SPE 121972

Rock Strength from Core and Logs: Where We Stand and Ways to Go
A. Khaksar, P.G. Taylor, Z. Fang, T. Kayes, A. Salazar, K. Rahman; SPE, Helix RDS
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 811 June 2009.
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
Knowledge of accurate rock strength is essential for in situ stress estimation, wellbore stability analysis, sand production
prediction and other geomechanical applications. Reliable quantitative data on rock strength can only be obtained from cores.
However, cores are limited, discontinuous and often biased. Consequently, rock strength evaluation is primarily based on log
strength indicators, calibrated where possible against limited core measured values. There are a number of published log-core
strength correlations that can be used for rock strength modelling. These empirical relationships are developed for specific
rock type, age, depth range and field. Their general applications, therefore, need to be critically assessed on a case by case
basis. This paper briefly: (i) outlines the best practice for obtaining quality rock strength data from core tests; (ii) presents
common empirical rock strength equations for sedimentary rocks and (iii) discusses ways of improving rock strength
estimates.
While some equations such as porosity-based or sonic log-based rock strength models work reasonably well, rock strength
variations within individual rock properties show considerable scatter, indicating that most of the empirical models are not
sufficiently generic to fit all rocks in the database. Like any other physical rock properties, the variation in rock strength in a
given sedimentary rock is controlled by mineralogy, sedimentology and micro-structure of the rock and simple log-derived
rock strength models need further modification and classification incorporating these geological characteristics.
This paper has shown that when sufficient core rock strength data exists, applications of computing techniques, such as
fuzzy logic and cluster pattern recognition, coupled with sedimentary facies analysis and diagenetic classification can improve
strength estimation. Semi-continuous impact energy logs using portable non-destructive testing tools can be correlated with
petrophysical logs to generate mechanical facies and improved sampling for conventional rock testing.
Introduction
Rock mechanical properties are essential for accurate in situ stress analysis and geomechanical evaluations including wellbore
stability analysis, sand production prediction and management, hydraulic fracturing design, fault stability and reactivation
analysis and other geomechanical applications. The rock mechanical parameters typically required to populate a
geomechanical model based on the linear Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion are: Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS or C0),
Friction angle () or Coefficient of internal friction, (where = tan), as well as Thick Wall or hollow Cylinder strength
(TWC) which may be needed for sanding evaluation and calibration. These properties are commonly known as rock strength
parameters. Other essential rock mechanical properties are elastic moduli. The two most common required elastic constants
are; Poissons ratio () and Youngs modulus (E) from which other elastic moduli such as shear and bulk moduli can be
derived. While rock elastic moduli can be derived from well logs (bulk density, both compressional and shear sonic logs),
reliable quantitative data on rock strength parameters can only be derived at specific depths from laboratory tests on core
samples. Laboratory measurements of elastic moduli on core samples subjected to the in-situ stress condition are also needed
to calibrate log-derived (dynamic) elastic moduli to static values measured on cores.
Laboratory-based rock strength values are typically determined through triaxial tests on cylindrical samples that are
obtained from cores at depths of interest. Continuous profiles of rock strength against depth can be estimated using well logs
and empirical core-log relationships. Ideally, log-derived strengths should be calibrated by direct laboratory measured values
to ensure that the results are reasonable for the rocks under analysis. However, in most cases the core strength databases are
limited, discontinuous and often biased toward stronger intervals. Quality core plugs of non-reservoir formations (for
example, mudstones and shales), where most of hole instability problems occur, are rarely available for testing. In practice,
many geomechanical problems are often addressed in the absence of core samples for laboratory testing. Consequently, rock
strength evaluation is primarily based on log strength indicators, calibrated where possible against limited core measurements.

SPE 121972

There are a number of published log-core strength correlations that can be used to develop a rock strength model. These
empirical relationships are developed for specific rock type, age, depth range, field or sedimentary basin and their applications
to other rocks may not be reliable unless they are calibrated with specific field conditions. This paper first briefly outlines good
practices for obtaining quality rock strength data from core tests then presents common empirical rock strength equations and
discusses ways of improving rock strength estimates.
Rock Strength from Core Tests
Rock mechanics has traditionally carried an air of mystique; practitioners are frequently regarded as Rock Docs and, as a
consequence, acquisition of important input data for geomechanics modelling has all too often been neglected in the oil and
gas industry. Even in the early years of the twenty first century, a lack of awareness for good industry practice in planning for
rock mechanics studies can result in costly well problems. This is then followed by rushed geomechanics studies with little
useful data with which to fire fight. This section offers some advice on how best to plan in readiness for rock mechanics
testing and the importance of good sample selection and plug preparation. The emphasis is on the workflow process prior to
laboratory testing, because this will ensure the most representative samples from which the final model will be calibrated.
Finally, a brief review is made of some of the supplementary testing that can help explain results of geomechanical empirical
and analytical computations.
Planning for Sampling and Core Tests. Core is acquired at great expense and is a precious resource. This is recognised for
the needs of petrophysics, but all too often samples for rock mechanics testing are forgotten about until after the initial slab cut
is made. This reduces the core diameter and hence the plug length; usually making the length to diameter ratio unacceptable.
Worse still, no samples for rock mechanics tests are cut and the core is allowed to dry out and possibly deteriorate, depending
on mineralogy.
Planning the rock mechanics programme must be done well in advance of the core being cut, because there are many
interests to accommodate and potential pitfalls to overcome. Good communications between different departments will help
streamline the process, maximise the benefits of geomechanics and avoid repeated work. Quite often, wellbore stability
(WBS) is considered by the drilling group and, separate to this, sand production issues by the reservoir engineering,
production technology and completion design teams. For both studies a common geomechanical model will be required; its
two essential elements being in situ stresses and rock strength. An interdisciplinary planning team should be assembled from
drilling, geology, petrophysics, reservoir engineering, well engineering, production technology, geophysics and, geomechanics
(assuming a geomechanics department or specialist exists) to plan coring, laboratory testing (rock mechanics, routine and
special core analysis including formation damage) and logging (mud and wireline/LWD).
It is useful to speak with other operators of reservoirs producing from the same or similar formation(s). Even though such
matters may only be discussed at a high level, guidance on rock strength and related rock mechanics issues can be sought and
will help focus the needs of the laboratory test programme.
In summary the essentials of planning requirements are:
Is core planned to be cut in the new well or is core from offset wells required?
Is there suitable preserved core available for testing from offset wells?
Can preserved samples be used for rock mechanics testing?
If unpreserved core is all that is available, has it degraded on exposure to air or moisture?
If unpreserved core is acceptable, can representative plugs be cut?
Will it be necessary to scan the core/preserved core before cutting plugs?
Should a plug fail, can a replacement plug of similar rock properties be taken?
What is the availability and schedule of the rock mechanics testing laboratory?
It must also be highlighted that integral to rock strength from core testing is the chosen suit of wireline/LWD logs run
through the overburden, reservoir and underburden. The calibrated rock strength algorithms, established between the core and
equivalent logged interval, must accurately compute rock strength throughout the un-cored sections of the reservoir (or well)
based on well log data alone. The accuracy of computation is then solely dependent on the type and resolution of well logs. It
is therefore essential that the planning process takes account of these needs when determining the suites of logs to be run.
Sample Selection. Sample selection is a critical step in the rock strength workflow and must be afforded the time and effort
in order to make the process robust. This process is the kingpin between two very costly stages: obtaining the core and rock
strength determination (laboratory and modelling). The aim of sample selection is to supply the rock testing laboratory with a
range of samples which represent all the facies, rock types and rock strengths present in the core. This is not a simple process
and can seldom be done from visual recognition alone.
When choosing the sections of core from which the plugs are to be cut, as much information as possible should be
available. This includes, but is not limited to, geological reports, including the depositional environment, petrology,
mineralogy, sedimentology and structure. Basic core analysis may already have been conducted and so porosity and
permeability data can be reviewed in context with the core. More recent workflows now include non-destructive tests (NDT);
impact strength or scratch testing along the entire length of the core. This readily reveals the full range in relative strength and

SPE 121972

is the first direct measurement of rock strength, as opposed to geological, routine core analysis (RCA) data and wireline logs
which are all indirect strength indicators. Visual inspection of the core is also important in conjunction with all previously
mentioned methods, whereby rock textures, mineralogy and cements are quickly appraised, all in the context of rock strength
from micro to bed scale.
When ready to select the sampling points, the person responsible should be clear as to what rock mechanics tests are to be
performed, as to determine the type, amount and number of samples required. For example, a single stage triaxial compressive
test will require a minimum of three or four plugs at each sample point. To summarise the essentials of sampling
requirements:
Each facies or lithology type must be represented.
Samples must be representative of the range in rock strengths throughout that facies or lithology type, based on NDT
testing, well logs, textures, cements, etc.
The correct number of samples can be cut to meet the requirements of the tests.
Sample sets to be as close to each other as physically possible; essential in heterogeneous formations.
Core diameter or remaining pieces of core are of sufficient size from which to cut a plug of 1:2 diameter to minimum
length ratio.
Clay-rich sandstones or mudrocks (e.g. shale) are best sampled from preserved cores.
The choice of samples should however take into account the following:
In unpreserved core, is the state of preservation representative for strength tests?
Avoid the temptation to only sample strong looking sections of core, i.e. from which good plugs can be cut.
Avoid choosing only interesting looking sections of core. It is normally the mundane sections which are most
representative.
Micro-fractures, joints, natural fractures and faults are usually not representative and should, in the main, be avoided
Material from wide fault or fracture zones such as breccia, fault gouge or rock flour should be sampled too. Such
debris can range from loose to well cemented and can be tested for rock strength, grain size distribution and
petrological properties.
Mud rock sections (claystone, siltstone, shale, etc.) should be sampled for rock mechanics tests, mineralogy and clay
reactivity tests.
Reservoir rocks should be examined for cement mineralogy. This helps in typing the range in rock strengths and for
a cements propensity for dissolution.
Pre-screening of whole core is commonly undertaken prior to drilling plugs for petrophysics and rock mechanics testing.
Computed axial tomography (CAT) scanning is probably the most frequently used method and identifies changes in density in
traverse and longitudinal sections of the core. This method produces internal images of bedding, structure, mineralogy,
fractures, vugs, mud (barite) invasion, etc. and is ideal for identifying suitable sections for plugging. Other methods of prescreening include acoustic velocity (sonic) measurements taken along the core and core gamma, although neither of these
provide the resolution or amount of useful data as CAT scanning.
Plug Preparation. Clear instructions must already have been given not to slab the core prior to rock mechanics sampling. The
problem with core that has been slab sawn is that the core plugs are likely to be under size, i.e. < 2:1 length to diameter ratio
required for test purposes and quality control. Plugs must be cut and prepared to very exacting standards otherwise the
subsequent strength tests will be invalid. Plugs should be cut either perpendicular or parallel to bedding depending on the test
requirement. In heterogeneous and laminated rocks, plugs cut at an oblique angle to the bedding (true dip) may be necessary
to determine strength anisotropy.
Supplementary Testing. Many other techniques and tests are performed on core samples which supplement the rock strength
data set. The principal methodologies include special core analysis (SCAL) and petrographic analyses. This work is usually
commissioned by the Petrophysics and Reservoir Geology departments and copies of these data should be acquired for input to
the geomechanics process. If it has not been planned to undertake any SCAL or petrographic studies of particular interest to
the rock mechanics study, then these should be commissioned. The following list is a summary of the principal supplementary
methodologies that can be incorporated within a laboratory rock strength test programme:
Particle (or grain) Size Distribution (PSD) analysis,
Thin Section (TS) analysis/point counting (petrographic microscope),
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM),
X-Ray Diffraction (XRD),
Cathodo-Luminescence microscopy (CL).

SPE 121972

Common Rock Mechanics Tests

Single Stage Triaxial Compressive Tests (SST). Triaxial compressive tests are typically conducted on identical samples (at
least three sets, ideally four or five plugs) for a range of confining pressures in order to establish a relationship between the
axial load at failure (1) and the confining pressure (3). As a sample is confined it reinforces the sample so that the axial
stress required to cause failure increases. Axial and radial strain measurements are made during each test so that static
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio data are obtainable for each sample. An example of an axial stress vs. axial strain plot
from a typical triaxial stress experiment is shown in Figure 1.
Initially, the sample is soft, but it stiffens as the axial load increases, and eventually the relationship is approximately
linear. An inelastic behaviour reflects the onset of internal damage and the sample becomes ductile once past this yield point.
Ultimately, if the axial load continues to increase, it will reach a maximum, followed either by a catastrophic brittle failure or a
roll-over plastic behaviour continued with residual strength, for which an increase in deformation can be achieved with no
change in axial load. Some techniques for wellbore/perforation stability and sanding evaluation require both peak and residual
strength parameters. Hence it is important to document the rock behaviour beyond the peak strength as the difference between
the peak and residual strengths determines the load bearing capacity of the rock beyond initial failure.
The linearized Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is a simple, and the most commonly used, criterion to define the state of
stress and rock failure (Jaeger and Cook, 1979). The Mohr-Coulomb criterion defines a linear relationship between the stress
difference at failure and the confining stress using two parameters: the cohesion, So and the friction angle, or the coefficient
of internal friction, i, where i = tan. The linear criterion Mohr-Coulomb failure equation is:

= So + i n

(1)

These parameters can be derived from triaxial strength tests on cylindrical cores, by measuring the stress at failure as a
function of confining pressure. Figure 2 shows a series of Mohr circles in a plot of shear stress to effective normal stress n.
The failure line (with slope i and intercept So) that touches each of the circles defines the parameters of the linear MohrCoulomb strength. The lower diagram in Figure 2 is a plot of 1 vs. 3, which is normally used to derive Mohr-Coulomb
parameters directly. In this plot the linear Mohr-Coulomb criterion, is expressed in terms of principal stresses as follows:

1 = C0 + 3 k

(2)

where is the maximum principal stress (the axial stress at failure in the test configuration), 3 is the confining stress
(3 = 2). The intercept on the 1 axis is the unconfined (uniaxial) compressive strength (C0 or UCS), which corresponds the
peak strength at zero confinement. k is the slope of the linear best fit to the data where:

k=

1 + sin
1 sin

(3)

and is the angle of internal friction. The Mohr-Coulomb failure parameters are obtained from the failure stress-confining
stress relationship where:

So =

C0
2 k

= tan =

(4)

k 1
2 k

(5)

Multi-Stage Triaxial (MST) Compressive Tests. Multi-stage triaxial compressive tests are often used as an alternative to
single stage triaxial tests when there is a shortage of quality samples. The multi-stage method requires a triaxial cell and
carries out a series of tests on a single sample and the technique avoids the potential effects of rock heterogeneity between
samples used in single stage tests. The first stage of an MST test is to establish a low confining pressure and increase the axial
stress until the sample begins to yield. Axial stress at this condition is recorded. The cell pressure is then increased to a new
value and axial loading proceeds until the new yield point is achieved. The procedure is repeated to obtain a total of 4 or 5
yield strength values. At the final stage, the test is continued beyond peak strength until residual strength is achieved. MohrCoulomb failure envelope parameters are then determined for peak strengths but not for the residual strength. Figure 3 shows
an example of multi-stage triaxial test results for a sandstone plug.
It is not possible to obtain residual Mohr-Coulomb parameters from the MST test as residual strength is only determined at
the final test confinement. Generally, multi-stage test results are less reliable than single stage triaxial tests. This is due to the

SPE 121972

nature of multi-stage tests in which one sample is subjected to several cycles of loading close to failure, but not to complete
failure. Therefore, the rock strength parameters derived from multi-stage tests could represent one single failure plane created
during the first loading cycle which would be reactivated on the subsequent loading and therefore the overall test results may
not represent the properties of an intact sample. Nevertheless multi-stage triaxial test results are superior to unconfined
(uniaxial) test results but careful testing procedure and monitoring is crucial in order to achieve useful test results.
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Tests. Because triaxial tests are expensive and time-consuming to conduct, it is
common to carry out uniaxial or unconfined compressive strength tests in which the confining pressure is zero. The axial
stress at failure in a uniaxial test is a direct measure of UCS or Co. Generally, compressive strength tests, conducted under zero
confining pressure, underestimate the true strength of the rock due to formation of micro-cracks in rocks during the coring
process and sample preparation. This can cause the sample to fail prematurely under uniaxial loading and do not provide a
good measure of Co for use with a Mohr-Coulomb model. Furthermore, it is often difficult to derive the internal friction angle
using one test, unless the sample is failed in shear and the failure plane is well defined. For these reasons, a series of triaxial
tests is preferred.
Figure 4 shows examples of unconfined compressive tests on two sandstone plugs. The upper sample pictured in Figure 4
shows a well defined failure point on the stress-time (related to strain) plot but the sample has failed on conjugate shear planes,
making it difficult to determine the angle of internal friction. The lower example pictured in Figure 4 shows a poorly defined
peak failure point on the stress-time plot and multiple failure planes on the sample possibly due to poor sample quality. Both
samples shown in Figure 4 have been tested after the RCA programme as there was insufficient core remaining for rock
mechanics tests. The mechanical response of the lower sample shown shown in figure 4 (which is weaker than the sample
above) is affected and the Co strength weakened, by the plug quality and sample damage which could have occurred during
core preparation and porosity-permeability testing in the RCA programme. This emphasises the need to take separate samples
for rock mechanics tests.
Thick Wall Cylinder (TWC) Tests. Thick wall cylinder tests are normally used in analytical and numerical sand production
and sanding rate predictions. In these tests a hollow cylindrical core plug is loaded axially and laterally under increasing
hydrostatic stress (1=2=3), until collapse occurs in the walls of the cylinder. The hydrostatic stress at which failure initiates
in the internal wall is reported as the TWC-Internal and the stress that causes external wall failure is called TWC External or
TWC collapse. The external wall catastrophic failure pressure corresponds to the perforation failure condition that causes
continuous and catastrophic sand production. The internal wall failure pressure is less than the catastrophic failure pressure
and normally corresponds to the onset of transient sanding. This is often assumed to be manageable without using downhole
sand control installations. Identification of initial failure during thick wall cylinder tests however is not straightforward.
TWC-Internal can be defined by an increase in fluid volume expelled during constant loading, or by monitoring the weight of
detached (failed) sand grains by a digital balance (with respect to applied stress). Alternatively, monitoring and measuring the
internal hole deformation during tests can be achieved more accurately using internal gauges (such as small callipers) or
cameras, however such measures require large plug sizes which are not routinely available.
Non-Destructive Strength Tests (Strength Indicators). A number of techniques have been developed to replace or
supplement triaxial tests to measure the strength properties of rocks. Scratch and Schmitt hammer tests are examples of such
techniques that have demonstrated the ability to provide continuous or semi-continuous, fine-scale measurements of rock
mechanical properties. In contrast with conventional triaxial tests, both of these tests are non-destructive and do not cause
significant damage to the core and no special core preparation is required. These tests can be conducted either in the lab, core
store or, in principle, on the rig, almost immediately after recovery of core material.
Impact Testing. Various forms of impact testing have been used on cores for a number of years now, perhaps the first well
known application being the Brinell test. In this test a standard size ball of hard material is pressed under a heavy load into the
surface of the rock and the diameter of the depression measured using a microscope. The Brinell Number (BN) is the ratio
between the load and area of the depression (kg/mm2). This test is somewhat slow to execute over long cored intervals and
requires sections of core to be uplifted and carried to the instrument; i.e. the equipment is bench mounted.
Application of the Schmidt hammer, Taylor and Appleby (2006), to whole and half cut core allowed for impact
measurements to be made directly on the core itself, providing the core was laid out on a rigid surface, such as a concrete
floor. The Schmidt hammer, originally designed for concrete testing, contains a spring-loaded mass that is automatically
released against an impact plunger when the hammer is pressed against the test surface. Elastic recovery of the rock is
dependent upon its surface hardness. Since hardness is related to mechanical strength, the rebound distance travelled by the
returning hammer mass is a relative measure of the surface hardness, and therefore the strength. The main disadvantage of this
technique is the relatively high energy imparted to the core which can result in fracturing and breaks.
A new instrument by the inventors of the Schmidt hammer is the Equotip 3 hardness tester. This is a portable, low energy
impact, NDT device for in situ hardness testing of metals. Aoki & Matsukura (2007) used this device for measuring rock
strength on weathered and fresh surfaces of Aoshima sandstone blocks and concluded that the Equotip was a versatile and
accurate tool for such field investigations. The authors of this paper used the Equotip 3 to characterise rock strength on a core
from the Central North Sea in 2008 and Figure 5 shows it in use. Impact measurements were made and compared between

SPE 121972

matched depth sections of whole core, half cut core and slab sawn, resinated core, and all were found to correlate well with
each other and many other petrophysical properties; e.g. GR, RHOB, NPHI, Dt, Dts, Helium porosity, air permeability and
grain density.
Figure 5 shows an example of the Equotip 3 impact strength plotted against other petrophysical parameters for a cored
interval. Four intervals of high rock strength can be clearly seen and correspond to zones of intense quartz cementation.
Direct measurement, semi-continuous impact logs such as this provide an excellent pre-filtering tool for plug selection for rock
strength laboratory testing. It also provides a direct indication of which wireline and laboratory measured petrophysical
parameters most influence rock strength (either in depth space or when cross-plotted); valuable when selecting the initial UCS
and TWC equations with which to build the strength model.
Scratch Testing.This test involves driving a sharp cutter across a rock surface. By monitoring the vertical and lateral forces
required to maintain a certain depth of cut, it is possible to relate the applied force to the uniaxial compressive strength, C0, in
rocks. The laboratory based equipment consists of a moving cutter with a sample holder and a loading fixture capable of
scratching the rock sample. An example of scratch test system is described by Surez-Rivera et al. (2003). A load cell is
mounted on the loading frame and measures the horizontal force (in the cutting direction) and the vertical force (normal to the
cutting surface) typically in the range from 10 N to 4000 N, with an accuracy of 1 N. Computer controlled feedback allows
variable cutter velocity, automatic data acquisition, and real-time data analysis. Measurements can be conducted on slabbed
core sections with a pre-slab diameter of 4 inches and a length of 3 feet. The rock surface is typically scratched at a constant
depth of cut from 0.2 to 0.5 mm, as appropriate for different rock types. Normal and tangential forces on the cutter can be
measured, and automatic data processing provided estimates of rock strength (UCS) along the cut. A comprehensive
discussion on the testing methodology can be found in Detournay et al. (1992 and 1996), Schei et al. (2000) and Surez-Rivera
et al. (2002 and 2003). The advantage of this method is a continuous profile of rock strength that is sensitive to rock fabric and
mineralogical composition. The main disadvantage is that there are currently only limited laboratory facilities for this type of
test and core has to be transported to dedicated laboratories and specially prepared in short slabbed sections. It is often the case
that core is not intact and this precludes a continuous strength log. Another disadvantage is that the scratch test cannot be
considered totally non-destructive.
Empirical Rock Strength Relationships
Rock strengths are generally influenced by physical and elastical properties of rocks. Well logs such as density and sonic logs
are often used to assess rock strength. Core strength-log integration can be used to define a continuous rock strength
prediction model. Single variable analysis in which the measured core property (e.g. UCS) is correlated against a wireline log
response (e.g. Dt, Rhob) or interpreted parameter (e.g. clay content and total porosity) using conventional regression analysis
can provide useful strength prediction models. Calibration can be improved by using dynamic elastic moduli as they exploit
two independent tool responses (sonic and bulk density) which are often more sensitive to strength variations than density or
sonic alone, and are not overly reliant on interpreted logs (e.g. porosity) which can have uncertainties in log calibration inputs.
In gas reservoirs, especially those with high porosity and at shallow depth, sonic and density data may require correction to
account for gas effects on the log response before applying to rock strength modelling. Figure 6 shows the use of core and well
logs to derive a continuous TWC profile computed from a correlation between measured TWC on core samples and log
derived dynamic compressional modulus (M) from sonic and density logs for Tertiary reservoir sandstones in an offshore
field, South Asia.
There are many published log-core strength correlations that can be used to develop a rock strength model. These
empirical relationships have been developed for specific rock types and their application to other rock types should be verified
before they are utilized. Chang et al. (2006) summarized 31 empirical equations that relate unconfined compressive strength
and internal friction angle of sedimentary rocks (sandstone, shale, limestone and dolomite) to physical properties (such as
acoustic velocity, elastic modulus and porosity). It is important to recognize that different rock types will have very different
log-strength relationships, based on their lithology, age, burial history and consolidation state. Therefore, it is important to
avoid applying a relationship calibrated for one rock type to another.
In Tables 1 to 5, rock strength models including UCS, TWC and Friction Angle are listed along with a brief description on
their applicability and, where possible, the source of each equation. All equations are presented in imperial unit system. Some
of these equations are well known and are commonly used by the geomechanics community, such as the Dt based UCS
equation developed by Horsrud (2001) for North Sea shales and the UCS-Youngs modulus equation introduced by Plumb
(1994) for sandstones. However, some other equations are field specific (such as the TWC-M equation shown in Figure 6) are
therefore less known to the public.
Rock Strength Controls and Model Comparison. In their review Chang et al. (2006) compared laboratory measured UCS
data obtained from a range of published literature with UCS values predicted by a number of empirical equations listed in
Tables 1 to 3 for sandstones, shales and limestones. Plots in Figure 7 show similar comparison for UCS strength versus
porosity and Youngs modulus in sandstones for several empirical equations listed in Table 1. It can be seen that while some
equations work reasonably well, rock strength variations with individual rock properties show considerable scatter, indicating
that most of the empirical models are not sufficiently generic to fit all the data in the database.

SPE 121972

Figure 8 shows an example from a North Sea well where none of the empirical UCS strength models used to create a
strength profile gives a reasonable match with the limited core-based UCS data available in Well-B. One possible reason for
this mismatch could be that the empirical strength correlations based on single variable (X-on-Y) analysis, using porosity log
or sonic travel time as a strength predictor for example, are often not robust enough. Similar to other rock properties in
sedimentary rocks, rock strength is controlled by internal rock fabric structure, i.e. grain support versus clay support structure
(Vernik 1994 and Plumb, 1994), cementation, pore geometry, grain contacts and other diagenesis and facies related
characteristics.
A single variable such as total porosity or rock acoustic properties may not necessarily fully capture these petrographic
features. Additional data and measures (listed under supplementary testing in pervious section) are needed for a more detailed
rock classification far beyond a simplistic lithology classification such as sandstone versus shales or reservoir versus nonreservoir rocks. Detailed petrological characterisation is also required to understand rock failure mechanisms, give quality
assurance to empirical, analytical and numerical modelling and provide an interface between the mathematical model and its
practical application to wellbore construction or sandface completion design. A task of the geomechanics specialist is to make
good use of all of the geologically orientated data that is normally available. If rock strength studies are being undertaken at
an early stage in the field life, then the number of geological and core analysis reports may be somewhat limited. However,
once the initial rush of field characterisation is completed, such data will be plentiful. A good overview of the qualitative
influence of geology, petrology and mineralogy on geomechanics studies is given by Webster and Taylor (2007).
Multi-Variable, Fuzzy Logic and Clustering Analysis
Standard single variable regressions are commonly poor at picking extremes and outliers and can have a significant impact on
the derived correlations. Where there are sufficient core test data available (ideally more than 15 tests) multi-variable or soft
computing techniques such as fuzzy logic and clustering analysis can be used to optimise the strength prediction. Such
techniques in predicting rock strength in uncored intervals can provide a radical improvement over other techniques.
Fuzzy logic, a statistical technique, asserts that the formation consists of several litho-types each represented by data bins
and each having characteristic distributions for strength and electrical log values (Cuddy, 1998). Each bin has a characteristic
log response (e.g. porosity, Vclay, Dt) defined in terms of its mean and standard deviation. In this way the error bars or
fuzziness of the predictions are captured. Fuzzy logic techniques quantify these errors and use them, together with the
measurement, to improve the prediction. Whereas conventional techniques deal with absolutes, fuzzy logic methods carry the
inherent error term through the calculation rather than ignoring or minimising it. In practice raw and derived logs are
correlated against the input core data (e.g. UCS, TWC). Fuzzy logic techniques are then used to predict rock strength based on
the input curves with the highest-ranked correlation coefficients. The resulting UCS curves are then checked against the core
strength values.
Multi-resolution graph-based clustering (MRGC) of log and core test data can be used to model rock strength and KNearest Neighbours (KNN) methods can been used to propagate MRGC models for rock strength prediction. Similarity
threshold modelling (STM) can been used to quality control cluster models used to predict rock strength values. This method
is not constrained to simple UCS models but can be used to predict more useful rock mechanics parameters like friction angle,
cohesion, peak strength and residual strength which are used in stability calculations.
MRGC and KNN techniques are a useful check and balance against single variate and fuzzy logic techniques because they
are not statistical techniques and are constrained to work within the provided data set. Thevoux-Chabuel et al. (1997) and, Ye
and Rabiller (2000) for further technical background on MRGC and KNN techniques. Fuzzy logic is able to extrapolate
beyond the input data set. The combination of statistical fuzzy logic and non-statistical clustering or pattern recognition
methods gives the Geomechanics Specialist a better description of rock strength variability. It is recommended that both
techniques are used as complimentary rock strength predictors because fuzzy logic can extrapolate rock strengths outside the
tested range and clustering predicts only within the tested range. It is therefore very important that the correct rock testing
programme is designed as described earlier in this paper.
An example from a field in the North Sea is shown in Figure 9. The rock strength prediction in this case was thick wall
cylinder strength for input into a sand production prediction and selective perforation strategy. This analysis was provided
real-time. In order to have the greatest confidence of rock strength and to provide the least conservative perforation strategy
the two techniques of fuzzy logic and clustering were compared and a decision was based on the complete picture.
Clustering methods require larger core test data sets and with the development of the laboratory-based portable impact
testing techniques there will be considerably more data points for this method to use. At the time of writing an impact testing
data set of approximately 200 ft of core is being added to a conventional core testing data set and the results of this analysis
will be available in a follow up paper.
Closing Remarks
Planning. Rock strength testing requires planning well in advance of the execution of a geomechanical study itself. Rock
strength and the associated elastic properties are a common data requirement for many subsurface and well engineering
disciplines. When planning rock mechanics work, it is therefore essential to ensure that other interested departments are
included in discussions. Good communications at an early stage can eliminate unnecessary, repeated or staged work, avoid

SPE 121972

gaps in the data set and focus on common needs and goals. Supplementary testing including any laboratory process that is not
directly considered a part of rock strength testing, are important in understanding the underlying micro and macro-mechanics
of rock failure. The majority of such tests or analysis would normally fall under the remit of the Reservoir Geology or
Petrophysics groups, but occasionally this work may not have been undertaken. It may therefore be necessary to have some of
this work conducted in order to supplement verification of empirical, analytical or numerical geomechanical modelling.
Sample Selection and Screening. Sampling is a kingpin in the workflow and should not be underestimated. The correct
choice of a representative range of samples for strength testing is not very often apparent when viewing a core, especially
when a lot of core has been cut. The screening process must be adaptable to accommodate the variation in core material, but
will typically incorporate visual inspection, a review of porosity and permeability data, wireline log data and, more commonly
now, scratch testing or impact strength characterisation. Combinations of these techniques will help to clearly identify
different mechanical facies, sometimes termed mechanical stratigraphy, and access the range in absolute or relative strength
within each. Another important point during screening stage is the quality control throughout laboratory testing and the quality
assurance of intermediate and final test results prior to further analysis and their incorporation into geomechanical modelling.
All available raw and processed data should be requested from the rock mechanics laboratory, e.g. stress-strain plots, pre- and
post-test colour photographs and visual inspection of tested plugs. These must be checked for potential problems inherent in
the testing, as shown for the UCS tests illustrated in Figure 4.
Model Selection and Enhanced Log-Derived Strength Estimation. Choice of the best model for the computation of logderived strength (UCS, TWC) can be focused and the process made more robust using a combination of conventional
laboratory triaxial testing and emerging non-destructive methods such as impact and scratch strength measurements made
along the core. The process described for model selection can be progressed to enhance log-derived strength estimation over
both the cored interval and, more importantly, un-cored intervals. Simple correlation models can quickly be created by
determining the regression between impact or scratch strengths (calibrated to laboratory measured rock strength) and any
given continuous log. Also, non-calibrated impact strength (relative strength) or calibrated impact strength (absolute strength)
can be input to fuzzy logic or cluster pattern recognition techniques together with any other parameters such as facies, cement
type, and other petrological data to improve strength estimation in the un-cored sections of the well.
Downhole Rock Strength. Direct measurement of rock strength downhole is a highly desirable aspiration. Advantages
include, but are not limited to: near wellbore stresses accounted for, the rock remains at in situ stress and at temperature, the
measurement is made against semi-infinite half space, rather than small diameter core. Downhole scratch testers are currently
under development and, if successful, may provide a continuous rock strength log. Although at a very early stage, impact
strength testers are now being discussed and could probably operate in more difficult downhole conditions. Like with core,
impact strength logs would be semi-continuous and would be able to provide a relative measurement of strength along the well
path throughout the overburden and reservoir interval.
Nomenclature
b = Bulk density, g/cc
= Porosity, fraction
= Poissons ratio
= Coefficient of internal friction
= Friction angle, degree
1 = Major principal stress
2 = Intermediate principal stress
3 = Minor principal stress
n = Normal stress
= Shear stress
C0 = Unconfined compressive strength, psi
CAT = Computer Axial Tomography
CL = Cathodo-Luminescence Microscopy
Dt = Compressional wave transit time, s/ft
Dts = Shear wave transit time, s/ft
E = Youngs modulus, psi
Edyn = Dynamic Youngs modulus, psi
Esta = Static Youngs modulus, psi
GR = Gamma Ray

LWD =
M=
MST =
NDT =
NPHI =
PSD =
RCA =
RHOB =
S0 =
SCAL =
SEM =
SST =
TS =
TWC =
UCS =

Logging While Drilling

Dynamic compressional modulus, psi
Multi-Stage Triaxial test
Non Destructive Testing
Neutron porosity
Particle Size Distribution
Routine Core Analysis
Bulk density, g/cc
Cohesion
Special Core Analysis Laboratory
Scanning Electron Microscopy
Single Stage Triaxial test
Thin Section
Thick Wall Cylinder
Unconfined (Uniaxial) Compressive Strength,
psi
Vclay = Clay volume, fraction
WBS = Well Bore Stability
XRD = X-Ray Diffraction

SPE 121972

References
Aoki, H. and Matsukura, Y., 2007. A new technique for no-destructive field measurement of rock-surface strength: an application of the
Equotip hardness tester to weathering studies. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Wiley InterScience.
Bradford, I.D.R., Fuller, J., Thompson, P.J. and Walsgrove, T.R., 1998. Benefits of assessing the solids production risk in a North Sea
reservoir using elastoplastic modeling. SPE/ISRM 47360.
Bruce, S., 1990. A mechanical stability log, SPE 19942.
Chang, C., Zoback, M. D. and Khaksar, A., 2006. Empirical relations between rock strength and physical properties in sendimentary rocks.
Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 51, 223-237.
Coates, G.R. and Denoo, S.A., 1981. Mechanical properties program using borehole analysis and Mohrs circle, SPWLA 22nd Annual
Logging Symposiums Transactions.
Cuddy, S.J., 1998. Litho-facies and Permeability Prediction from Electrical Logs using Fuzzy Logic. SPE 65411.
Detournay, E and Defourny, P., 1992. A phenomenological model for the drilling action of drag bits. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and
Geomech. Abstr, 29(1):13-23.
Detournay, E., Drescher, A., Defourny, P. and Fourmaintraux, D., 1996 Assessment of rock strength properties from cutting tests:
Preliminary experimental evidence. In Chalk and Shales Colloquium, Brussels.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., and Risnes, R., 1992. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Freyburg, E., 1972. Der unterwer und mittlere Buntsandstein SW-Thuringens in seinen gesteinstechnischen Eigenschaften, Ber. Dte. Ges.
geol. Wiss. A; Berline, 17 6, 911-919.
Golubev, A.A. and Rabinovich, G.Y., 1976. Resultaty primeneia appartury akusticeskogo karotasa dlja predeleina proconstych svoistv
gornych porod na mestorosdeniaach tverdych isjopaemych. Prikladnaja GeofizikaMoskva, 73: 109-116.
Horsrud, P., 2001. Estimating mechanical properties of shale from empirical correlations. SPE Drilling & Completion, 6873.
Jaeger, J. C. and Cook, N. G. W., 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Chapman and Hall, London.
Jizba, D., 1991. Mechanical and Acoustical Properties of Sandstones and Shales, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Khaksar, A., Rahman, K., Ghani, J., and Mangor, H., 2008. Integrated geomechanical study for hole stability, sanding potential and
completion selection: a case study from South East Asia. SPE 115915.
Lal, M., 1999. Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction and shale strength. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Conference.
Lashkaripour, G.R. and Dusseault, M.B., 1993. A statistical study on shale properties; relationship among principal shale properties. Proc.
Conference on Probabilistic Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Canberra, Australia.
McNally, G.H., 1987. Estimation of coal measures rock strength using sonic and neutron logs. Geoexploration, 24: 381-395.
McPhee, C.A., Lemanczyk, Z.R., Helderle, P., Thatchaichawalit. D. and Gongsakdi, N., 2000. Sand management in Bongkot Field, Gulf of
Thailand: an integrated approach, SPE 64467.
Militzer, H. and Stoll, R., 1973. Einige Beitrageder geophysics zur primadatenerfassung im Bergbau, Neue Bergbautechnik. 3: 21-25.
Moos D., Zoback, M.D. and Bailey, L., 1999. Feasibility study of the stability of openhole multilaterals, Cook Inlet, Alaska. SPE 52186.
Perkins, T.K. and Weingarten, J.S., 1988. Stability and failure of spherical cavities in unconsolidated sand and weakly consolidated rock,
SPE 18244.
Plumb, R., 1994. Influence of composition and texture on the failure properties of clastic rocks. SPE 28022
Raaen, A. M., Hovem, K. A., Jranson, H. and Fjaer, E., 1996. FORMEL: A step forward in strength logging, SPE 36533.
Rahman, K., Khaksar, A., and Kayes, T., 2008. Minimizing sanding risk by otimizing well and perforation trajectory using an integrated
geomechanical and passive sand-control approach. SPE 11633.
Richard, T., Detournay, E. Drescher, A., Nicodme, P. and Fourmaintraux, D., 1998. The scratch test as a means to measure strength of
sedimentary rocks. SPE 47196.
Rzhevsky, V. and Novick, G., 1971. The Physics of Rocks, MIR Publ., 320 pp.
Sarda, J. P., Kessler, N., Wicquart, E., Hannaford, K. and Deflandre, J. P., 1993. Use of porosity as a strength indicator for sand production
evaluation, SPE 26454.
Schei, G., Fjaer, E., Detournay, E., Kenter, C.J., Fuh, G.F and Zausa, F., 2000. The scratch test: an attractive technique for determining
strength and elastic properties of sedimentary rocks. SPE 63255.
Surez-Rivera, R., Ostroff, G., Tan, K., Begnaud, B., Martin, W. and Bermudez, T., 2003. Continuous rock strength measurements on core
and neural network modelling result In significant improvements in log based rock strength predictions used to optimize completion
design and improve prediction of sanding potential and wellbore stability. SPE 84558.
Suarez-Rivera, R., Stenebraten, J. and Dagrain, F., 2002. Continuous scratch testing on gores allows effective calibration of log-derived
mechanical properties for use in sanding prediction evaluation. OilRocks. Paper No. 78157.
Taylor, P.G. and Appleby, R.R., 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative rock strength data in sanding prediction studies: an
application of the schmidt hammer method. SPE/IADC 101968.
Thevoux-Chabuel, H., Veillerette, A. and Rabiller, P., 1997. Multi-well log data coherence characterization using the similarity threshold
method. SPWLA, 38th Annual Logging Symposium Transactions, paper BB.
Vernik, L., Bruno, M. and Bovberg, C., 1993. Empirical relations between compressive strength and porosity of siliciclastic rocks. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci.& Geomech. Abstr., 30: 677-680.
Vernik, L., 1994. Predicting lithology and transport properties from acoustic velocities based on petrophysical classification of siliciclastics.
Geophysics 59, 420-427.
Webster, C.McK. and Taylor, P. G., 2007. Integrating quantitative and qualitative reservoir data in sand production studies: the combination
of numerical and geological analysis. SPE 108586.
Weingarten, J.S. and Perkins, T.K., 1995. Prediction of sand production in gas wells: methods and Gulf of Mexico case studies, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 47(7):596-600.
Ye, S.-J. and Rabiller, P., 2000. A new tool for electro-facies analysis: multi-resolution graph-based clustering. SPWLA, 41st Annual
Logging Symposium Transaction, paper PP.

10

SPE 121972

Table 1: UCS Models for Sandstones

Model and Reference

Equation

Remarks

Dt-McNally (McNally,
1987)

C0 = 185213e 0.037 Dt

Low to medium porosity sandstones, 65< Dt < 100

s/ft and UCS > 3000 psi, Permo-Triassic age SE
Australia

Dt-Mod McNally
(Modified McNally)

C 0 = 838825 e 0.057 Dt

A modified McNally equation for unconsolidated and

high porosity sandstones with UCS less than 3000
psi

Dt-HRDS (Rahman et
al. 2008)

C 0 = 40847 e 0.0268 Dt

Tertiary sandstones,offshore gas field, South Asia

Dt-FORMEL (Raaen et
al. 1996)

C0 = 145 (140 2.1Dt + 0.0083Dt 2 )

90< Dt < 140 s/ft

-FORMEL (Raaen et
al. 1996)

C0 = 145 (43 140 + 63 2 )

0.2< < 0.35

Dt Cubed-Sand (Chang
et al. 2006)

C 0 = 2.05 10 9 Dt 3

Gulf of Mexico,weak and unconsolidated rocks

Dt-Freyburg (Freyburg,
1972)

C 0 = 1.55 10 6 / Dt 4567 .5

Consolidated Thuringia sandstones, Germany

-Sarda (Sarda et al.

1993)

C o = 16172 e 11.6

Germigny-sous-Coulombs reservoir, with the <

0.35

-Vernik (Vernik et al.

1993)

C o = 36830 (1 2.7 )

-Vclay-Vernik

C0 = 145 (254 204 Vclay ) (1 2.7 )

Modified Vernik equation with Vclay for shaly

sandstones with < 0.30

-Literature1 (Chang et
al. 2006)

C 0 = 40165e 10

UCS between 300 and 52000 psi and less than

0.33

M-Bongkot (McPhee
et al. 2000)

C0 = 0.001182.4M 1436

Bongkot Field, Gulf of Thailand, for UCS < 5000 psi

M-Hemlock (Moos et
al. 1999)

C 0 = 1.745 10 3 M 3045

Reasonable for consolidated sandstones with <

0.30

M-GOM (Chang et al.

2006)

C 0 = 561.15e 7.86210

M-Browse (Chang et
al. 2006)

C0 = 6104.5e1.3110

Cook Inlet, Alaska unconsolidated fine to coarse

grained low strength sandstones, 10,000 ft depth
Gulf of Mexico
Consolidated sandstone with 0.05 < < 0.12 and
UCS>12000 psi, Browse Basin, Australia

E-Plumb (Bradford et
al. 1998)

C 0 = 330.7 + 0.0041E sta

Worldwide for 725 < UCS < 29000 psi

E-Everest (Bradford et
al. 1998)

2 .7
C 0 = 330.7 + 1.177 10 14 E dyn

Another form of the E-Plumb equation with dynamic

Youngs modulus

E-Literature1 (Chang et
al. 2006)

C 0 = 6700 e1.8610

Based on static Youngs modulus

Esta-C&D (Coates and

Denoo, 1981)

C0 = 4.54 10 3 E sta

Linear relation between C0 and Esta

BRUCE (Bruce, 1990)

C0 = A 0.026 10 6 Edyn K b (0.0045 + 0.0035Vclay )

Applicable to UCS > 4350 psi with

W&P (Weingarten and

Perkins, 1995)

C0 = 145 1012 (114 + 97Vclay )Kb Edyn

unconsolidated sandstones, gas fields in USA

MECHPRO1 (Fjaer et
al. 1992)

C0 = 8.7 10 12 KE dyn (1 + 0.78Vclay )

Sandstones with UCS>4350 psi

MECHPRO2 (Fjaer et
al. 1992)
-Travis Peak

C 0 = 2.27 10 10 M 2 [(1 + ) / (1 )] (1 2 )(1 + 0.78Vclay

2

A = 2 cos / (1 sin )

Sandstones with UCS>4350 psi

Tight sandstone with 0.01 < < 0.18

C 0 = 4697 0.466
7

Tight sandstone with 0.01 < < 0.18

Tight sandstone with 0.01 < < 0.18

M-Travis Peak

C 0 = 3648e 3.6510

E-Travis Peak

C 0 = 3668e 4.1410

SPE 121972

11

Table 2: UCS Models for Shales

Model and Reference

Equation

Remarks

Dt- Horsrud (Horsrud, 2001)

C 0 = 111.65 (304.8 / Dt )

High porosity North Sea Tertiary shales

Dt-GOM (Chang et al. 2006)

C0 = 62.35 (304.8 / Dt )

Pliocene and younger shales

Dt-Global (Chang et al. 2006)

C0 = 195.75 (304.8 / Dt )

Globally applicable

Dt Cubed-Shale (Chang et al. 2006)

C0 = 72.5 (304.8 / Dt )

Gulf of Mexico

Dt-Lal (Lal, 1999)

C0 = 1450 (304.8 / Dt 1)

High porosity Tertiary shales

E-Horsrud (Horsrud, 2001)

C 0 = 0.0232 E 0.91

High porosity North Sea Tertiary shales

E-Literature1 (Chang et al. 2006)

C0 = 0.221E 0.712

Strong and compacted shales

-L&D (Lashkaripour and Dusseault, 1993)

C 0 = 145 .1 1.143

Compacted shales ( < 0.10)

-Horsrud (Horsrud, 2001)

C 0 = 424 .7 0.96

High porosity North Sea Tertiary shales

-Literature1 (Chang et al. 2006)

C 0 = 41.47 1.762

Shales with > 0.27

Rhob-shale

C 0 = 0.0123e 4.89 b

Developed from published data for density < 2.4 g/cc

2.93

3.2

2 .6

Table 3: UCS Models for Carbonates

Model and Reference

Equation

Remarks

Dt-M&S (Militzer and Stoll, 1973)

C0 = (7682 / Dt )

Limestones

Dt-G&R (Golubev and Rabinovich, 1976)

C 0 = 10 (2.44 +109 .14 / Dt )

Limestones

-Rzhewski (Chang et al. 2006)

C0 = 40020(1 3 )

Similar to Vernik formula with different constants

-Limestone1 (Chang et al. 2006)

C 0 = 19705.5e 4.8

Strong limestones with low porosity (0.06 on average)

-Limestone2 (Chang et al. 2006)

C 0 = 20851e 6.95

UCS > 4900 psi in a field in Middle East

E-Limestone (Chang et al. 2006)

C 0 = 4.66 E 0.51

Moderately to very strong limestones (UCS > 2000

psi)

E-Dolomite (Chang et al. 2006)

C 0 = 64E 0.34

Dolomite with 8700 < UCS < 14500 psi

1.82

Table 4: TWC Models

Model and Reference
TWC-UCS

Equation

TWC = 80.8765 C 0

Remarks
0.58

Global for sandstones

TWC-M (Rahman et al. 2008)

TWC = 108 M 1.77

Tertiary sandstones, gas field in South Asia

TWC-

TWC = 20.62 3.54

Weak sandstones

12

SPE 121972

Table 5: Friction Angle models

Model and Reference

Equation

FANG-Dt (Lal, 1999)

Remarks
Shales

304878
304878

1000 /
+ 1000
Dt

Dt

= sin 1

FANG-M (McPhee et al.

2000)

= 1.0691 10 6 M + 28.51

Sandstone, Bongkot Field, Gulf of Thailand.

FANG-Vclay -1 (Plumb,
1994)

= 26 .5 37.4(1 V clay ) + 62.1(1 V clay )2

Both sandstones and shales

= 20.5 + 15(1 Vclay )

Sandstones

FANG-1 (Weingarten and

Perkins, 1995)

= 57.8 105

Sandstones

FANG-2 (Perkins and

Weingarten,1988)

= 58 135

Weak sandstones

FANG-Vclay -2

FANG-b

tan = 0.1 b

Sandstones

2.85

Axial deviatoric
Stress (1-3)

Before

n
Peak strength

Residual strength

After

Increasing
confinement
Axial strain

Figure 1. Typical plot of axial deviatoric stress vs. axial deformation during single stage triaxial tests (SST)

8,000

Pp = 1 MPa
Pc = 9 MPa

6,000
Shear Stress (psi)

Sample ID: BTA-2

UCS = 4882 psi
Fric. Angle = 34.85 deg.
Cohesion = 1275 psi

Peak Strength
UCS = 4882 psi

7,000

= tan

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

S0

Principal Stress Plot-Peak Strength

14,000

Effective stress - 1 (psi)

Pp = 1 MPa
Pc = 6 MPa

y = 3.67x + 4882
R=1

12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

400

Pp = 1 MPa
Pc = 12 MPa

5,000

2,000

1,000

1,600

2,000

Principal Stress Plot-Residual Strength

(psi)
1

3,000

1,200

8,000

Effective stress -

Shear Stress (psi)

Sample ID: BTA-2

UCS = 2030 psi
Fric. Angle = 31.33 deg.
Cohesion = 570 psi

Residual Strength
UCS = 2030 psi

4,000

800

Effective confining stress - 3 (psi)

Effective Normal Stress (psi)

y = 3.167x + 2030
R = 0.999
6,000

4,000

2,000

0
0

2,000

4,000
Effective Normal Stress (psi)

6,000

8,000

400

800

1,200

Effective confining stress -

1,600
3

2,000

(psi)

Figure 2. Example of Mohr circles in shear stress vs. effective normal stress space, with a fitted linear Coulomb failure envelope for
both peak and residual strengths for a set of triaxial tests on three plugs. Also shown (right) are the plots of effective stress at failure
vs. confining effective stress (1 vs 3).

SPE 121972

13

Pp = 1 MPa
Pc = 2, 4, 8, 10 MPa
8,000
7,000

Shear Stress (psi)

Sample ID: BTA-2 MST

UCS = 4694 psi
Fric. Angle = 42.54 deg.
Cohesion = 1032 psi

Peak Strength
UCS = 4694 psi

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Effective Normal Stress (psi)

Figure 3. Example multi-stage triaxial test (MST) results on a preserved sandstone plug (data source, Khaksar et al. 2008).

4.5
4

axial load (kN)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

Well defined failure point,

ambiguous failure plane

1
0.5
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1000

1200

tim e (s)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0.2

0.1

Poorly defined failure (sample damage)

0
0

200

400

600

800

t ime ( s)

Figure 4. Examples of unconfined compressive tests on two sandstone plugs with ambiguous results.

14

SPE 121972

10000
10005
10010
10015
10020
10025
10030
10035
10040
10045
10050
10055
10060
10065
10070
10075
10080
10085
10090
10095
10100

Figure 5. Example of the Equotip 3 impact strength indicator plotted against other petrophysical parameters for a cored interval. Also
shown (left) are, Schmitt hammer (top) and Equotip 3 (below) impact testing tools in action.

TWC (psi)
7850

4000

8000

12000

16000

7900
Core TWC vs. Log - Derived Compressional Modulus (M)
7,000

Core TWC (psi)

6,000
5,000

1.77
TWC = 1E-08 M
R = 0.85

7950
Log-derived
core data
8000

4,000
3,000
2,000

8050

1,000
0
2.E+06

3.E+06

3.E+06

4.E+06

4.E+06

5.E+06

5.E+06

8100

Dynamic Compressional Modulus (psi)

8150

8200

8250

Figure 6. Core-log correlation between measured TWC and dynamic compressional modulus M from well logs (left) and Log-derived
TWC profile (right) for sandstones in a gas field, offshore South Asia (data source, Rahman et al. 2008).

SPE 121972

15

400

400

350

350
UCS data

300

300

UCS-Phi -Vernik
UCS-Phi-Literature-1

250

250

UCS-Phi-Formel
200

200

UCS-Phi-Sarda

150

150

100

100

50

50

UCS data
UCS -E-Everest
UCS-E-Literature 1
UCS-E -C&D
sta

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

Porosity (%)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Young's Modulus (GPa)

Figure 7. Comparison between different empirical equations for UCS strength in sandstones for porosity-based models (left) and
Youngs modulus-based models (right), in SI unit system.

Sandstone UCS Profile-Well A

UCS (psi)
0

Sandstone UCS Profile-Well B

UCS (psi)

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

5555
5560

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

5505
Mod McNally

5510

Core UCS

5565

Depth (MD ft)

5570
5575

Dt-McNally

5515

M-Hemlock

5520

Phi-Vclay-Vernik

5525
5530

5580
5535
5585
5540
5590
5595

5545
5550

5600

5555

5605

5560

Figure 8. Comparison between different empirical equations for UCS strength for the same reservoir sandstone in two nearby North
Sea oil wells. In Well A (left) predictions by Vclay-Vernik model are consistent with UCS from core measurements whereas in Well B
(right) the same model signficanlty underestimates UCS strength at depth of core sample.

16

SPE 121972

Figure 9. An example of rock strength prediction in the North Sea using the complimentary techniques of fuzzy logic and log
clustering. Data shown in second track from right are as follows: TWC_1 is Thick wall cylinder strength from core test,
TWCPRED_FM3 is predicted TWC strength based on clustering methods and TWCPRED_FL3 is predicted TWC strength based on
fuzzy logic methods.