IADC/SPE-189589-MS

A Practical Model for Wellbore Strengthening

Kuhan Chellappah, Reza Majidi, and Mark Aston, BP; John Cook, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, 6–8 March 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a new model that integrates relevant aspects of geomechanics and drilling fluids to
provide practical solutions for wellbore strengthening. This integrated approach accounts for the influence
of stress state, rock properties, wellbore design parameters, and the impact of particle-laden fluids on
the creation, growth, and arrest of an induced fracture. A dimensionless parameter called the Wellbore
Strengthening Index (WSI) is introduced as a measure of desired strengthening normalised to the rock
stiffness. WSI is used to estimate the concentration of wellbore strengthening material (WSM) required for
a given application. A semi-empirical correlation then relates solids loading to the length of an induced
fracture at time of sealing. A closed-form equation is proposed to estimate fracture width using this
calculated fracture length. Once induced fracture dimensions are determined, appropriately sized WSM
is selected for efficient sealing. The model is relatively straightforward to code into a practical and
user-friendly design tool for wellbore strengthening. Two case studies are presented to show successful
implementation of the new model.

Introduction
Wellbore strengthening procedures aim to increase the operating fracture gradient, the fluid pressure that can
be applied in a section of a wellbore before significant losses occur. Another name might be loss prevention
procedures. Actions taken after significant losses are more typically called lost circulation control.
Wellbore strengthening has been increasingly used over the past 15 years (Alberty and McLean, 2001,
2004; Dupriest, 2005; van Oort et al., 2008). It is particularly useful, for example, when wells must
pass through formations where the fracture gradient has decreased because of depletion, but the drilling
fluid density cannot be lowered because of pore pressure or wellbore stability requirements in adjacent
formations.
In such situations, losses from the wellbore are typically due to drilling-induced fractures, which are
generated when the pressure of the drilling fluid exceeds the fracture gradient. Losses into natural (pre-
existing) fractures, or vugs and caverns, are less influenced by depletion and less amenable to wellbore
strengthening methods.
2 IADC/SPE-189589-MS

The generation of fractures from wellbores has been studied for many years (Alberty and McLean,
2004; Guo et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016), usually divided into fracture initiation (fracture lengths smaller
than one or two wellbore diameters) and growth or propagation phases (lengths greater than ~2 wellbore
diameters). The stress field around the wellbore means that initiation may be stable or unstable as wellbore
pressure is increased. The subsequent growth phase is more straightforward; when the wellbore pressure
exceeds the minimum far-field stress in the formation and is exerted all the way along to the fracture tip,
the fracture will grow. The second of these conditions provides the basis of most wellbore strengthening
methods; if wellbore pressure can be prevented from reaching the tip of the fracture, the wellbore pressure
can be higher than the minimum stress without further fracture growth and fluid loss. To achieve maximum
strengthening and minimum drilling fluid loss, this blockage of the wellbore pressure should be achieved
as rapidly as possible while the fracture is short, and as close to the mouth of the fracture as possible.
Restricting the transmission of wellbore pressure along the fracture can be achieved in numerous ways.
The drilling fluid can be designed with a careful choice of particle sizes and leak-off characteristics to
produce a low permeability plug at the tip of the fracture - analagous to a tip screenout in hydraulic fracturing
(Fuh et al., 1992).
Using another approach, the fluid can be engineered with high solids content and high leak-off, to deposit
an immobile mass of filtercake in the fracture. This may require repeated squeezes to consolidate the
filtercake and push it towards the tip, until the desired strengthening is obtained (Dupriest, 2005).
A third approach is to incorporate a blend of large and small particles into the fluid that are chosen so
that the largest particles form a bridge in the fracture somewhere close to the mouth. The smaller particles
are deposited on this bridge to reduce its permeability, thus causing the fluid beyond the bridge to leak off
into the formation. The fluid is not replenished from the wellbore, and the pressure and fracture width in
the tip section decreases, and the fracture stops growing (van Oort et al, 2008).
A variation of the third approach, generally known as stress cage (Alberty and McLean, 2001), requires
that the bridge-forming particles are hard and stiff (typically ground marble). The idea behind this is that
when the tip pressure decreases and the fracture starts to close, the bridge particles exert extra hoop stress
around the wellbore, which increases fracture reopening pressure.
Knowing the dimensions of the fracture is central to most of these approaches, so that the right choice
of wellbore strengthening material (WSM) can be made. The width can be calculated if the stresses and
pressures, the rock elastic moduli, and the fracture length are known. Linear elastic fracture mechanics
allows for calculating the length of a short fracture if the stresses and pressures are known, together with a
material parameter called fracture toughness (a measure of the resistance of the rock to crack propagation).
Unfortunately, the fracture toughness is hard to measure and is rarely known. The length calculations
from fracture mechanics theory are useful in understanding how a fracture behaves in general, and have
been extensively used in the background work to this paper. They are not, however, practical for drilling
fluid design, so existing methods generally assume a fixed fracture length (e.g., 6 inches) in order to
calculate fracture width and WSM particle sizing. The aim of the current work is to overcome the limitations
associated with the fixed length assumption and develop a design method to produce wellbore strengthening
formulations which are more practical in the field.
The current approach relies on containing the starter fracture(s) to being near the wellbore by isolating
or sealing the fracture from the wellbore pressure. The best location to plug the fracture, as confirmed by
fracture mechanics theory, is somewhere near the mouth to obtain the maximum strengthening effect. In
the proposed model, a higher particle concentration produces a shorter fracture by sealing faster, which
provides a way to limit fracture widths when a high degree of strengthening is required. Once the fracture
is arrested and sealed, fluid pressure inside the fracture will drain to the matrix and eventually will balance
to pore pressure, causing the fracture to close onto the deposited WSM. The residual strain will generate
IADC/SPE-189589-MS 3

an additional stress normal to the fracture faces. The so called "hoop-stress enhacement" becomes a
consequence of the approach rather than the underpinning mechanism.

Proposed Model Workflow

The proposed model requires a series of steps to design WSM concentration and particle size distribution
for a given wellbore strengthening application. A dimensionless parameter called Wellbore Strengthening
Index (WSI) is introduced which is an indicator of the desired strengthening and is used to estimate the
required WSM loading for a given application. This model recognizes the dynamics of fracture growth. A
target fracture length is estimated by considering how quickly a solids blend can seal a growing fracture,
which in turn is a strong function of the WSM loading. Eventually, the size of the WSM will be chosen
based on a fracture width calculated by using a proposed semi-analytical equation. Further description of
each step is given in the following sub-sections.

Wellbore Strengthening Index (WSI)

WSI is defined as a dimensionless indicator of the desired amount of strengthening (difference between the
wellbore pressure and the far-field minimum stress) normalized by rock stiffness and can be considered an
indicative measure of the required WSM loading. WSI is calculated through Eq. 1:

(1.a)

(1.b)
where SH and Sh are the maximum and minimum stresses perpendicular to the wellbore, Pw is the target
wellbore pressure, E the Young's Modulus, and v the Poisson's ratio. The term E’ is described as the plane
strain or reduced Young's modulus. The second term in Eq. 1.b represents stress anisotropy where the
coefficient α is a weighting factor for stress anisotropy. Historical wellbore strengthening applications by
the operator in this study suggests that the impact of stress anisotropy can be sufficiently captured when
0.15< α <0.25 with a default value of 0.25.
The wellbore pressure used when determining WSI in the design stage is often the maximum anticipated
hydrostatic pressure exerted by the circulating fluid including the pressure drop due to frictional drag. WSI
will increase as the difference between wellbore pressure and minimum principal stress increases. For a stiff
rock (high E’), WSI will be low and the formation will be relatively easy to strengthen. Less stiff rocks will
tend to give higher WSI values and be more challenging. Table 1 gives a typical range of WSI values for a
rock with a reduced Young's Modulus of 1×106 psi with isotropic stress conditions.

Table 1—Typical WSI values for a rock with reduced Young's modus of 1×106 psi.

WSI Pw - Sh

Low 0.1 100 psi

Medium 0.5 500 psi
High 1.0 1000 psi

Estimating Required WSM Concentration

WSM concentration is linked to WSI; a large WSI value requires a high concentration of large WSM
particles and vice versa (the more challenging an application so the higher the WSM loading). Historically,
the operator in this study has not explicitly calculated the WSI value during design of a wellbore
strengthening formulation. However, upon analyzing past data-sets it became evident that the WSM
concentrations used in successful designs increased linearly with WSI. This linear relationship can be seen
4 IADC/SPE-189589-MS

from Fig. 1, which plots the WSM concentrations used for several wellbore strengthening applications
against the corresponding (back-calculated) values of WSI. For example, as WSI increased from 0.3 to
0.6, the design WSM concentrations increased from approximately 10 ppb to 20 ppb. It is reasonable to
capture and maintain this successful approach with solids concentration in the new model. Accordingly, the
following assumption is made:
(2)
where the constant Kc is chosen to match the historical WSM concentrations used by BP (slope in Fig. 1).

Figure 1—Historical data from 26 BP wells showing WSM concentrations used for the various values of WSI.

Calculating Induced Fracture Length

As the fracture grows, fluid carrying sealing particles flow into it; the more particles that enter the fracture,
the more likely a seal will be formed. The speed of sealing should be a strong function of solids loading,
and higher solids concentrations should seal the fracture faster, thus resulting in smaller fracture volumes.
The following semi-empirical relationship is used to estimate the fracture volume:

Eqn (3)

where k3 is a constant of proportionality, h is the fracture height at the wellbore and Cs is the WSM volumetric
concentration. Eq. 3 is an approximation that has validity within certain limits of solids concentration
and sizes. In theory, the volume of available fluid associated with each particle is inversely proportional
to the particle concentration in that fluid. For example, if particle concentration doubles, then the fluid
volume associated with each particle halves. The fracture volume per unit height of fracture is related to the
volume of fluid associated with a fracture-plugging particle, hence there is an inverse relationship between
solids concentration and fracture volume as seen in Eq. 3. Equation (3) was experimentally found to be a
reasonable approximation for WSM volume fractions of between ~0.5-5 %; for illustration, this volume
fraction corresponds to approximately 5 to 50 ppb of commonly used ground marble WSM.
Slot tests were performed using various slot apertures, pressures, and particulate blends in typical oil-
and water-based drilling fluids. The tests measure the volume of fluid that passes through a parallel slot of
defined size, under a pre-set pressure differential, before the slot aperture is sealed by the solids present. This
‘fluid loss’ is a proxy for the total volume of fluid invasion into a fracture, hence the volume of that fracture.
Fig. 2 shows example slot test results at various WSM loadings. Two nut shell-based formulations were
tested in an otherwise solids-free field oil-based drilling fluid. In each case the size distributions were kept
constant and designed such that their d80 values were equal to the slot aperture they were tested against
(i.e. 80% of nut shell A was smaller than 1 mm and 80% of nut shell B was smaller than 1.2 mm). The slot
IADC/SPE-189589-MS 5

test pressure used for these nut shell formulations was 500 psi. Slot tests were also performed on a 0.5 mm
aperture with laboratory prepared water-based drilling fluids containing ground marble WSM formulations.
Two slot test pressures were used on these marble-based blends, 500 and 1500 psi. Size distributions were
again kept constant with d80 matching the slot width (0.5 mm), and total concentration varied. The materials
and concentrations used in the experiments were representative of typical systems used in the field. The
experiments' key finding was that increasing the WSM concentration within the concentration range of
interest generally resulted in a linear (or near-linear) decrease in the volume of fluid expelled before sealing,
substantiating the assumption behind Eq. 3.

Figure 2—Slot test results using nut shell and ground marble-based WSM formulations
of well-defined size distributions at different concentrations. Various slot widths and
pressures were trialled, maintaining the formulation's d80 equal to the slot width.

The fracture volume at a given instance in time is therefore related to its geometry as in Eq. 4:
(4)
where k2 is related to the geometry of the fracture. For a triangular prism shaped fracture, k2 = 0.5.
For a given wellbore strengthening application with constant rock properties, for simplicity, it is assumed
that fracture width varies linearly with fracture length:
(5)
where k1 is a proportionality constant. This assumption is reasonable if the fracture length is comparable
to the wellbore diameter, and the rock remains elastic. Eq. (5) implies that as a fracture grows at constant
pressure, the fracture volume increases due to an increase in both width and length, with the width to length
ratio remaining approximately constant.
Combining Eq. 4 and 5 gives a relationship between fracture length and fracture volume:

(6)

It is further assumed that the fluid-driven fracture volume is entirely filled with fluid. Leak-off into the
permeable formation is ignored; this is a conservative approach as leak-off should further dissipate pressure
which would otherwise act to propagate the fracture. Given a fluid-filled fracture without any leak-off from
the fracture into the formation, then the fracture volume should equal the total volume of fluid expelled
from the wellbore into the fracture.
6 IADC/SPE-189589-MS

Combining Eq. 5 and 6 gives:

(7)

According to Eq. 7, the fracture length is inversely proportional to the square root of WSM concentration.
The term K1 is a lumped constant, accounting for three previously introduced constants k1, k2, and k3, such
that:

(8)

Fig. 3 shows this inverse square root relationship between solids concentration and target fracture length
(Eq. 7), and how it relates to the WSI (secondary vertical axis). For instance, when a higher amount of
strengthening (larger WSI) is desired, smaller target fracture lengths are expected through using a higher
concentration of solids; and this is attributed to rapid fracture sealing. Typical concentrations used in the
field range from 5 ppb to 40 ppb. The graphics embedded in the plot attempt to illustrate how a higher WSM
loading can result in more rapid sealing (shorter fractures).

Figure 3—Inverse square root relationship between WSM concentration and fracture
length, and how it relates to the WSI parameter on the secondary vertical axis.

Calculating Induced Fracture Width

Once fracture length is calculated, the next step is to determine the corresponding fracture width. Fracture
width is required to design the WSM size distribution for an application. Fracture width calculation involves
a geomechanics-based model that considers an induced fracture emanating from a pressurized circular
wellbore (Pw) subject to anisotropic far-field stresses. This problem is solved either by a finite element
calculation or a closed-form semi-analytical solution, as has been done by previous researchers (Alberty
and McLean, 2004; Guo et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). In this paper, a semi-analytical relationship is
proposed, Eq. 9, which provides an approximate solution to the finite element analysis:

(9)

where Wf is fracture width, Lf is fracture length, rw is wellbore radius, E is Dynamic Young's Modulus, v
is Poisson ratio, Pw the target wellbore pressure and Sh and SH are the minimum and maximum stresses
perpendicular to the wellbore, respectively.
IADC/SPE-189589-MS 7

The proposed solution is simple to implement and is sufficiently accurate for its intended applications.
The fracture widths estimated by Eq. 9 have been verified against the finite element calculations through
a range of input parameters such as stress anisotropies, borehole sizes, rock properties, and target wellbore
strengthening pressures. Eq. 9 is especially useful when multiple fracture width estimations are required,
for instance in scenarios involving a wide range of uncertainties or input variabilities. For these cases, the
numerical finite element solution becomes inefficient and time consuming.

Designing a Wellbore Strengthening Formulation

The fracture width calculated using Eq. (9) is then used to design the WSM formulation particle size
distribution. The d80 of the formulation is set to equal the fracture width, giving 20% by volume of WSM
larger than the fracture width; this was seen to be a good compromise between sealing performance and
minimizing the requirement for large particles. Sealing experiments such as slot testing (Chellappah et al.,
2015) have shown that this approach generally provides adequate sealing performance. The cumulative
volume % of particles under a given size is designed to be linear with particle size. This linear size
distribution means that there is an equal volume of particles of each size within the distribution (Chellappah
and Aston, 2012). The above criteria are presented in the following two equations which describe how
fracture width is used to give a design particle size distribution:
(10)

(11)

where d100 is the diameter of the largest WSM particle, and CV is the cumulative volume (%) of WSM
particles smaller than size d. Having established the design size distribution for a given application,
appropriate WSM products are blended to give a formulation with a resultant size distribution that best
approximates this design.
The steps involved in the model are summarized in Fig. 4.

Figure 4—A summary of the steps required to design a wellbore strengthening formulation using the new model.
8 IADC/SPE-189589-MS

Case Studies
The above approach was field trialed on two case studies from different regions and formation types.
Particle size distributions were maintained during drilling by adding appropriate WSM products to the
drilling fluid to combat phenomena such as solids attrition. Addition rates of these WSM products were
consistently governed by regular rig-site sieve analysis – the more rapid the WSM size degradation, the
greater the rate of solids addition for maintenance. For comparison purposes, the design formulations that
would conventionally have been used are included in the case studies. The new approach tends to give
manageable formulations when compared to the conventional approach in terms of WSM sizes and/or
concentrations used Both case studies were successful in that adequate wellbore strengthening was obtained
without any mud loss, and logistics were simpler.

Case Study 1
In the first example, the new model was used to design a formulation for wellbore strengthening during
drilling of a 12.25" hole at a total vertical depth of 1200m. Significant depletion and low rock strength
made it challenging to drill with the drilling fluid density required to maintain wellbore stability. Laboratory
measured Young's Modulus of the formation was 6.1×105 psi. The pore pressure and fracture gradient values
were 750 and 1900 psi respectively, and the maximum wellbore pressure (equivalent circulating density)
experienced by this depleted section was 2500 psi. Hence the required ‘strengthening’ was approximately
600 psi. The WSI value was calculated to be 1.05, which suggests a challenging application (see Table 1).
The depleted section was at a 70° deviation and the required use of a Rotary Steerable System (RSS) limited
the size of large WSM particles in the drilling fluid.
Table 2 shows the wellbore strengthening formulations given by both the new model and the operator's
conventional approach. The conventional approach required a formulation with a d80 of approximately 1000
microns, whereas the corresponding d80 using the new model was 600 microns. The numbers following a
product (e.g. ‘Ground Marble 150’) refer to the median particle size (d50) of that product.

Table 2—Wellbore strengthening formulations given by the new model (used in case
study 1), and the conventional approach (what would otherwise have been required).

WSM products Conventional Design (ppb) New Model Design (ppb)

Ground Marble 150 10 -

Resilient Graphitic Carbon 400 - 12
Nut Shell Fine 400 - 10
Ground Marble 600 30 -
Total (ppb) 40 22

The products required in the conventional and new approaches were different because of the different
fracture width estimates. Although Table 2 appears to show a lower concentration with the new model, the
WSM volume fractions are similar with both approaches; the lower ppb concentration in the new approach
is due to the use of lower density WSM.
Besides providing the required strengthening, the new model overcame some practical limitations
and greatly simplified logistics by requiring fewer large particles. There were concerns of damaging
the RSS and logging-while-drilling (LWD) tools if large solids (~1000 microns) were used. The new
model removed concerns regarding supply of the large quantities of Ground Marble 600 required by the
conventional approach, particularly as the high attrition rates associated with large marble products would
have necessitated impractically high product addition rates for maintenance.
IADC/SPE-189589-MS 9

Case Study 2
The second example comes from a deep water well. Wellbore strengthening was implemented in several
hole sections to overcome the narrow pore pressure/fracture gradient (PPFG) environment challenges. Of
specific interest was the 18-in casing shoe that was set shallower than planned, leaving a weaker sand in
the rat hole. This shallow exposed sand required strengthening from 12.1 ppg (estimated fracture gradient)
up to fracture gradient of the boundary shales of 12.8 ppg. Using the operator's conventional approach
would require a high concentration of large WSM, and these products were not readily available on the rig.
Implementing the new model significantly reduced the need for larger particles and simplified operations.
The conventional approach required a formulation with a d80 of approximately 840 microns, whereas the
corresponding d80 using the proposed model was 600 microns. The hole section was drilled without drilling
fluid losses, and successful implementation of the new model was verified by a Pressure Integrity Test that
met the required target value.

Table 3—Wellbore strengthening formulations given by the new model (used in case
study 2), and the conventional approach (what would otherwise have been required).

WSM products Conventional Design (ppb) New Model Design (ppb)

Ground Marble 150 8 13

Ground Marble 400 5 10
Resilient Graphitic Carbon 400 5 -
Ground Marble 600 18 10
Total (ppb) 36 33

Conclusions
A new wellbore strengthening model is presented that considers the impact WSM loading has on the rate
of sealing induced fractures. This model integrates relevant aspects of geomechanics and drilling fluids,
and is focused on designs for rapid fracture sealing. The model can be utilized as a practical design tool for
wellbore strengthening applications. The model has the benefit of overcoming the assumption of a fixed
induced fracture length. More importantly, the model's wellbore strengthening designs are less demanding
of large WSM compared to the company's conventional approach. The utilization and practical benefits
of the model are illustrated by means of two case studies. In the first case study, concerns of tool damage
were alleviated by avoiding large (~1000 microns) WSM. The practical challenge of maintaining large
WSM in circulation (e.g. combating grind-down and settling) were also avoided. In the second case study,
large products were not readily available at the rig-site at short notice. The outcome of the proposed model
suggested much simpler and products were easier to obtain WSM formulations. Successful implementation
of the model was verified by a Pressure Integrity Test.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank BP and Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks
are also given to Pavithiran Chandran, Mohamed El Waseef, and Nicholas Braley for their assistance in
various aspects of this work.

Nomenclature
α Anisotropic stress weighting factor
Cs Concentration of solids by volume
dw Wellbore diameter
E Young's Modulus
10 IADC/SPE-189589-MS

E’ Reduced Young's Modulus

υ Poisson ratio
h Height of an induced fracture along the wellbore
Lf Length of an induced fracture
PPFG Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient
PSD Particle Size Distribution
Pp Pore Pressure
Pw Wellbore Pressure
rw Wellbore radius
SH Maximum stress perpendicular to wellbore
Sh Minimum stress perpendicular to wellbore
s Dimensionless characteristic fracture length ratio
Wf Width of an induced fracture
WSI Wellbore Strengthening Index
WSM Wellbore strengthening material

References
Alberty, M.W. and McLean, M.R. 2001. Fracture Gradients in Depleted Reservoirs - Drilling Wells in Late Reservoir Life.
Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 Feb – 1 March. SPE 67740.
Alberty, M. and McLean, M. 2004. A Physical Model for Stress Cages. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September. SPE 90493.
Chellappah, K. and Aston, M. 2012. A New Outlook on the Ideal Packing Theory for Bridging Solids. Presented at the
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Louisiana, 15-17 Feb. SPE 151636.
Chellappah, K., Kumar, A., and Aston, M. 2015. Drilling Depleted Sands: Challenges Associated with Wellbore
Strengthening Fluids, London, 17-19 March. SPE/IADC-173073-MS.
Dupriest, F.E. 2005 Fracture Closure Stress (FCS) and Lost Returns Practices. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, 23-25 Feb. SPE 92192.
Fuh, G.-F., Morita, N., Boyd, P. A., and McGoffin, S. J. 1992. A New Approach to Preventing Lost Circulation While
Drilling. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington D.C., 4-7 Oct. SPE 24599.
Guo, Q., Feng, Y.Z., and Jin, Z.H. 2011. Fracture Aperture for Wellbore Strengthening Applications. Presented at the 45th
U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, California, 26-29 June. ARMA-11-378.
van Oort, E., Friedheim, J., Lee, J., Sanders, M. and Pierce, T. 2008. Continuously Strengthening Wellbores Eliminates
Lost Circulation. World Oil 229 (11): 8. (see also SPE paper no. 125093).
Zhang, J., Alberty, M., and Blangy, J.P. 2016. A Semi-Analytical Solution for Estimating the Fracture Width in Wellbore
Strengthening Applications. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Texas, 14-15 Sept.
SPE 180296.