Fracture mechanics

Dealing with and exploiting fracturing of rock has been part of mining engineering for hundreds of years, but the
analysis of fracture of rock or other materials has only developed into an engineering discipline since the mid
1940s [1]. In petroleum engineering, fracture mechanics theories have been used for more than 50 years. Rock
fracture mechanics is about understanding what will happen to the rocks in the subsurface when subjected to
fracture stress. Much of what is used in hydraulic fracturing theory and design was developed by other
engineering disciplines many years ago. However, rock formatons cannot often be treated as isotropic and
homogeneous. For example, their porous and fluid filled nature can require that poroelastic theory be used for
some problems. There are a number of important parameters to consider in the fracturing of rock. Some of
these are fracture toughness, in situ stress, Poissons ratio, and Youngs modulus.
Contents
[hide]

1 In-situ stresses

2 Basic rock mechanics

3 Fracture orientation
3.1 Injection tests

3.1.1 In-situ stress tests

3.1.2 Minifracture tests

3.1.3 Step-down tests

4 Net pressure

5 Nomenclature

6 References

7 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

8 External links

9 See also

10 Page champions

11 Category

In-situ stresses
Underground formations are confined and under stress. Fig. 1 illustrates the local stress state at depth for an
element of formation. The stresses can be divided into three principal stresses. In Fig. 1:

1 is the vertical stress

2 is the minimum horizontal stress

3 is the maximum horizontal stress

These stresses are normally compressive, anisotropic, and nonhomogeneous, [2] which means that the
compressive stresses on the rock are not equal and vary in magnitude on the basis of direction. The magnitude
and direction of the principal stresses are important because they control the pressure required to create and
propagate a fracture, the shape and vertical extent of the fracture, the direction of the fracture, and the stresses
trying to crush and/or embed the propping agent during production.

Fig. 1The three principal compressive stresses.

A hydraulic fracture will propagate perpendicular to the minimum principal stress. [3] For a vertical fracture, the
minimum horizontal stress can be estimated with

....................(1)
where
min = the minimum horizontal stress,
= Poisson s ratio, 1 = overburden stress, = Biot s constant, pp = reservoir fluid pressure or pore pressure,
and ext = tectonic stress.
Poisson s ratio can be estimated from acoustic log data or from correlations based on lithology. Table
1presents typical ranges for Poisson s ratio. The overburden stress can be computed with density log data.

Normally, the value for overburden stress is approximately 1 psi/ft of depth. The reservoir pressure must be
measured or estimated. Biot
s constant is usually 1.0, but can be less than 1.0 on occasion.

Table 1- Table Range Of Values For Young Modulus

Poroelastic theory is often used to estimate the minimum horizontal stress. [4][5][6] Eq. 1 combines poroelastic
theory with a term that accounts for any tectonic forces that are acting on a formation. The first term on the right
side of Eq. 1 is a linear elastic term that converts the effective vertical stress on the rock grains into an effective
horizontal stress on the rock grains. The second term in Eq. 1 represents the stress generated by the fluid
pressure in the pore space. The third term is the tectonic stress, which could be zero in tectonically relaxed
areas, but can be important in tectonically active areas.
In tectonically active areas, the effects of tectonic activity must be included in the analyses of the total stresses.
To measure the tectonic stresses, injection tests are conducted to measure the minimum horizontal stress. The
measured stress is then compared with the stress calculated by the poroelastic equation to determine the value
of the tectonic stress.

Basic rock mechanics

In addition to the in-situ or minimum horizontal stress, other rock mechanical properties are important when
designing a hydraulic fracture. Poisson s ratio is defined as "the ratio of lateral expansion to longitudinal
contraction for a rock under a uniaxial stress condition." [2] The value of Poisson s ratio is used in Eq. 1 to
convert the effective vertical stress component into an effective horizontal stress component. The effective
stress is defined as the total stress minus the pore pressure. The theory used to compute fracture dimensions
is based on linear elasticity. When applying this theory, the modulus of the formation is an important parameter.
Young s modulus is defined as "the ratio of stress to strain for uniaxial stress." [2] The modulus of a material is a
measure of the stiffness of the material. If the modulus is large, the material is stiff. In hydraulic fracturing, a stiff
rock results in more narrow fractures. If the modulus is low, the fractures are wider. The modulus of a rock is a
function of the lithology, porosity, fluid type, and other variables. Table 1 illustrates typical ranges for modulus
as a function of lithology.

Fracture orientation

A hydraulic fracture will propagate perpendicular to the least principle stress (see Fig. 1). In some shallow
formations, the least principal stress is the overburden stress; thus, the hydraulic fracture will be horizontal.
Horizontal fractures have been documented. [7] In reservoirs deeper than approximately 1,000 ft, the least
principal stress will likely be horizontal; thus, the hydraulic fracture will be vertical. The azimuth orientation of
the vertical fracture will depend on the azimuth of the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses. Lacy and
Smith provided a detailed discussion of fracture azimuth in Ref. 7 [8].

Injection tests
The only reliable technique for measuring in-situ stress is by pumping fluid into a reservoir, creating a fracture,
and measuring the pressure at which the fracture closes.[6] The well tests used to measure the minimum
principal stress are:

In-situ stress tests

Step-rate/flowback tests

Minifracture tests

Step-down tests

For most fracture treatments, minifracture tests and step-down tests are pumped ahead of the main fracture
treatment. As such, accurate data are normally available to calibrate and interpret the pressures measured
during a fracture treatment. In-situ stress tests and step-rate/flowback tests are not run on every well; however,
it is common to run such tests in new fields or new reservoirs to help develop the correlations required to
optimize fracture treatments for subsequent wells.

In-situ stress tests

An in-situ stress test can be either an injection-falloff test or an injection-flowback test. The in-situ stress test is
conducted with small volumes of fluid (a few barrels) and injected at a low injection rate (tens of gal/min),
normally with straddle packers to minimize wellbore storage effects, into a small number of perforations (1 to 2
ft). The objective is to pump a thin fluid (water or nitrogen) at a rate just sufficient to create a small fracture.
Once the fracture is open, the pumps are shut down, and the pressure is recorded and analyzed to determine
when the fracture closes. Thus, the term "fracture-closure pressure" is synonymous with minimum in-situ stress
and minimum horizontal stress. When the pressure in the fracture is greater than the fracture-closure pressure,
the fracture is open. When the pressure in the fracture is less than the fracture-closure pressure, the fracture is
closed. Fig. 2 illustrates a typical wellbore configuration for conducting an in-situ stress test. Fig. 3 shows
typical data that are measured. Multiple tests are conducted to ensure repeatability. The data from any one of
the injection-falloff tests can be analyzed to determine when the fracture closes. Fig. 4 illustrates how one such
test can be analyzed to determine in-situ stress.

Fig. 2Wellbore hardware required for an in-situ stress test.

Fig. 3Typical data from an in-situ stress test.

Fig. 4Closure pressure analysis.

Minifracture tests
Minifracture tests are run to reconfirm the value of in-situ stress in the pay zone and to estimate the fluid-loss
properties of the fracture fluid. A minifracture test is run with fluid similar to the fracture fluid that will be used in
the main treatment. Several hundred barrels of fracturing fluid are pumped at fracturing rates. The purpose of
the injection is to create a fracture that will be of similar height to the one created during the main fracture

treatment. After the minifracture has been created, the pumps are shut down, and the pressure decline is
monitored. The pressure decline can be used to estimate the fracture-closure pressure and the total fluid
leakoff coefficient. Data from minifracture treatments can be used to alter the design of the main fracture
treatment, if required.

Step-down tests
For any injection-falloff test to be conducted successfully, a clean connection between the wellbore and the
created fracture is needed. The main objective of an in-situ stress test and the minifracture test is to determine
the pressure in the fracture when the fracture is open and the pressure when the fracture is closed. If there is
excess pressure drop near the wellbore because of poor connectivity between the wellbore and the fracture,
the interpretation of in-situ stress test data can be difficult. In naturally fractured or highly cleated formations,
multiple fractures that follow tortuous paths are often created during injection tests. When these tortuous paths
are created, the pressure drop in the "near-wellbore" region can be very high, which complicates the analyses
of the pressure falloff data. To determine the cause of near-wellbore pressure drop, step-down tests are run. [9]
A step-down test is pumped just before the minifracture treatment. A step-down test is pumped at fracturing
rates with linear fluids, the friction pressures of which are well known. The pressure at the bottom of the hole
during the injection is a function of the net pressure in the fracture and the near-wellbore pressure drop. To
measure the near-wellbore pressure drop, the net pressure in the fracture needs to be relatively constant
during the step-down portion of the test. To do this, the step-down test is started by injecting into the well for 10
to 15 minutes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, the net pressure is relatively stable after
approximately 10 to 15 minutes of injection. The injection rate is then "reduced in steps" to a rate of zero. The
injection rate at each step should be held constant for approximately 1 minute so the stabilized injection
pressure can be measured. The injection rate should be stepped from the maximum value to zero, in three to
five steps, in less than 5 minutes. The objective of the step-down test is to measure the near-wellbore pressure
drop as a function of injection rate. If the net pressure in the fracture is relatively stable, then the change in
bottomhole injection pressure as the injection rate is reduced will be a function of the near-wellbore pressure
drop.
The key to analyzing a step-down test is that the two main causes of near-wellbore pressure drop can be
distinguished easily as the data are analyzed. When the pressure drop near the wellbore is caused by
perforation friction, the near-wellbore pressure drop will be a function of the injection rate squared, as Eq.
2 shows.

....................(2)
If the near-wellbore pressure drop is caused by tortuosity, then the near-wellbore pressure drop will be a
function of the injection rate raised to a power of one-half (0.5), as Eq. 3 shows.

....................(3)

A graph of the value of near-wellbore pressure drop vs. injection rate will provide a clear indication of what is
causing the near-wellbore pressure drop. Fig. 5 illustrates that the graph of pressure drop vs. injection rate will
be concave upward when the pressure drop is dominated by tortuosity and will be concave downward when the
pressure drop is dominated by perforation friction.

Fig. 5Effects of perforations and tortuosity on the near-wellbore pressure drop.

Net pressure
The reason for computing values of in-situ stress and conducting stress tests, minifracture tests, and step-down
tests is to compute the net pressure in the fracture. The net pressure is the difference between the actual
pressure in the fracture and the minimum in-situ stress, min.
....................(4)
The net pressure is generated by both tip effects and the pressure drop down the fracture caused by viscous
fluid flow. Fig. 6 illustrates the net pressure profile down a typical fracture. In many formations, the pressure
drop down the fracture is dominated by the pressure increases near the tip of the fracture as propagation
occurs. The net pressure profile controls both the fracture height and fracture width distribution along the
fracture length.

Fig. 6Pressure profile in a propagating fracture.

The value of net pressure is important because the engineer needs to know for which value to design the main
fracture treatment, to perform onsite analyses of the fracturing pressures, and to perform postfracture analyses
of the fracturing pressures. One of the best methods to analyze a fracture treatment is to use a fracture
propagation model to analyze the net pressures measured during a fracture treatment.

Nomenclature
a

constant (solved for)

dp

proppant diameter, L

pf

actual pressure in the fracture, m/Lt2

pn

net pressure, m/Lt2

pp

pore pressure (reservoir pressure), m/Lt2

ppfr

perforation friction, psi

injection rate, L3/t

Poisson
s ratio

min

minimum horizontal stress (in-situ stress), m/Lt2

vertical (overburden) stress, m/Lt2

discharge coefficient, usually 0.9

References
1. Jump up Anderson, T.L. 1995. Fracture Mechanics. CRC Press, second edition. Boca Raton, Florida.
2. Jump up to:2.0 2.1 2.2 Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. et al. 1989. Rock Mechanics and Fracture
Geometry. In Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, 12. Chap. 3, 57-63. Richardson, Texas:
Monograph Series, SPE.
3. Jump up Hubbert, M.K. and Willis, D.G. 1957. Mechanics Of Hydraulic Fracturing, 210. Petroleum
Transactions, AIME.

4. Jump up Whitehead, W.S., Hunt, E.R., and Holditch, S.A. 1987. The Effects of Lithology and
Reservoir Pressure on the In-Situ Stresses in the Waskom (Travis Peak) Field. Presented at the Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1819 May. SPE-16403MS.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16403-MS.
5. Jump up Salz, L.B. 1977. Relationship Between Fracture Propagation Pressure and Pore Pressure.
Presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 912
October. SPE-6870-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6870-MS._
6. Jump up to:6.0 6.1 Veatch Jr., R.W. and Moschovidis, Z.A. 1986. An Overview of Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology. Presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing,
China, 17-20 March. SPE-14085-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14085-MS.
7. Jump up Reynolds, J.J., Scott, J.B., Popham, J.L. et al. 1961. Hydraulic Fracture--Field Test to
Determine Areal Extent and Orientation. J Pet Technol 13 (4): 371-376.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1571G.
8. Jump up Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. et al. 1989. Fracture Azimuth and Geometry
Determination. In Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, 12. Chap. 16, 341. Richardson, Texas:
Monograph Series, SPE.
9. Jump up Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E., Kogsbll, H.-H. et al. 1993. Field Implementation of Proppant
Slugs To Avoid Premature Screen-Out of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant Concentration.
Presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2628 April. SPE25982-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25892-MS.