27)

The equation 27 in vectorial form,

6 SPE 171132-MS

]
{

]
{

]
{

(28)

Modified Cam-Clay Model
The Modified Cam Clay model was developed by Roscoe in 1986 as an extension of Cam Clay model to a three dimensional
stress state which is an isotropic, nonlinear elastic, elastic strain and hardening model. Only the volumetric strain is assumed to
be partially recoverable. Yun-Pin, R. (1997) [15]
The difference between the Cam-Clay and the Modified Cam Clay is that the yield surface of the last one is described by an
ellipse and therefore the plastic strain increment vector (which is vertical to the yield surface) for the largest value of the mean
effective stress is horizontal, and hence no incremental deviatoric plastic strain takes place for a change in mean effective
stress. Barlett, S. (2010) [16]

In conclusion the Modified Cam-Clay model:
Explains the pressure-dependent soil strength and the volume change (contraction and dilation) of soils during shear.
When critical state is reached, then unlimited soil deformations occur without changes in effective stress volume.
Formulation of this model is based on plastic theory, which make it possible to predict volume change due to various
types of loading using an associated flow rule.

The plasticization function of modified Cam-Clay model is defined by,

(29)

Where y are the normal stress and deviator, respectively. Those invariants are defined as,

(30)

(31)

Deriving the equation 29,

) (32)

Where,

The derivations for

are:

(33)

(34)

(35)

Agree to equation 32, 33, 34 and 35, in vectorial form the cam- clay model can be expressed
SPE 171132-MS 7

(36)
where,

(37)

Hardening Law
The hardening rule defines how the threshold of yielding with plastic strain, or in other words, how the yield stress state
changes with plastic strain. There are different hardening laws used in plasticity calculations, such as strain hardening and
work hardening.
There are two methods to implement the hardening effect, one is through the friction angle and the other one is through
the shear cohesive strength

. To keep the style of this work simple, a strain dependent cohesive strength is used. Han, G. et
al. (2005) [14] used a strain dependent cohesive strength to keep the style simple in the model.
Different hardening relations may be applied such as linear, hyperbolic, power law, etc. For example, Bradford and Cook
(1994) [17] proposed the power law relationship, equation 38,

(38)

where

and are coefficients from matching the experimental data of triaxial tests of dry Castelgate sandstone. Then, the
plastic strain,

, is defined by the principle of plastic power equivalence,

(39)

where

and

denote the incremental quantities, and the repeated subscripts imply summation in the usual manner. For
weak sandstone, Zervos et al. (1998) [18] used the hyperbolic relationship,

(40)

where

is the initial cohesion,

and

are constants determined from the calibration procedure.

Therefore, the derivative of the yield function to plastic strain becomes,

(41)

For the D-P criterion the strain derivatives become for

Power law

(42)

Hyperbolic

(43)
8 SPE 171132-MS
For the Modified Cam-Clay Model, if yielding occurs to the right of the point at which the critical state line intersects a yield
surface, hardening behaviour, accompanied by compression, is exhibited. This side of the yield surface is known as the
subcritical side. Hoek, H. (2007) [19]



















Figure 1 illustrates the soil behaviour on the subcritical side for the case of simple shearing. When a sample is sheared, it
behaves elastically until it hits the initial yield surface. From then on the yield surface begins to grow/expand and exhibits
hardening behavior (yielding and plastic strain is accompanied by an increase in yield stress). The Figure shows two
intermediate growth stages of the yield surface. At the point C, the sample reaches critical state at which it will continue to
distort without any accompanying changes in shear stress or volume. Figure 2 show the stress-strain hardening behavior that
occurs for the sample loaded on the subcritical side. Hoek, H. (2007) [19]




















If yielding occurs to the left of the intersection of the critical state line and yield surface (called the dry or supercritical side),
the soil material exhibits softening behaviour, which is accompanied by dilatancy (increase in volume). In softening regimen
the yield stress curve decreases after the stress state touches the initial envelope. To depict the reduction in yield stress curve,
the loading line in Figure 3 doubles back. The yield curve and sustained load move downwards until the sample comes to the
critical state. The softening stress-strain curve for dry side loading is shown on Figure 4. Hoek, H. (2007) [19]

Finally, the hardening/softening rule for the Modified Cam-Clay model can be expressed by,

(

) (44)

Figure 1. Evolution of the yield curve on the subcritical
side of Modified Cam Clay under simple shearing.
Hoek, H. (2007) [19]
Figure 2. Hardening stress-strain response on subcritical
side of Modified Cam-Clay material under simple shearing.
Hoek, H. (2007) [19]
Figure 3. Evolution of the yield curve on the dry side of
Modified Cam-Clay under simple shearing. [19]

Figure 4. Softening stress-strain response on dry side of
Modified Cam-Clay material under simple shearing. [19]
SPE 171132-MS 9

Fluid flow equations.
Osorio, G. et al. (2002) [20] showed a coupled model between fluid flow and stress-strain and those equations are used in this
paper. Four basic relations constitute the fluid flow model: fluid mass conservation, Darcys law and the equation of state.
Mathematically, these relations can be expressed as follows,

Fluid mass conservation:

(45)

Solid mass conservation:

[])

(46)

Darcys laws:
(

(47)

Equation of state (isothermal fluid compressibility)

(48)

In the equations above the subscript refers to fluid and the subscript refers to solid. The subscripts refer to the
direction of cylindrical coordinate system.

For slightly compressible fluid, equation 48 can be expressed as,

(49)

Combining equations 45, 46, 47 y 49 gives the following fluid flow equation,

)]

]+

(50)

Equation 47 assumes that the solid source-sink term is zero.

Zimmerman, R. (1986) [21] expressed the change of the pore volume, term that can be expressed in equation 51,

)] (51)

In equation 51,

is the volumetric strain (in this study the stress is positive if compressive),

is the compressibility of the

rockmatrix material measured from an unjacketed compressibility test, and

is the bulk compressibility expressing the

effect of the mean stress variation on the bulk volume at constant pore pressure:

) (52)

where

is the mean stress.

Substituting equation 51 into equation 50 gives,

[

)]

(53)

In equation 53 denotes divergence;

is a compressibility term given by,

(54)
The porosity is a pressure and stress dependent property, which can be expressed as,

(55)
10 SPE 171132-MS

Stress Strain Model
The stressdeformation model is based on three basic relations: stress equilibrium, straindisplacement and stressstrain-
pressure equations, developed by Osorio, G. et al. (2002) [20].

Stress equilibrium equations: To preserve equilibrium of forces after a time increment , these equations must satisfy that,

(56)

(57)

(58)

In equations 55, 57 and 58,

is the incremental total stresses in the direction;

and

are
incremental shear stresses.

Strain-displacement equations: The incremental displacements and incremental strains are related by:

(59)

) (60)

(61)

(62)

) (63)

) (64)

In equations 59 through 64,

and

, are the incremental normal strains and the displacements, respectively, in

the direction;

and

are incremental shear stresses.

Stress-strain-pressure equations: The stress-strain-pressure equations can be written in terms of the incremental
displacements and incremental pore pressure by introducing equations 58 through 63 into the set of equations represented by
equations 65 to 70.

Radial direction

] (

)) [

))

)) (65)

Tangential direction

] (

)) [

))

)) (66)

Vertical direction

] (

)) [

))

)) (67)

SPE 171132-MS 11
direction

))

] (

))

)) (68)

direction

))

) [

] (

))

)) (69)

direction

))

))
[

] (

)) (70)

where constants

of each equation are the components of elasto-plastic matrix, which are obtained by equation 13.

Governing equations of the stress-deformation model in terms of displacements and pore pressure: Substituting the
resulting equations 65 to 70 into equations 55 to 58, is possible obtain the governing equations of stress-strain model.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this work:
The elasto-plastic theory is a good approximation model, to understand the behavior of the formation when acquires
permanent deformations, which is the case of heavy oil reservoirs.
Most studies performed for poorly consolidated sands mix laboratory and modeling studies, all of these have come to
valid results, near by both parties, demonstrating that modeling is a powerful tool to analyze this type of reservoirs.
Non-linear constitutive model is a method validly applicable when the material does not present permanent
deformation, such hard rock, but on the other hand, for poorly consolidated rocks a model associated with plasticity
gives a better approximate.
The coupled model gives a global result of geomechanical reservoir behavior, considering fluid flow and permanent
plastic deformation. These results allow evaluating the geomechanical reservoir stability under different production
scenarios.
Nomenclature
Coefficient in work hardening laws.

Components of elasto-plastic matrix.

Compressibility.

Cohesive strength.

Elastic modulus.

Rock yield surface.

Shear modulus.

First stress invariant.

Second deviatoric stress invariant.

Third deviatoric stress invariant.

Permeability.
Bulk modulus.
Cam-Clay hardening constant.
= Pressure.
Stress invariant.

Pre-consolidation pressure.

Volumetric flow rate.

Mass rate per unit of bulk volume.

Plastic potential surface.

Radius.
Hardening constant.
Time.
12 SPE 171132-MS
Displacement (continuous function), also, velocity.
Volume.
Distance.
Biots poroelastic constant.
Increment.
Lames constant.
Outward normal vector.
Porosity.
Viscosity.
Density.
Friction angle.

Lode angle.

Plasticity scalar.
Rock total stress.
Generalized stress.

Mean stress.

Principal stresses.
Rock strain.

Rock elastic-plastic strains.

Generalized plastic strain.

Kronecker delta.

Subscripts
Bulk.
Bulk volume, with mean stress changing.
Cell location in the direction, respectively.
Fluid.
Outer radius.
Reference state.
Porous.
Rock.
Solid.
Volumetric.
Total.
Wellbore.
directions respectively.

Superscripts
Initial state.
Effective.

References
[1] Vaziri, H., A New Constitutive Stress Strain Model for Describing the Geomechanical Behavior of Oil Sands, 40th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM held in Banff, Canada, May 28 to 31, 1989. PETSOC 89-40-67.
[2] Veeken, C., Walters, J., Kenter, C. and Davies, D., Use of Plasticity Models for Predicting Borehole Stability, ISRM International
Symposium, August 30 September 2, 1989, Pau, France. S-1989-106.
[3] Wan, R. Chan, D. and Kosar, K., A Constitutive Model for the Effective Stress-Strain Behaviour of Oil Sands, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Volume 30, No. 4. 1991. PETSOC 91-04-08.
[4] Raaen, A., Efficient Determination of the Parameters of an Elastoplastic Model, SPE/ISRM Eurock 96 held Trondheim, Norway. July
8-10, 1996. SPE 47362-MS.
[5] Vardoulakis, I., Elasto-plastic Behavior of a Weak Sandstone, Eurock96, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1996.
[6] Papamichos, E., Vardoulakis, I. and Sulem, J., ElastoPlastic Modelling of Red Wildmoor Sandstone, Mechanics Cohesive Frictional
Materials 4, 215 - 245, 1999.
[7] Hilbert, L., Birbiglia, D., Shumilak, E., Schutiens, P., Hindriks, C. and Klever, F., Modeling Horizontal-Completion Deformations in a
Deepwater Unconsolidated-Sand Reservoir, SPE Drilling & Completion, Volume 26, No. 1, 2011. SPE 124350-MS.
SPE 171132-MS 13
[8] Harris, M.C. and Sobkowicz, J.C., Engineering Behaviour of Oil Sand. The Oil Sands of Canada and Venezuela, The Canadian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Special Vol. 17, pp. 270-281, 1977.
[9] Byrne, P.M. and Grigg, R.G., SOILSTRESS - A Computer Program for Analysis of Stresses and Deformations in Oil Sands, Soil Mech.
Series, No. 42, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1980.
[10] Byrne, P.M. and Janzen, W., INCOIL - A Computer Program for Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Deformation of Oil Sand Masses,
Soil Mech. Series, No. 80, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1984.
[11] Byrne, P.M., and Vaziri, H.H., CONOIL - A Computer Program for Nonlinear Analysis of Stress Deformation and Flow in Oil Sands.
Soil Mech. Series, No. 103, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1986.
[12] Srithar, T., Elasto-plastic Deformation and Flow Analysis in Oil Sand Masses. Ph. D Thesis. The University of British Columbia, 1994.
[13] Settari, T. and Walters, D., Advances in Coupled Geomechanical and Reservoir Modeling with Applications to Reservoir Compaction,
SPE Journal, September, 2001. SPE 74142-PA.
[14] Han. G., Stone, T., Liu, Q., Cook, J. and Papanastasiou, P., 3-D Elastoplastic FEM Modelling in a Reservoir Simulator, SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, January 31 February 2, 2005. SPE 91891.
[15] Yun-Pin, R., Model Prediction of Stress-Strain Behaviour on Cohesionless Soil, The Seventh International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 25-30 May, 1997. ISOPE-I-97-130.
[16] Bartlett, S. Modified Cam Clay Model (MCC), Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Utah, Utah, USA.
March 11, 2010.
[17] Bradford, I.D.R. and Cook, J., A Semi-analytical Elastoplastic Model for Wellbore Stability with Applications to Sanding, SPE/ISRM
Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, Netherlands. August 29-31, 1994. SPE 28070.
[18] Zervos, A., Papanastasiou, P. and Cook, J., Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Inclined Wellbores, Eurock, Trondheim, Norway,
July 8-10, 1998. SPE 47322.
[19] Hoek, H. Description of Cam-clay and Modified Cam-Clay Critical State Strength Models. Rocsciene Web Magazine, 2007.
[20] Osorio, J.G., Wills, A. and Alcalde, O., A Numerical Model to Study the Formation Damage by Rock Deformation from Well,
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002. SPE 73742.
[21] Zimmerman, R.W., Compressibility of Porous Rocks. J. Geophys. Res. No. 91, pp. 12765-77, 1986.


14 SPE 171132-MS
Appendix A. Elasto-plastic Matrix and Stress-Strain Equations.

The elasto-plastic stress increment can be calculated by

(A1)

Where [

] is the elastic matrix whose entries are showed by the equation A2,

[

]
[

(A2)

And the term (

[
] (A3)

Resolving for

is obtained:

[ ]

(A4)

Then, for the elasto-plastic matrix:

[

] [

] [

(A5)

[

]
[

(A6)

It also can be written as,

[

] [

] [] (A7)

[

]
[

(A8)

Where the terms of the matrix [] are specified by the expressions,

SPE 171132-MS 15

And is defined by,

(A9)

Where is the constant associated to the hardening rule for the material under study.

Matrix [] is a symmetric matrix whose entries are expressed in a general form for any yield criteria, and also the matrix has
certain expressions for the entries of the yield function

given by according to the selected yield criteria.

Those entries are defined in function of the flow vector coefficients.

Equation A1 can be written as,

(A10)

where the vector

] (A11)

After replacing the matrix [

] and the vector

in equation A10, the expression for each stress is obtained, equation
A12.

[

(A12)