ARMA/USRMS 05-670

Poroelastic analysis of rock indentation failure by a drill bit

Zhang, Jincai
CIRES, The University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0216, USA

Roegiers, J.-C.
Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure
Development in the Northern Regions, held in Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA 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 acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: A double porosity geomechanical model has been developed to analyze rock indentation in porous media. In this
model, both the effects of solid deformation and fluid flow (matrix as well as fractures) are considered, making it more applicable
in the case of naturally fractured porous media. It has been found that rock failures depend not only on the in-situ stress conditions,
but also on the formation characteristics. Numerical analyses show that the rock is more likely to fail when assuming it behaves as
a dual-porosity medium.

1. INTRODUCTION
Rock cutting by bit indentation is a basic process in
borehole drilling and mechanical excavation. An
accurate simulation of the rock cutting helps in
planning efficient drilling operations and
optimization of drill bit design. Many attempts have
been made to understand the mechanisms of rock
failure and chip formation under a drill bit. A
number of researchers have performed indentation
experiments and numerical modeling (e.g. Swenson
and Jones, 1984; Huang et al., 1998). Rock
indentation is normally represented by a circular
flat-bottomed punch pressing against the surface of
an elastic, semi-infinite body (Cook et al., 1984;
Pierry and Charlier, 1994). Saouma and Kleinosky
(1984) simulated the crack initiation and subsequent
crack propagation with the finite element method.
Alehossein and Hood (1996) used a distinct element
code to model crack propagation under a spherical
indentation. Liu et al. (2002) modeled the
heterogeneous rock failure process induced by
single and double indenters. All these authors
treated rocks as either an elastic or an elastoplastic
medium. However, for those cutting in naturally

fractured porous formations, the mechanism of rock

failure needs to be further investigated.
2. FAILURE CRITERIA IN POROUS MEDIUM
Many porous rock formations are inherently
heterogeneous due to the existence of
discontinuities and natural fractures. Thus, the
porous rock as a homogeneous continuum with an
associated single porosity may not simulate
properly the rockmass behavior. However, the
influence and the modeling of these fractures can be
considered using a dual-porosity continuum
concept. Naturally fractured formation is then
treated ideally as a dual-porosity/dual-permeability
medium. The fractured rockmass is thought of as a
number of porous blocks, separated from each other
by a system of randomly distributed fractures. Thus,
the fracture and matrix systems are distinctly
different in both porosity and permeability. The
global flow occurs primarily through the highpermeable,
low-porosity
fracture
system
surrounding the matrix blocks. These last ones
contain the majority of the reservoir storage volume
and act as the local source or sink terms to the
fracture system. In addition, these fractures are

present study concentrates on the rock indentation.

Figure 1 represents the finite element mesh used to
analyze the interaction between the bit and the rock.
Plane stress conditions were assumed to be valid
and two cases were examined: normal stress and
tectonic stress regime. The input parameters are
given in Table 1.

As far as failure criteria are concerned, the

numerical code considered all three mechanisms
(i.e. tensile, compressive, or shear) and selected
whichever was reached first. It is commonly
accepted that the failure of the porous rock is
controlled by Terzaghis effective stress concept
(Zhang et al., 2003):

ij = ij ij pma

(1)

where ij is the effective stress tensor; ij is the

total stress tensor; pma is the matrix pore pressure
and is the Kronecker delta.

Sz

Sx

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

interconnected and provide the main fluid flow path

to the wells. For a separate and overlapping model,
the finite element method was used to solve this
coupled poromechanical formulation; a software
package, i.e. RWAS (Reservoir and Wellbore
Analysis Software) was developed and validated
(Zhang, 2002).

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

-1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

Sx

-0.8
-1

Sy

2.1. Mohr-Coulomb Failure

In the principal space (1,2,3), the MohrCoulomb failure criterion is given by:

Fig. 1. Finite element mesh for drilling bit cutting problem.

1 = c + q 3

3.1. Influence of rock media

Three different rock media were studied in order to
evaluate the dual-porosity effect (i.e. elastic, single-,
and dual-porosity media). The in-situ stress
configurations (normal stress regime) as well as bit
loading are shown in Figure 2.

(2)

where 1 , 3 are the maximum and minimum

effective principal stresses, respectively; is the
angle of internal friction; and q = (1 + sin ) (1 sin ) ;
The effective shear failure stress can thus be
defined as:

mohr = c + q 3 1

(3)

where mohr is the effective shear failure stress.

2.2. Tensile Failure
Tensile failure will occur when the effective least
principal stress equals to rock tensile strength, that
is:

3 = T

(4)

where 3 is the least effective principal stresses

(note that 3 is negative).

3. NUMERICAL ANALYSES
There are two types of rock failures induced by a
bit: indentation and dragging or shearing. The

Figure 3 illustrates the comparisons of effective

shear failure stresses for elastic, single- and dualporosity solutions (negative values for stress denote
failure). It can be seen that in the case of a dualporosity medium, shear failure potential is much
higher except at the wellbore wall.
Figure 4 represents shear failure in the case when
the bit loading is 40 MPa. It is obvious that such
type of failure is mainly concentrated on the
downward side of the cutter. Figure 5 represents
tensile failure in the normal stress regime for a
cutter loading of 50 MPa, and shows that, here
again failure occurs in the same orientation. Hence,
in a normal stress regime, failures concentrate
mainly at the bottom of the drill hole (refer to
Figure 6).

= 29 MPa
= 25 MPa
= 20 MPa
= 10 MPa

Bit loading p = 40 MPa

Sx

Sx

p = 40 MPa, t = 100 sec.

30

Shear failure stress (MPa)

Sz
Sx
Sy
p0

Sz

Sy

25
20
15
10
5

stable

failure

-5

Single porosity
Elastic
Dual-porosity

-10
-15

r/R

-20
1

Fig. 2. Stress configration for the bit and rock interaction in

normal stress regime. In the figure, bit loading is a uniform
pressure acted on the rock produced by the drill bit. The fluid
pressure is 10 MPa.

Table 1. Input parameters for the numerical analyses

Parameter

Unit

Value

Analyses

Elastic modulus (E)

GN/m2

20.6

A, B, C

Poissons ratio ()

0.189

A, B, C

Fracture stiffness (Kn , Ksh)

MN/m2/m

482.1

Fluid bulk modulus (Kf)

MN/m2

419.2

B, C

2.5

r/R

Fig. 3. Stress configration for the bit and rock interaction in

normal stress regime.

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

Sz

1.5

-0.3
0

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.1

-0.2

Shear failure
FEM mesh
-0.3

Dual-porosity ( p = 40 MPa, t = 100 Sec.)

Grain bulk modulus (Ks)

GN/m

48.2

B, C

Matrix porosity (nma)

0.02

B, C

Fracture porosity (nfr)

0.002

Fig. 4. Rock shear failure area around the cutter in the normal
stress regime for cutter loading of 40 MPa at t = 100 s.

Matrix mobility (kma /)

m4/MNs

10-19

B, C

Fracture mobility (kfr /)

m4/MNs

10-18

Fracture spacing (s)

1.0

Compressive strength (c)

MN/m2

20

A, B, C

Internal friction angle ()

30

A, B, C

Tensile strength

MN/m2

A, B, C

Note, A = elastic; B = single-porosity; C = Dual-porosity.

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.1

-0.2
Tensile failure
FEM mesh
-0.3
Dual-porosity ( p = 50 MPa, t = 100 Sec.)

Fig. 5. Rock tensile failure area around the cutter in normal

stress regime for cutter loading of 50 MPa at t = 100 s.

Sz

Sz = 20 MPa
Sx = 25 MPa
Sy = 29 MPa

max

Bit loading p = 40 MPa

Spalling failure

Sx

min

Sx
Sy

min
Sz
Fig. 7. Stress configration for the bit and rock interaction in
tectonic stress regime. The fluid pressure is 10 MPa.

max

It can be seen that the state of stress has a

significant impact on the rock fragmentation. When
rock cutting is performed in a normal stress regime,
the rock shear and tensile failures concentrate
downwards (Figure 6). However, in a tectonic stress
regime, the rock shear and tensile failures are
located on two sides of the cutter (Figure 10).

-0.3
0

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.1

-0.2
Shear failure
FEM mesh
-0.3
Dual-porosity ( p = 40 MPa, t = 100 Sec.)

Fig. 8. Formation shear failure area around the cutter in

tectonic stress regime for cutter loading 40 MPa at t = 100 s.

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

3.2. Tectonic stress regime

The other case considered in this paper is rock
cutting in a tectonic stress regime, as shown in
Figure 7. Using the same input parameter as listed
in Table 1. Figures 8 and 9 show rock shear and
tensile failures due to the cutter loadings (p = 40
MPa) at t = 100 s. It is obvious that the maximum
shear and tensile failures are concentrated along the
two wings of the cutter and there is basically no
failure occurring in the cutter downward direction.
In this case, increasing bit loading can be a good
choice for insuring making hole.

Distance from cutter center (r/10R)

Fig. 6 Schematic diagram of rock shear or tensile failure

around the cutter in the normal stress regime.

-0.3
0

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

-0.1

-0.2
Tensile failure
FEM mesh

-0.3

Dual-porosity ( p = 40 MPa, t = 100 Sec.)

0.3

Fig. 9. Formation tensile failure area around the cutter in

tectonic stress regime for cutter loading 40 MPa at t = 100 s.

min

two sides of the cutter. These may be of importance

for bit design.

REFERENCES
1.

Swenson, D.V. and Jones, A.K., 1981. Analytical and

experimental investigations of rock cutting using
polycrystalline diamond compact drag cutters. SPE
10150 presented at the 56th Ann. Fall Tech. Conf. of
SPE of AIME, San Antonio, Texas.

2.

Huang, H., Damjanac, B. and Detournay, E., Normal

wedge indentation in rocks with lateral confinement,
Rock Mech. Rock Engng., 31 (2), 1998, 81-94.

3.

Cook, N.G.W., Hood, M. and Tsai, F., 1984.

Observations of crack growth in hard rock loaded by an
indenter. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
2(2), 97107.

4.

Alehossein H. and Hood M., 1996. State-of-the-art

review of rock models for disc roller cutters. In:
Aubertin, Hassani, Mitri, editor. Rock Mechanics,
Balkema, Rotterdam, p.693700.

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of formation failure around the

cutter in tectonic stress regime.

5.

Liu, H. Y. , Kou, S. Q., Lindqvist P. A. and Tang, C.

A., 2002. Numerical simulation of the rock
fragmentation process induced by indenters. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39(4), 491-505.

4. CONCLUSIONS

6.

Saouma V. E. and Kleinosky M., 1984. Finite element

simulation of rock cutting: a fracture mechanics
approach. Proc. 25th US Symp. on Rock Mech., ASCE,
p.792799.

7.

Pierry, J. and Charlier, R., 1994. Finite element

modeling of shear band localization and application to
rock cutting. SPE 28052 presented at SPE/ISRM Rock
Mech. in Petrol. Conf., Delft, The Netherlands.

8.

Zhang, J., Dual-porosity approach to wellbore stability

in naturally fractured reservoirs, Ph.D. dissertation, U.
of Oklahoma, 2002.

9.

Zhang, J., Bai, M. and Roegiers, J. -C., 2003. Dualporosity analyses of wellbore stability. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., 41, 473-483.

Spalling failure

max

max

Rock failures caused by a drill bit have been

analyzed in different states of in-situ stress and in
different rock media using a dual-porosity/dual
permeability approach. This study shed some light
on understanding the mechanisms governing cutting
failure and simulating rock/bit interaction. It was
found that rock failures depend not only on the insitu stress, but also on formation characteristics,
such as elastic, single porosity or double porosity
media.
Comparing to elastic and single-porosity solutions,
the dual-porosity solution has the highest
probability of inducing shear failure, and produces
the largest shear failure zone around the wellbore.
The in-situ state of stress in the rock formation has a
significant impact on rock cutting failures. When
rock cutting is performed in a normal stress regime,
the rock shear and tensile failures concentrate
downwards of the drilling hole; i.e. helping in
making hole. However, in a tectonic stress regime,
the rock shear and tensile failures are located on