In Situ Stress

Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................... 1
In Situ Stress Origin & Magnitude
Overburden Effects ....................................... 2
Elasticity Effects ....................................... 2
Effect of Faulting ...................................... 3
Pore Pressure Effects, cl/pres ................... 4
Tectonic (and Other) Effects ......................... 5
In Situ Stress Orientation & Direction ................ 6
In Situ Stress Differences .................................... 7
Fracture Height Growth ................................ 7
Secondary Fractures ...................................... 8
In Situ Stress Measurement .................................10
Effect of Stress On Proppant ...............................11
References ...........................................................12

muth, can be critical for situations where fracture length

is a significant fraction of well spacing.
Along with the control exercised by the fracture closure stress (the minimum in situ stress in the pay zone),
the stress differences between the pay zone and surrounding formations controls fracture height. Since
height is the dominant variable in determining fracture
length, the stress differences exert an indirect control
over allowable fracture length. These and other effects
are discussed below, along with a discussion of "tools"
available to measure or predict stresses. Stress measurement is also discussed in the Pressure Analysis
Chapter.

In Situ Stress Origin and Magnitude

The first important information about the in situ
stress is the magnitude of the minimum in situ stress
the fracture closure pressure. This determines the bottomhole pressure needed to fracture the formation, and
thus determines wellbore tubular requirements, surface
horsepower requirements, etc.
Figure 1 In Situ Stress State

Introduction
Rock stresses, or the in situ state of stress, totally
dominates the process of hydraulic fracturing. The
minimum stress (fracture closure stress) in the pay zone
determines the required injection pressure and effects
the choice of proppant. Also, since a hydraulic fracture
opens perpendicular to this minimum stress, the "direction" of this stress determines the fracture orientation
(e.g., horizontal or vertical or inclined); and for vertical
fractures, the in situ stresses control the azimuth or direction. This latter effect, the control over fracture azi-

Importance of In Situ Stresses

Controls injection pressure and thus controls choice
of tubulars, horsepower, etc. (Magnitude)
Controls fracture orientation, horizontal versus vertical (inclined in rare cases), and for vertical fractures controls fracture azimuth (Direction)
Dominant role in fracture height confinement, thus
control fracture length (Differences)
Determines which formations can be stimulated
simultaneously (Differences)

max
(Equal to Overburden, V ?)

intermediate
( h-max )

min

( h-min )

Fracture Opens Perpendicular to Minimum Stress

(At Shallow Depths or in Highly Over-pressured

Reservoirs, This Can Lead to Horizontal Fractures)

In any situation, the state of stress can be characterized by three principal stresses as illustrated in Fig. 1.
For a rock mechanics situation, compression is treated
as positive so

max int ermediate min

In Situ Stress -- Page 1 of 12

For most normal fault, sedimentary environments

(e.g., most of the earth) the overburden is the maximum
principal stress so the stress state is

v hmax h min

where h-min is the fracture closure stress. These in situ

stresses in the earth originate from two sources. The
first source of stress is gravity and the weight of the
overburden (sometimes called the lithostatic stress).
The second source of in situ stress is tectonic activity
such as salt dome piercements, continental drift, etc.
Overburden Effects On Stress
For relaxed geology, with minimal tectonic activity, a typical magnitude of the minimum in situ
stress is about 0.7 psi/ft. More generally, it has been
empirically shown that in these environments the minimum in situ stress (fracture closure stress) is linearly
related to depth (weight of the overburden) and to pore
pressure (reservoir fluid pressure) by the relation

hmin = K (OB pres ) + pres

This general empirical observation is illustrated by the

data in Fig. 2. [1] In this relation, OB is the weight of
the overburden and pres is the formation pore pressure.
OB is typically about 1.0 psi/ft, but may vary from
0.8 (or less) to 1.1 psi/ft. The question is, what is K,
and how big is K?
Figure 2 Typical In Situ Stress Values
200

400
5,000

True Vertical Depth

1,000

5,000

600 S H (bar)

Overburden Effect -- Elasticity Theory

For a simple case, the theory of elasticity can be
used to calculate what the horizontal stresses might be
based on a simple elastic response to the weight of the
overburden. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Figure 3 Elasticity Equations

Cube of Rock
LxLxL

2 = 1
Stress = = F/A = F/ L
Strain = = / L

Poisson's Ratio = = /
2
1
Young's Modulus = E = /

z= v

(psi) 10,000

Comparison of trend lines

for U.S. gulf Coast, The
North Sea, & Onshore
Netherlands
(after Breckels, et al)

2 = 0
1

x = E [ x ( y+ z) ]
1

y = E [ y ( x+ z) ]

2,000
7,500

Assume Uniaxial Strain in "z" Direction

x = y = 0 , & x = y = h
3,000

(m)

Then Due To Overburden

10,000

h =

(ft)

In Situ Stress -- Page 2 of 12

v
1

For porous rocks, the elastic relationship in the figure,

h =
V
1

implicitly assumes "zero" pore pressure. The mechanical behavior of porous rocks is almost independent
of a superimposed hydrostatic pressure (e.g., pore pressure) and the stress must be broken into two parts: 1)
the effective stress, which is that part of the stress acting
to deform the rock, and 2) the pore pressure. This is
illustrated in Fig. 4, and is written in equation form as

= Total Stress
= ' (effective stress ) + p res ( pore pressure)
or

' = p res
Since it is the effective stress acting to deform the
rock, the earlier relation for the ratio of vertical and
horizontal stresses should be rewritten as

h' =

V '
1

cl = h ' + p res = K ( V p res ) + p res

where, from an elastic solution, K = / (1 - ) . For a

typical value for Poisons Ratio of about 0.25, this
gives K 1/3.
Overburden Effect Faulting Theory
Hubbert and Willis [2], in a classical publication,
discussed the relation between in situ stress and fracture
orientation, and their publication is frequently referenced in terms of the Poissons Ratio equations above. In
fact, however, while they did discuss relations between
the vertical (overburden) and horizontal stresses, they
did this with reference to faulting, i.e., the failure behavior (and failure properties) of the rock.
Rocks (and soils) generally fail according to a MohrCoulomb failure criteria. For this criterion, the failure
will occur along a slip plane which has a certain,
critical ratio of normal stress acting perpendicular to the
plane versus shear stress acting along the plane. Referring to the lab sample in Fig. 5, this results in a failure
plane oriented at some angle to the maximum stress axis. This angle is termed the angle of internal friction
for the material; for rocks, this is typically about 30.

or

( h p res ) = K ( V p res ) , K =
1

Figure 5 Mohr-Coulomb Failure

'
'v = max

Figure 4 Effective Stress

'
+

'h = 'min

Fracture Closure
Stress Is a Total
Stress, ,

= ' + p

To determine the Total Horizontal Stress, or fracture

closure stress, the pore pressure is then added to the
effective horizontal stress

For a relaxed geology, the vertical stress will be the

maximum stress, and this type of failure will result in a
high angle fault. The dip of the fault will be about
60 for an angle of internal friction of 30. For this
Mohr-Coulomb failure, the ratio of the minimum to
maximum effective stress is given by

h'=
or

In Situ Stress -- Page 3 of 12

1 sin
v'
1 + sin

1 sin
.
1 + sin

To determine the Total Horizontal Stress, or fracture

closure stress, the pore pressure is then added to the
effective horizontal stress

cl = h ' + p res = K ( V p res ) + p res

where, for a faulting solution, K = (1-sin )/(1+sin ).

For a typical value for the angle of internal friction,
, of about 30, this gives K 1/3.
Overburden Effect Summary
Other factors that effect the in situ stress are discussed below. However, a great deal of field data supports
the general validity of the relation

hmin = K (OB pres ) + pres + T

As discussed above, the virgin in situ stress in a

formation is a function of the overburden, reservoir
pressure, tectonic activity, chemical changes, temperature history, . Predicting in situ stress in a particular
location is thus impossible; it can only be measured.
However, reservoir pressure changes due to production
or injection operations occur over a relatively short time
frame, e.g., a few years. Under these conditions, the
elasticity, Poissons Ratio, effects will generally dominate, and the changes in stress, cl, with changes in
reservoir pressure, pres, may be predictable.
This is done using the derivative of the basic stress
equation as seen below. Also, for K = 1/3, this relation
predicts a ratio of closure pressure changes to pore pressure changes of 2/3, e.g.,

d cl / dpres = 1 K 2 / 3 .

This equation predicts a linear increase in stress with

depth, and, as seen in Fig. 2, this is supported by a large
volume of data. The general agreement with this simple
equation suggests that the geologic deposition process,
the weight of the overburden, and reservoir pressure are
major factors in creating the in situ stresses. However,
other factors may also play significant roles in certain
situations. In addition, it is not clear whether quasi-elastic processes are more important, or whether faulting
and failure characteristics of the rocks are more important. Probably both mechanisms play a role in determining the magnitude of the in situ stresses, with the
importance of the two mechanisms varying from timeto-time and from place-to-place.
Notes:

cl / p res

and, as seen in Fig. 6, this general behavior was seen in

an extensive study in the Vicksburg formation [3],
where fracture pressure was measured as the formation
was depleted, then "re-pressured" with water flooding.
Figure 6 Closure Stress Versus Pres (after Salz)

Fracture Propagation
Gradient (psi/ft)

( h p res ) = K ( V p res ) , K =

Slope = 2/3
gives K = 1/3

0.9
0.8
0.7

after Salz
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Pore Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Notes:

In Situ Stress -- Page 4 of 12

Tectonic Effects On In Situ Stress

Tectonic actions such as normal or thrust faulting
can significantly alter the in situ stress state and preliminary estimates for fracture closure stress should always
give some consideration to the geologic environment. A
brief sampling of various tectonic effects are listed in
Table 1.

Other Constrained Expansions / Contractions

Chemical effects such as a swelling shale, or increases in pore pressure can cause increases in stress.
Volume decreases such as decreases in pore pressure, or
the physical and chemical changes in a rock transforming from limestone to dolomite can cause a decrease in
stress.

Table 1 Tectonic Effects

Stress Relaxation (Visco-Elastic Behavior)

Some rocks such as salt or possibly "soft" shales
cannot support a shear stress, but with time, exhibit a
viscous or visco-elastic type behavior. For such rocks,
stresses will tend to equalize with time until h = v .

Geologic Environment
Thrust Faulting

Salt Dome
Piercements

Folding

General Effects
High horizontal stress perpendicular to strike of faults,
but minimum stress may still
be horizontal (thus vertical
fractures)
Vertical stress > overburden
above top of salt dome,
generally low horizontal stress
around flanks of salt dome,
with vertical fractures and a
strong fracture azimuth trend
running towards the salt dome
Low horizontal stresses, vertical fractures, and generally a
strong tendency for natural
fracturing

These effects are mentioned to illustrate that

straightforward calculation of in situ stress is not possible. However, the general equation

hmin = K (OB pres ) + pres + T

is still useful to give an initial estimate of stresses and

can be a powerful tool for extrapolating data across a
field or for predicting change in frac pressure as
reservoir pressure changes (once "K" is measured for
particular formations).

Notes:
Temperature Effects On Stress Magnitude
Including temperature effects in the elasticity
equation discussed above gives

h =

1
[ h (1 ) + v ] + T ,
E

where T is the change in temperature and this equation

assumes

h max = h min = h

Then, for h=0, i.e., uniaxial strain, this gives

h max =

E T
1

Thus, temperature changes can be important in

determining the magnitude of the in situ stress. In
addition, for long term injection operations where a
volume of fluid large enough to alter reservoir
temperature is injected, this injection (and the resulting
T) can have a significant impact on closure stress. See
Perkins, et al. [4], for a discussion of this effect.
In Situ Stress -- Page 5 of 12

Figure 8 In Situ Stress Controls Fracture Azimuth

In Situ Stress Direction

Fracture Orientation & Azimuth
Along with stress magnitude, in many situations it is
critical to understand the in situ stress directions or orientation. The stress directions will control the fracture
orientation (horizontal versus vertical) and, for vertical
fractures, the fracture azimuth.
As shown by Hubert and Willis in some classic
experiments (Fig. 7), a hydraulic fracture opens perpendicular to the least principal stress. For most cases, this
implies that fractures will be vertical since the horizontal stresses are typically less than the vertical stress
(which generally equals the weight of the overburden).
However, for shallow depths, or tectonically active
areas, or formations with high reservoir pressure,
secondary effects on in situ stresses may "overcome"
the general equation, and the horizontal stress may be
larger than the vertical. In such cases, horizontal or
even "inclined" fractures are possible. [Note however,
that inclined fractures are generally rare. An inclined
fracture implies that the vertical stress is NOT a
principal stress, and that the formations are
supporting an active shear stress. Rocks generally
cannot carry an active shear stress over geologic times,
and small (or large) earthquakes will occur to relieve
this shear stress. Thus inclined fractures will be rare,
and will generally be associated with areas of active
tectonic activity. As an example, dipping or inclined
fractures have been found in some southern California
Figure 7 Stress Controls Fracture Orientation

h-max

h-min
oil fields [5], a region of clearly active tectonics.]
In general, a hydraulic fracture is perpendicular to
the minimum in situ stress as seen in Fig. 7. This
normally results in a vertical or horizontal fracture with
the relative magnitudes of the in situ stresses controlling fracture orientation. For the case of vertical fractures, the direction or azimuth of the minimum stress
(the fracture closure stress) is also important since this
controls the azimuth of the hydraulic fracture as seen in
Fig. 8.
For lower permeability reservoirs, the "relation"
between fracture azimuth and well spacing can have a
significant effect on reserves as illustrated in Fig. 9. DeFigure 9 Effects of Fracture Azimuth
Low Permeability -- Loss Of Reserves
Design Xf < Re

Good
Drainage

Poor
Drainage

High Permeability -- Sweep Effects

Design Xf < Re / 2

Good
Areal
Sweep

In Situ Stress -- Page 6 of 12

Injector

Producer

Poor
Areal
Sweep

pending on the ratio of fracture length to permeability,

it may be necessary to know azimuth within 15 or
better. [6] For higher permeability formations, fracture
azimuth is usually not a major factor for primary
recovery, but may still be important for secondary recovery or flooding operations. It is also important to
note, however, that the lateral continuity of the
formations also plays a large role in determining the
impact of fracture azimuth on production. [7]

In Situ Stress Differences

Differences between in situ stresses play a dominant
role in hydraulic fracture behavior. In general, for simple fracture behavior, it is desirable to maintain the
stress/pressure relation

cl < BHTP = cl + p net < Any Other Stress .

In this relation, BHTP is the bottomhole treating
pressure (or bottomhole injection pressure) beyond the
perforations and out in the main body of the fracture.
Once the pressure inside the fracture begins to exceed
the other in situ stress, then fracture behavior is
subject to change. That is, fracture height growth may
start for a previously confined height fracture. If the
BHTP exceeds the weight of the overburden, it may
become possible to open a new horizontal fracture (i.e.,
T shaped fractures), etc. Such a change in fracture
geometry may occur late in a treatment, and thus may
have drastic effects on treatment pumping behavior.
Figure 10 Measured Stress Data Showing Large
Vertical Stress Variations [7]

Stress Barriers for Height Confinement

Along with the minimum stress in the "pay" zone
controlling fracture orientation and azimuth - the
difference in minimum stress between the pay and
under-/overlying zones is the controlling parameter for
fracture height growth (for vertical fractures). This is
quantified in a later section on fracture height
(Treatment Design Chapter). However, Fig. 10 illustrates the large differences in stress that can occur from
formation to formation. The different mechanical and
thermo-mechanical properties of the formations combined with the geologic history has produced very large
stress differences (up to 1500 psi) between the sands
and shales of this sand/shale sequence located in the
Western United States. [8]
Note in the figure that all the vertical variations in
closure stress are associated with lithology changes. In
general, a significant change in lithology (or pore pressure) is a necessary condition before one might expect
significant variations in the stress state, and thus fracture height confinement.
Stress Barriers How Big ?
How large a stress difference can exist between
different formations? In principle, there is no theoretical
limit. For the case of significant reservoir pressure
depletion, as an example, very large stress differences
can be created as closure pressure in the permeable zone
decreases. As a strictly empirical rule-of-thumb, for
virgin formations, the maximum stress difference is
usually less than 0.2 psi per foot of depth.
Where does this rule come from? This is simply the
largest in situ stress difference that has been measured
and published. Other published data discussed in the
Treatment Design Chapter shows measured stress
differences smaller than this (0.1 and 0.15 psi/ft
difference), and in many situations the stress difference
may be 0.
Notes:

In Situ Stress -- Page 7 of 12

Secondary Fractures
Though the main hydraulic fracture will form, and
open, perpendicular to the minimum in situ stress;
special conditions can exist where a secondary, or auxiliary, fracture may open with an orientation or azimuth
other than the preferred fracture geometry. Such an
occurrence is most likely in: 1) shallow or overpressured wells where the difference between horizontal
and vertical stress is small; 2) deviated wells where the
wellbore does not lie in the plane of the hydraulic
fracture; and 3) tectonically active areas where the
minimum stress may be neither horizontal nor vertical.
The possible creation or opening of secondary
fractures is also related to in situ stress differences.
Also, note that what are termed secondary fractures
here represent one form of tortuosity, i.e., something
limiting the wellbore/fracture communication.
Secondary Fractures (T Fracture)
Figures 11 & 12 illustrate possible auxiliary fracture
geometry cases that could likely occur at shallower
depths (or in overpressured reservoirs) where the difference between horizontal and vertical stress is relatively
small. In this case, the pressure inside the fracture has
exceeded the overburden pressure,

cl < OB < BHTP = cl + p net .

The fracture geometry cases pictured in these figures
may (or may not) normally create treatment pumping
problems. However, by causing incorrect interpretation
of post-frac logs or other data, the unusual geometry
could lead to treatment designs which are unnecessarily
large, or undesirably small. Also, treatment pumping
problems are possible if the opening of the horizontal
component of the fracture late in a treatment accelFigure 11 Complex Fracture Geometry, T Frac

erates the near wellbore fluid loss.

The "case" of a vertical fracture with good height
confinement is illustrated in Fig. 11. As the fracture
extends, the net pressure (bottomhole treating pressure
minus fracture closure stress) will increase until, at
some point, pumping pressure may exceed the weight of
the overburden. At this point, a horizontal fracture
could initiate along the top of the vertical fracture. In
the worst case, the new, near wellbore fluid loss caused
by the horizontal fracture could cause near well slurry
dehydration and a pre-mature screenout. In the best
case, for naturally fractured formations or formations
with good vertical permeability, the auxiliary horizontal
fracture could significantly improve treatment results.
Secondary Fractures
(Horizontal + Near Wellbore Vertical Fracture)
In some cases, the vertical stress (overburden) may
be the minimum stress, and the main hydraulic
fracture will be horizontal. However, for a vertical
cased and perforated wellbore, wellbore/fracture communication may be very limited in such a situation.
(NOTE that a similar situation might exist for a horizontal wellbore and a vertical fracture!) This limited
communication will force pressure inside the wellbore
to be much higher than normal, and this pressure may
become high enough to create and open a short, narrow,
near wellbore vertical fracture. This near wellbore
fracture will just serve to provide a fluid flow path from
the perforations into the main, horizontal, fracture.
Figure 12 depicts such a case where the preferred
fracture geometry is horizontal. In this case, excessive
perforation friction could force initiation of a near wellbore vertical fracture.
Figure 12 Horizontal Fracture Effects

Horizontal
+
Vertical

Vertical
+
Horizontal

Treating Pressure In a
Well Confined Vertical Fracture Can Become High Enough
To Lift The Overburden and
Open a Horizontal Fracture

In Situ Stress -- Page 8 of 12

Perforation Friction Due

To Limited W ellbore/Fracture Comunication Can Cause
A Small, Narrow, Near W ellbore Vertical Fracture To Open

Secondary Fractures (Natural Fracture Opening)

Once a hydraulic fracture is created, it will tend to
propagate along a single line unless it encounters
inhomogeneities in the formation such as natural fractures. If this occurs, the hydraulic fracture will tend to
cross the natural fractures so long as h-max is greater
than h-min. As the main hydraulic fracture continues to
propagate, there may be some extra fluid loss to the
natural fracture(s), however so long as pressure inside
the hydraulic fracture remains below the stress holding
the natural fracture closed, the extra loss should be minimal. In this case, the natural fracture(s) would probably
not have a significant impact on the treatment. HOWEVER, once the treating pressure exceeded some critical level related to h-max, the natural fracture will open,
drastically altering the fluid loss and overall behavior of
the hydraulic fracture. In this case, the fluid pressure
inside the hydraulic fracture has exceeded the maximum
horizontal stress,

cl < H Max < BHTP = cl + p net

Secondary Fractures (Deviated Wells)

A case of generally more concern is seen in Fig. 14.
For deviated wells (or vertical wells in active tectonic
areas) multiple fractures may occur. These will interfere
with one another resulting in narrow fracture widths and
a possible screenout when proppant is begun. Also, as
the fracture grow and begin to interfere, some may
close and thus the number of fractures may vary with
time drastically affecting treatment behavior. Essentially, one has lost ALL control of the process. Such
geometry might also give limited wellbore/fracture
communication and greatly restrict post-frac production
as discussed by Schulte. [9]
Figure 14 Deviated Wellbore Effects
Deviated W ells
Multiple Fractures Possible
These May Interfere Causing
- Narrow Fracture W idth
- Pre-mature Screenout
Poor W ellbore Communication
May Limit Post-Frac Production

Figure 13 Opening Natural Fractures

h-min
h-max

Notes:

h-max
h-max + h

This is illustrated in Fig. 13. This figure also illustrates that the pressure would actually need to exceed
the maximum horizontal stress. The opening of the
vertical fracture causes an increase in the stress parallel
to the fracture, right at the fracture face. Thus to
actually first open the natural fracture, the fluid pressure
inside the hydraulic fracture must exceed some threshold or critical value. This is discussed in more detail in
the Treatment Design Chapter.
In Situ Stress -- Page 9 of 12

In Situ Stress Measurement

Three techniques for measuring in situ stress are in
common use. These are: 1) injection tests; 2) long space
sonic logs; and 3) anelastic strain recovery measurements on core samples. The advantages and disadvantages of these are discussed in Table 2. Generally, the
best procedure is to perform a few direct stress
(e.g., injection) tests in order to calibrate the logs and/or
core data. These easier, indirect measurements can then
be used to extrapolate the data vertically and horizontally. A good review of available stress measuring
techniques is given in reference [10].
Table 2 Stress Measuring Techniques

Injection Tests
Advantages
Definitive Data (may be hard to interpret)
Averages Data Over Several Feer
Disadvantages
Limited Vertical Coverage
Leaves Undesired Perforations
Operationally Difficult

Injection Tests
Injection tests consist of perforating a short interval
(typically 1 to 2 feet), isolating the zone with straddle
packers, and breaking down the zone with a very small
fluid volume. More discussion of field procedures and
analysis techniques is included in the Pressure Analysis
Chapter. These tests are the only measurement that
gives a true measurement for in situ stress.
Sonic Log Data
The use of log data for in situ stress was first
discussed by Rosepiler. [11] Long spaced sonic logs are
special logs used to measure the shear wave velocity of
the rocks, along with the more traditional compressional
wave velocity measurement. These velocities (VS =
shear and VC = compressional wave velocity) are used
to calculate a dynamic Poisson's ratio using

1 Vc 2 V s
=
.
2 Vc 2 V s 2
2

This is used to calculate the "K" value discussed earlier

using the simple elastic relation

K=

Special Logs
Advantages
Complete Vertical Coverage
Averages Data Over Several Feet
No Extra Perforations
Simple Operations
Disadvantages
NO Theoretical Basis
(Log May Lie)
Needs Calibration
Normal Logging Problems
(Washouts, etc.)

.
1

By inputting a value for pore pressure, fracture closure

stress is calculated as

cl = K (Overburden p res ) + p res .

In this relation, pres is the reservoir pressure. There is
NO sound theoretical basis for the validity of this
simple relation, or for the use of dynamic elastic

Core Measurements
Advantages
No Extra Perforations
Gives All Three Stresses
Gives Stress Orientations
Disadvantages
Requires Full Diameter, Oriented Core
Point Measurement
May Need Calibration
Requires Significant Lad Data Corrections

Measured Stress (psi)

Figure 15 Example Stress Log Correlation

Shale
Sand
Sand
Shale
Shale

after Veatch
9,000

7,000
6,000
5,000

In Situ Stress -- Page 10 of 12

Shale
Shale

Shale
Shale

8,000

Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand

Sand
Sand
Frontier Formation
Cotton Valley Formation
X Blocker Field
Woodlawn Field
Carthage Field

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Sonic Log Stress (psi)

Core Measurements
Strain recovery measurements consist of monitoring
the time dependent relaxation of a full diameter core
immediately after its recovery at the surface. Lab tests
are then used to measure the mechanical and thermomechanical properties of the cores, correct the data for
thermal strains, and back calculate the in situ stresses.
This technique is described by Teufel. [15]
Wireline Measurements
The three techniques above represent the current
state-of-the-art for stress measurement techniques.
However, work in continuing in this area, with many efforts underway to develop a wireline stress measuring
tool. One such effort is described by Thiercelin. [16]

Effect of Stress on Proppant

The conductivity of a propped fracture is strongly
dependent on the stress acting on the proppant, and
proppant conductivity is typically presented as a function of stress as seen in Figure 16. Stress acting to crush
the proppant (the proppant stress) is given by

prop ' = cl pbhfp

= K (OB p res ) + p res pbhfp

For this relation, OB is the overburden gradient or vertical stress (typically about 1 psi/ft), pres is the reservoir
pressure, and pbhfp is the bottomhole flowing pressure
(i.e., the pore pressure inside the fracture). The prime
on prop indicates that this is the effective stress acting directly on the proppant. (Note: The equation in this
form is for a vertical fracture.) If reservoir pressure
changes, closure stress will change, and proppant stress
will change according to

prop ' = cl initial + (1 K ) p res pbhfp

Figure 16 Effect of Stress On Proppant

Conductivity of 20/40 Mesh Proppants

(API, Short Term Test Data)

Conductivity (md-ft)

constants to represent behavior over geologic time.

However, the log does offer a direct mechanical measurement of the formations, and reasonable correlated
results have been found in several sand/shale sequence
type reservoirs. [12, 13] One example of such a correlation is included in Fig. 15 after Veatch. [14] NOTE,
however, that such a correlation is strictly local, log
stresses can be either greater than OR less than actual
stresses, and that reasonable correlated results have
only been shown for sandstone reservoirs.

Ceramic
Internediate Strength
Bauxite
Resin Coated Sand
Jordan Sand

20,000

10,000

5,000
3,000
2,000

Test At 2 lb/ft 2
Flowing KCl Water
10 in 2 Linear Flow Cell
250 deg F

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000 12000

Proppant Stress (psi)

In this relation, pres is the change in reservoir pressure
(a pressure decrease gives a negative pres). Thus for a
typical K of about 1/3, a 1,500 psi decline in average
reservoir pressure (for the same bottomhole flowing
pressure) reduces proppant stress by about 1,000 psi.
(NOTE that short term API data such as plotted in
this figure is generally extremely optimistic. Reasons
for this are discussed in the Treatment Design
Chapter.)
Examining this equation shows that the maximum
potential for proppant damage is when pres is high
(pres = 0) and pbhfp is low, e.g., just when a well is put
on production. If proppant strength is marginal, or if
conductivity is critical, then better long term production
may result from keeping flowing pressure high
(e.g.. choked back) during early production until pres
(average reservoir pressure) decreases over a distance
proportional to the pay height. Often a significant
reduction in proppant stress can be realized by bringing
a well on slowly over a few days or weeks. However,
the proper drawdown rate must be determined on a case
by case basis.
Notes:

In Situ Stress -- Page 11 of 12

In Situ Stress -- References

1. Breckels, I. M. and Van Eekelen, H. A. M., Relationship
Between Horizontal Stress and Depth in Sedimentary
Basins, SPE 10336, presented at 1981 Annual Meeting of
SPE, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
2. Hubbert, M. K. and Willis, D. G.: Mechanics of Hydraulic
Fracturing, Trans AIME (1957) 210, 153-166.
3. Salz, L. B., "Relationship Between Fracture Propagation
Pressure and Pore Pressure," SPE 6870, presented at
52nd Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Denver, Colorado, Oct.
9-12, 1977.
4. Perkins, T.K., and Gonzalez, J.A., The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on Injection Well Fracturing, SPE 11332,
SPE Journal, p 78, 1985.
5. Wright, C.A., et al., Reorientation of Propped Refracture
Treatments in the Lost Hills Field, SPE 27896, presented
at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, U.S.A., 23-25 March 1994.
6. Smith, M. B., Effect of Fracture Azimuth On Production
With Application To The Wattenberg Gas Field,
SPE 8298, presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical
Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 23-26, 1979.
7. Meehan, D.N., Optimization of Fracture Length and Well
Spacing in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, SPE 21717,
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1995.
8. Warpinski, N. R.; Branagan, P.; and Wilmer, R., "In Situ
Stress Measurements at U. S. DOE's Multi-Well ExperIment Site, Mesaverde Group, Rifle, Colorado," J. Petroleum Technology, March, 1985.
9. Schulte, W. M., "Production From a Hydraulically
Fractured Well With Well Inflow Limited to Part of the
Fracture Height," SPE/DOE 12882, presented at 1984
Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, May 13-15, 1984.
10. Hill, R.E., Warpinski, N.R., Lorenz, J.C., and Teufel, L.W.,
Techniques for Determining Subsurface Stress Direction
and Assessing Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth, SPE 29192,
presented at SPE Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, West Virginia, November 8-10, 1994.
11. Rosepiler, M. J.: "Determination of Principal Stresses and
Confinement of Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton Valley,"
SPE 8405, Sep. 1979.
12. Miller II, W. K., et al, In-Situ Stress Profiling and Prediction of Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth for the West Texas
Canyon Sands Formation, SPE Production & Facilities,
August 1994.
13. Smith, M. B., Reeves, T. L., and Miller II, W. K., "Multiple
Fracture Height Measurements: A Case History,"
SPE 19092, presented at SPE Gas Symposium, Dallas,
Texas, June 7-9, 1989.

14. Veatch, R. W. and Moschovidis, Z. A., An Overview of

Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing Technology,
SPE 14085, presented at SPE 1986 International Meeting
On Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17-20,
1986.
15. Teufel, L. W., Determination of In-Situ Stress From Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of Oriented Core,
SPE 11649, presented at SPE/DOW Low Permeability
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 14-16, 1983.
16. Thiercelin, M. J., et al, A New Wireline Tool for In-Situ
Stress Measurement, SPE 25906-P, presented at SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April 12-14, 1993.
Other Significant & Historical References
1. Harrison, E., Kieschnich, W. F., Jr. and McGuire, W. J.:
"The Mechanics of Fracture Induction and Extension," Petroleum Transactions, AIME (1954).
2. Lubinski, A.: "The Theory of Elasticity for Porous Bodies
displaying a Strong Pore Structure," Proc. 2nd U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics (1954).
3. Warpinski, N.R., Schmidt, R.A., and Northrop, D.A., InSitu Stresses: The Predominant Influence on Hydraulic
Fracture Containment, J. Petroleum Technology, p 653,
March 1982.
4. Prats, M: "Effect of Burial History on the Subsurface Horizontal Stresses of Formations having Different Material
Properties," SPE Journal, Dec.1981.
5. Harikrishnan, R. and Hareland, G., Prediction of Minimum
Principal In-Situ Stress by Comparison and Verification of
Four Methods, SPE 29258, presented at SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
20-22 March 1995.

In Situ Stress -- Page 12 of 12

Wellbore Breakdown

Figure 1 Ideal (& Non-Ideal) Stress Case

Table of Contents
Introduction .........................................................
Open Hole Stresses (Non-Penetrating Fluid) ......
Penetrating Fluid .................................................
Pre-Existing Cracks .............................................
Local Closure Stresses .................................
References ...........................................................

1
1
2
4
4
4

Smin

Ideal

For a vertical well, this

is the minimum "Total"
horizontal stress.

Smax

Fracture Azimuth

For a vertical well, this

is the maximum "Total"
horizontal stress.

Actual

Introduction
Once a hydraulic fracture has formed (and if necessary reoriented itself to be perpendicular to the
minimum in situ stress), the role of the closure stress
becomes reasonably simple. However, the fracture initiation process preceding this can range from reasonably
straightforward to very complex. This discussion will
examine this breakdown process for a simple (but
common) situation vertical wells. More precisely, the
discussion here applies to wells where the wellbore is
parallel with one (any one) of the in situ principal
stresses. Thus, this discussion would also apply for
horizontal wells if the wellbore paralleled either the
maximum or the minimum in situ horizontal stress.
For such simple stress situations, wellbore breakdown is always discussed in terms of open hole behavior, and that precedent is followed here. For such cases,
a near wellbore (prior to breakdown) stress distribution
is governed by the two stresses acting perpendicular to
the wellbore (as pictured in Fig. 1). However, as also
included in the figure, the actual situation normally includes perforation tunnels, thus the breakdown pressure
values calculated from the ideal open hole assumption
should only be treated as guidelines and general behavior indicators. The actual situation is much more
complex as discussed by Warpinski. [1] This is, of
course, made even more complex for cases of deviated
wells [2], and can be made even more complicated by
any small natural or drilling induced fractures (as briefly discussed below).

Smax

Smin

Openhole Stress Distribution

(Non-Penetrating Fluid)
For the ideal case, the stress distribution around the
wellbore (for penetrating and non-penetrating fluid) is
discussed by Haimson. [3] The far field in situ stresses
(Smax and Smin in the figure) along with the reservoir
pressure create a compressive stress concentration
around the wellbore. That is, the hoop stress or circumferential stress trying to prevent fracture initiation is
usually greater than Smin. At the wall of the wellbore,
this hoop stress is given by
S = + po =

max

S max + S min 2 po
2

1 + rw
2

1 + 3rw cos 2 + po
4

4
2
+ min
r
min
3r
1 + w2 max
1 + w4 cos 2 + po

2
2
r
r

S max S min
2

(1)

where is the effective hoop stress (i.e., the stress actually acting on the rock matrix = S - po, max = Smax po,

Wellbore Breakdown Pressure -- Page 1 of 4

Figure 2 Stress Orientations

Smin

Smax

Figure 3 Breakdown Pressure, Non-Penetrating Fluid

Breakdown Pressure (psi/ft)

and min = Smin - po), is the angle as defined in Fig. 2,

po is reservoir pressure, and compressive stress is
treated as positive.

p = 0.44 psi/ft, Smax=0.7, Smin=0.7

p = 0.44 psi/ft, Smax=1.0, Smin=0.7

2
1.8
1.6

T = 2000 psi

1.4
1.2

2000 psi

T = 100 psi

0.8
0.6

T = 100 psi
2

10

12

14

16

18

Depth (1,000 ft)

stress, i.e., at r = rw and = 0. At that orientation, effective stress at the wellbore is given by
The internal wellbore pressure, PW, then creates a
total tensile hoop stress around the wellbore given by
2

S =

rw re

r 2 ( re rw )
2

( PW po )

rw

re rw
2

( Pw po ) . (2)
2

which for large re (say re > 10 rw) becomes

2

S =

rw
( Pw po ) .
r2

(3)

These two terms (equations 1 & 3) added together then

give the final total stress (for a non-penetrating fluid) as
2

rw
( PW po ) +
r2
2
max + min rw
(4)
1+ 2

2
r

4
max min 3rw
1 + 4 cos 2 + po

2
r

and the effective stress acting on the rock is given by

S =

rw
( PW po ) +
r2
2
max + min rw
1+ 2

2
r

4
max min 3rw
1 + 4 cos 2

2
r

= S po =

(5)

A fracture will then initiate when this effective stress

equals the tensile strength of the rock, -T. This will first
occur at an orientation perpendicular to the minimum

= 3 min max PW + po = T

or breakdown pressure is given by

PW = ( 3 min max ) + po + T

(6)

This is plotted in Fig. 3 for a range of possible stress

and strength values (though for most rocks tensile
strength is usually small even without the presence of
any pre-existing fractures). Of particular interest in this
figure is that for large differences between Smax and
Smin, breakdown pressure can actually less than the minimum in situ stress (Smin).

Penetrating Fluid
The previous case assumed a constant reservoir
pressure, po, everywhere since the wellbore fluid was
assumed totally non-penetrating. If the injection fluid
can penetrate a permeable formation, then the injection
tends to increase pore pressure around the well at the
same time the wellbore is being pressured. This local
increase in pore pressure will tend to counteract the
high compressive total stress concentration created by
the far field in situ stresses (max and min) as calculated
in equation (1). In effect, this local pore pressure increase creates an effective tensile stress given by

S =

(1 2 ) 1

(1 ) r 2

r
r 2 + rw 2 re

2
+

p
(
r
)
rdr
p
(
r
)
rdr
p
(
r
)
r

2
rw
re rw rw

. (7)

Assuming re is large compared to rw, and reviewing the

stress at the wellbore (r = rw) reduces this to

Wellbore Breakdown Pressure -- Page 2 of 4

1 2
(1 2 )
p(r ) =
( PW po ) . (8)
(1 )
1

In these relations p(r) = p(r) po, is the formation

Poissons Ratio (0 < < 0.5), and is the poro-elastic
constant ( = 1 CR/CB). For most formations, the ratio
of the rock matrix compressibility, CR, to the bulk
formation compressibility, CB, is very small, i.e., 1.
Physically, < < 1, where is the formation porosity.
For some very hard, low porosity formations such as
quartz arenite, could be much lower than 1 (possibly
on the order of 0.2 to 0.3).
Combining (4) and (7) (for r = rw, = 0, and re > 10
rw) gives (for a penetrating fluid) the total hoop stress at
the formation face as

S = ( PW po ) +
3 min max + po +
1 2
( PW po )

(9)

At the formation face, the effective hoop stress is then

given by

= S PW = ( PW po ) +
3 min max + po +
1 2

( PW po ) PW
1

(10)

(11)

or

PW =

3 min max + T
+ po
1 2
)
(2
1

Penetrating Fluid
Non-Penetrating Fluid

2
1.8

p = 0.44 psi/ft, Smax=0.7, Smin=0.7

= 0.2 , = 0.8

1.6

1.2

T = 100 psi

T = 2000 psi

1.4

2000 psi

T = 100 psi

0.8
0.6

10

12

14

16

18

Depth (1,000 ft)

and the fracture will initiate when equals the tensile

strength of the formation, = -T

= T = 3 min max
1 2
(2
)( PW po )
1

Figure 4 Breakdown Pressure, Non-Penetrating Fluid

Breakdown Pressure (psi/ft)

S = +

probably why a small volume of acid aids in breaking

sown troublesome formations. The problem may be
due to plugged formation and/or perforations such that
the breakdown behavior is similar to a non-penetrating
fluid. Acids are first very penetrating fluids and second
may clean up perforation debris or otherwise improve
wellbore/formation communication. By changing behavior to a penetrating fluid case, formation breakdown pressure can be substantially reduced.
Some typical breakdown pressure values for a
penetrating fluid are plotted in Fig. 4. This figure also
compares breakdown pressure for penetrating versus
non-penetrating fluid cases. This shows a substantial
reduction in breakdown pressure for the penetrating
fluid over a wide range of conditions.

Breakdown Pressure (psi/ft)

NOTE: The re effect above is why simply holding high

pressure on a formation can sometimes aid in the breakdown process. With time, re continues to grow and this tends to reduce the
breakdown pressure.

Penetrating Fluid
Non-Penetrating Fluid

2
1.8

p = 0.44 psi/ft, Smax=1.0, Smin=0.7

= 0.2 , = 0.8

1.6
1.4

T = 100 psi

1.2

T = 2000 psi

1
0.8
0.6

10

12

14

Depth (1,000 ft)

(12)

is the breakdown pressure for a penetrating fluid. In

general, this would be significantly less than the
pressure required for a non-penetrating fluid. This is

Wellbore Breakdown Pressure -- Page 3 of 4

16

18

Effects of Pre-Existing Cracks

Local Closure Stress Distribution
Pre-existing cracks (natural fractures or drilling
induced cracks) can have a significant effect on breakdown. This important behavior effect is due to the
nature of the near wellbore stress distribution. Figure 5
plots a typical near wellbore closure stress distribution
(plotting closure stress along the preferred fracture orientation, = 0).

Closure Pressure (psi/ft)

Figure 5 Near Wellbore Closure Stress

Closure Stress Along Fracture Azimuth
p = 0.44 psi/ft, Smin = Smax = 0.7, Rw = 4.5"

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1

RW

"Extra" Near Well

Closure Stress

1.0

a wellbore pressure only slightly above normal closure

pressure (Smin) as illustrated in Fig. 6. This fracture can
then propagate back to the wellbore at a much lower
pressure than that required to open a fracture directly
from the wellbore.

References
1. Warpinski, N. R., "Investigation of the Accuracy and Reliability of In Situ Stress Measurements Using Hydraulic
Fracturing in Perforated Cased Holes," Proceedings 24th
U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, June 1983.
2. Bradley, deviated well stresses
3. Haimson, B. E. and Fairhurst, C., Initiation and Extension of Hydraulic Fractures in Rocks, SPE Journal,
September 1967.

0.9
0.8

Pcl

0.7
0.6
0.5
2

10

12

14

Radius (inches)

This shows that closure stress right at the wellbore is

about 50% greater than the actual closure stress value
(0.7 psi/ft in this case). However, this extra closure
stress disappears quite rapidly (falling off with 1/r2)
such that a few inches from the wellbore closure stress
essentially returns to the actual level. This local stress
distribution creates a possibility for a fracture to open
first AWAY from the wellbore if a mechanism exists
for the wellbore pressure to preferentially migrate outside the local stress cage.
Figure 6 Fracture Opening Away From Wellbore

Smin

Pre-Existing
Crack

Smax

Pre-existing cracks, natural fractures, or drilling induced fractures could supply such a mechanism. A
crack would create enhanced permeability (even though
closed) along its direction, allowing pressure to escape from the wellbore. Eventually, this pressure could
begin opening pre-existing cracks away from the well at
Wellbore Breakdown Pressure -- Page 4 of 4