SPE-184818-MS

Analysis of Front and Tail Stress Shadowing in Horizontal Well Fracturing:

Their Consequences With Case History
Ali Daneshy, Daneshy Consultants Int'l
Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Creating multiple hydraulic fractures and keeping them open with proppant deforms the formation in their
surroundings. These deformations generate normal and shear stresses within the formation, defined as stress
shadowing by the oil and gas industry. Front stress shadowing denotes the effect of these stresses on future
fractures. Tail stress shadowing defines their effect on previously created fractures. Front shadowing causes
a gradual increase in the fracturing pressure of subsequent stages, ISIP, and deviation in fracture growth
path. Tail shadowing accelerates fracture closure and also reduces the intensity of front shadowing.
Existing analyses of stress shadowing consider only front shadowing and are generally based on
numerical techniques with assumed fracture growth models, and varying approximations of the closing/
closed fracture width. This paper uses a rigorous analytical approach to compute the effects of stress
shadowing at different stages of fracture closure, and its effect on the pressure and orientation of subsequent
fractures. As in actual field situations, the analysis allows for each of the previous fractures to be in different
partial closure state. It shows that the stress shadow created by each stage of fracturing extends for only
a limited distance ahead and behind it. When the cumulative effects of multiple fracture stages and their
progressive closures are examined, the result is a gradual increase in fracturing pressure and ISIP during
the early stages, followed by relatively constant values thereafter. Although stress shadowing can cause
sharp local deflections in the fracture path, even in extreme cases the angle of deflection decreases along
the length of the active fracture. Thus stress shadowing is unlikely to cause fracture coalescence in and by
itself. Another effect of fracture deflection is to reduce the effect of stress shadowing in the later stages
of fracturing.
The main consequences of tail shadowing are accelerating closure of previous fractures, and reducing the
intensity of front shadowing by transferring more of the induced deformation behind each fracture. Fracture
deflection caused by stress shadowing is largest when the two horizontal principal stresses are very close to
each other. Another factor that influences stress shadowing is the time lapse between stages. Longer lapses
reduce the magnitude and effect of front stress shadowing.
Results of this analysis are compared with field data, with reasonable agreement. They show that the
effect of stress shadowing is not as large as generally assumed by the fracturing community. Paper includes

SPE-184818-MS

practical recommendations to help detect the presence and magnitude of front stress shadowing in fracturing
data.

Introduction
To simplify this paper's discussions, the multiple fractures created in horizontal wells are classified into
two groups;
Active fractures
These are fractures that are actively growing at the time under consideration. Their extension pressure is
larger than the magnitude of the minimum local principal stress. Their growth path is perpendicular to the
orientation of the local minimum principal stress.
Passive fractures
These are previously created fractures that are in various stages of closure at the time under consideration
and their fluid pressure is below the magnitude of the minimum principal stress. Eventually these fractures
will be held open by the proppant and its distribution inside them, which will control their volume, effective
length and width.
Interactions between multiple active and passive fractures created in horizontal wells cause alterations in
the state of stress within the formation. These affect the existing passive and future active fractures. Each
of these is controlled by a different set of parameters, as listed below:
Stress shadowing
The existing literature defines this term as the effect of existing passive fractures on future fractures. But
these fractures also influence the behavior of previous fractures behind them. To remain consistent with the
prevailing industry terminology, in this paper the effect on propagation of future fractures will be called
stress shadowing. "Tail" shadowing will be used to define the effect on previous fractures. Both situations
are the topics of discussion in this paper.
Fracture shadowing
The effect of an active fracture on offset passive fractures is called fracture shadowing. Its cause is
compression of the surrounding formation and passive adjacent fractures by the stresses that cause extension
of the active fracture. This compression can increase the fluid pressure inside the passive fractures.
Magnitude of fracture shadow depends on the elastic properties of the formation and compressibility of the
fluid inside the passive fractures. Detailed discussion of the subject has been presented by Daneshy (2014).
Dynamic Active Fracture Interactions (DAFI)
Multiple active fractures extending concurrently influence each other's propagation pattern and required
pressure. DAFI defines the effect of these interactions. Its magnitude depends on the fluid pressure inside
the fractures, relative lengths of individual fractures, and their separation. Detailed discussion of DAFI is
presented by Daneshy (2015).
The main purpose of this paper is to present a cause-and-effect analysis of front and tail stress shadowing.
Existence of stress shadowing has been recognized and discussed in the fracturing literature for some
time. Most of these discussions are based on numerical modeling of the problem and consider only front
shadowing. Using a 3-dimensional numerical simulation and Perkins and Kern (1961) model of fracture
growth, Roussel and Sharma (2011) reviewed stress changes caused by the propagation of a fracture
perpendicular to the wellbore. They numerically computed the stress changes caused by the formation
deformation around a fracture. Their analysis indicated that stress shadowing causes alterations in the
magnitude and orientation of stresses around the fracture. They indicated that there is a region around the

SPE-184818-MS

fracture where the altered stresses are deflected 90 with respect to their original direction. They called this
phenomenon "stress reversal" and recommended using it for selection of spacing between fractures. The
examples cited in the paper address the situation where the difference between the two principal stresses
is only 100 psi. Their computations are based on the assumption that the residual stress resulting from
fracture opening is constant along its length. Using similarity parameters, Bunger et al (2012) reviewed
the effects of differential stress (between the maximum and minimum principal stresses), confining stress
(difference between the net fracturing pressure and minimum principal stress), viscosity, and fracture width.
They concluded that large differential stresses suppress the effect of other parameters. Sesetty and Ghassemi
(2013) also used numerical modeling to show that the effect of stress shadowing on a new fracture 9.84 ft.
away from a pressurized passive fracture is deviation towards the passive fracture (attraction). Increasing
the spacing to 20 ft. resulted in the repulsion of the new fracture. The two horizontal principal stresses were
725 and 580 psi. Fisher et. al (2004) reported observing stress shadow effects in the microseismic signals
recorded in eleven Barnett horizontal wells studied in their paper. Their statement that "the rate at which
this stress perturbation declines as you move away from the fracture face is controlled by the smallest areal
fracture dimension (height or length)" appears to be the consequence of using Perkins & Kern (1961) fracture
growth model. They concluded that stress shadowing discourages fracture growth in the mid-section of the
horizontal well, and helps at the heel and toe. The effect of stress shadowing may even include orthogonal
fractures in long horizontal wells. Experiments conducted by Jeffrey et al. (2013) concluded that the five
sequential hydraulic fractures created from vertical wells drilled into the roof of a coal mine and separated
8.2 ft. did not intersect each other.

Discussion
The fracture extension model adopted in this paper relates the width of the created fracture to its length, as
first presented by Khristianovich and Zheltov (1957). It is different than the Perkins and Kern (1961) model
that relates the width of the fracture to its height as used by several other investigators of the subject.
Stress shadowing is caused by the deformations around a closing/closed hydraulic fracture. At any given
time this deformation is equal to the fracture width at each point along the fracture length. In addition to
the width, the resulting stresses are functions of formation mechanical properties (Young's modulus, E, and
Poisson's ratio, ). But they also depend on the closing/closed fracture length, as shown below.
Assuming a simple elliptical fracture shape, the following equation relates the width of the fracture to
its length and formation mechanical properties;
(1)
During its extension, P induces the normal stress on the fracture face that deforms and opens it. But
this relationship does not require the fracture to be growing. It is simply a geometrical relationship between
fracture dimensions and the stresses that cause it to have an elliptical shape. Assuming that the closing/
closed fracture has an elliptical shape, the same general relationship is maintained between its dimensions,
formation properties and stresses caused by its opening and acting on its face. Since we define the term P
during closure as stress shadow, it will be represented by the symbol Ps and its value will be related to
other parameters by the same general equation:
(2)
where c represents the temporal width of the closing/closed fracture. Considering the movement
of proppant inside the fracture and its increasing concentration during industrial fracturing, as an
approximation, it is reasonable to assume that the closing/closed fracture has an elliptical shape. Equation

SPE-184818-MS

(2) shows that the magnitude of stress shadow depends on fracture width and length, as well as formation
mechanical properties. It is higher for larger values of E and fracture width, and lower for longer fracture
length. During fracture closure, decreasing c causes Ps to decrease. Note that Equation (2) assumes only
that the closing/closed fracture has an elliptical shape. It does not require that the same fracture should
have had an elliptical shape during its extension. Furthermore, since all new fractures are created on the unfractured/intact side of the wellbore, Eq. (2) offers a reasonable approximation.
Detailed calculations and equations for the stresses caused by fracture deformation are presented in
Appendix A. To start review of the results, the general forms of the stresses caused by a passive fracture
are computed using equations (A-6) (A-9) and presented in Figures 1 3. As these graphs show,
presence of the passive fracture induces a mix of compressive, tensile and shear stresses around it. These
stresses diminish rapidly as the point under consideration moves away from the fracture, and the wellbore.
Specifically, the stress perpendicular to the fracture face is tensile for points close to the fracture tip (x/
Xf ~ 1) and beyond. The gradual transition from compressive to tensile stress is caused by the elliptical
shape of the fracture. The shear stress is zero at the wellbore, but has non-zero values for distances up to
2 - 3 times the fracture length. Addition of these stresses alters the state of stress around a closing/closed
fracture. Existence of shear stresses means that the altered principal stresses will not be parallel with the
original stresses, except at the wellbore or points far ahead of the fracture tip. These figures also show that
stress shadow, as commonly defined, does not have a constant value and orientation, and changes along
the length of the new fracture.

Figure 1 Non-dimensional stress normal to frac face caused by the passive fracture

Figure 2 Non-dimensional stress parallel with frac face caused by the passive fracture

SPE-184818-MS

Figure 3 Non-dimensional shear stress caused by the passive fracture

In order to compute the cumulative effect of stress shadowing one needs to compute and add the
contribution of each of the previous passive fractures based on their separation from the fracture under
consideration, and the progression of their closure. The closure status of the fracture can be approximated
by changing the value of c in Eq. (A-4). A fracture that was created several stages earlier is likely to be
closed with c = 1. As seen in above figures, increasing distance from the fracture causes rapid reduction of
its induced stresses so that after a certain distance the effect becomes negligible.
In order to get an engineering sense of the magnitude of the stress shadow, an example set of computations
will be used for discussion of the subject. The input data is from an actual hydraulic fracture and is presented
in Table 1. For demonstration purposes, the four fractures in each cluster are represented by one fracture in
the middle of the interval with total proppant equal to the weight of proppant injected in all four clusters.
Consequently the width of the single fracture will be the same as the sum of the widths of all four fractures in
the stage and perpendicular to the wellbore. Its length is assumed to be 1,500 ft. The value of fracture length
was selected using the estimation method presented in Appendix B. Its corresponding P is around 1,050
psi in this example. These computations also account for the gradual closure of each previous fracture stage
because of time lapse between stages by allowing their corresponding c to decrease, eventually reaching c
= 1 after fifteen stages which corresponds to a fracture volume equal to bulk proppant volume.
Table 1 Input data for example computations
Fracture treatment data
Number of stages

20

Number of clusters per stage

Cluster spacing, Ys, (ft)

60

Assumed closing fracture length, Xf, (ft)

1,500

Formation data
Minimum horizontal principal stress, hmin, (psi)

5,500

Maximum horizontal principal stress, hmax, (psi)

5,700

Young's modulus, E, (psi)

4.0E6

Poisson's ratio,

0.15

Fracture height, H, (ft)

50
Proppant data

SPE-184818-MS

Total weight, Wp, (lbs)

5.23E6

Specific gravity,

2.6

Bulk porosity,

0.35

Initial closing fracture width coefficient, c

Figure 4 shows the maximum additional normal stress acting during each fracture stage at the wellbore
(x=0). The reduced slope of the curve after around stage 10 shows the diminishing effect of the earlier
stages due to their distance from the new fracture and their closure which has reduced their effective fracture
width and volume. Beyond this point, each new fracture is influenced mainly by only a limited number of
previous fractures closest to it. The effect of previous farther and mostly closed fractures becomes negligible
compared to the larger effect of the closer wider open fractures. The practical significance of this point is
that it shows that there is a stage beyond which the effect of stress shadowing stays relatively constant and
may not be detectable during the subsequent fracturing stages. In other words, the biggest changes in stress
shadowing occur in the early stages of fracturing. After creation of certain number of fractures (depending
on the formation and fracture characteristics) the changes in stress shadowing become very small and less
than the effect of other parameters that also change fracturing pressure.

Figure 4 Maximum additional normal stress on fracture face at different stages

As stated earlier, the deformations induced by fracture width change the stress state in the formation. For
example, figures 5 and 6 give the magnitudes of two of these stresses, yy and xy, along the fracture
length for the above input data. The presence of shear stresses means that the local altered principal stresses
do not have the same orientation as before. This has three important consequences;

SPE-184818-MS

Figure 5 Incremental stress normal to fracture faces caused by stress shadowing in different fracture stages

Figure 6 Incremental shear stress caused by stress shadowing in different active fracture stages

1. The new fractures will not be parallel with the previous fractures.
2. The fracturing pressure which will be determined by the altered minimum principal stress will be
different in each stage. However, as seen earlier, the difference between the stages becomes very
small after the first few stages (10 in this example). Even in the early stages, the contribution of stress
shadowing is in the same range as the effect of other variables that change fracturing pressure.
3. As the stresses caused by shadowing change along the length of the fracture, so do the altered local
principal stresses. Thus, each new fracture encounters a different state of stress as it grows in length!
Note. Point 1 contradicts the assumption made for making the above computations. This was necessary
to present the basic nature of fracture shadowing. The general effect of the difference will be discussed later.
The graphs for the altered minimum principal stress and fracture deflection angle, , in different stages
are presented in Figures 7 and 8.

SPE-184818-MS

Figure 7 Altered minimum principal stress h2, caused by stress shadowing

Figure 8 Fracture deflection angle, , caused by stress shadowing

Figure 7 confirms the observation that for a given set of conditions, there is a stage beyond which there
is little difference between the stresses encountered by subsequent stages. This means that the influence
of stress shadowing should be noticeable only during the first few fractures, and stay relatively constant
thereafter. Furthermore, the magnitude of the altered minimum principal stress, h2, is changing along the
fracture length. The local magnitude of h2 is actually decreasing, albeit by a small amount, as the fracture
grows away from the wellbore. Note that for all these fractures h2is even less than the original minimum
principal stress for x/Xf > ~ 0.8. This is caused by the presence of tensile stresses near the tip of the closing/
closed previous passive fractures.
Together with change in the magnitude of the altered principal stresses, their orientation also changes in
different stages of fracturing and also along the length of each fracture. Figure 8 shows that, for some of the
stages shown in this figure and the input data, there is a stress reversal at the wellbore, with the minimum
principal stress reorienting to become perpendicular to its original direction. As the new fracture extends
away from the wellbore, the deflection angle rapidly decreases and the fracture gradually tilts towards its
original direction (parallel with x-axis). However, in the interval 0 to Xf, the new fracture will be inclined
with respect to the wellbore, and follows a curved path as shown in Figure 9 for the fractures created in
stages 13 and 14. Note that even though the data in Figure 8 indicates 90 deflection at the wellbore, because
of its rapid decline the deflection stage 14 did not cause its coalescence with the fracture in stage 13.

SPE-184818-MS

Figure 9 Fracture deflection in stages 13 and 14 caused by stress shadowing from previous stages

Remark. As stated earlier, one of the consequences of stress shadowing is deflection of the subsequent
fractures, as seen in Figure 9. This means that the magnitudes and orientations of stress shadows in each
stage will be somewhat different than computed and presented here. In particular, since the main cause of
stress shadowing is the stress normal to closing fracture face, fracture deflection causes these stresses to be
inclined with respective to the wellbore and therefore have a smaller footprint on it. This reduces the number
of stages whose cumulative shadow is influencing successive stages. Thus, the computations reported here
represent an inflated case of stress shadowing. Fracture deflection may actually cause a reduction in the
magnitude of stress shadow during the latter stages of fracturing. This point appears to be confirmed by the
match with field data shown later. It is also in agreement with most of the field data reviewed by this author.
Tail shadowing
The computations reported here assume symmetrical distribution of stress shadow on both sides of the
passive fracture. In fact, since the formation surrounding the previous passive fractures is made more
compressible by the presence of the multiple closing fractures, more of the displacement created by opening
of each new fracture is absorbed by the previously fractured formation behind it, which also accelerates their
closure. The net effect is that the deformations causing front stress shadowing will be less than computed
here, and this situation accelerates with the addition of more passive fractures.
Effect of the extent of fracture closure
The computations reported above included the gradual closure of the fractures with longer time lapse since
their creation in earlier pumping stages. Obviously, as the closure process proceeds and fracture widths
decrease, their stress shadow also decreases. For the example data used here, Figure 10 shows the magnitude
of h2 for the case when every passive fracture is completely closed on the proppant (c = 1) before start
of the next stage. Figure 11 shows the fracture deflection angle for the same situation. Both graphs show
that complete closure of the fracture has resulted in smaller values of h2 and less fracture deflection. Since
because of operational conditions there are differences in time lapses between fracturing stages, one should
logically expect differences in the stress shadow between successive stages.

10

SPE-184818-MS

Figure 10 Effect of stress shadow on altered local minimum principal stress for completely closed fractures

Figure 11 Effect of stress shadow on fracture deflection angle for completely closed fractures

Effect of stress difference

The above computations represented the situation where the difference between the two original principal
stresses ( = hmax hmin) was intentionally assumed to be low (200 psi) so that the results could be
compared with other published papers. In reality, while one can get an estimate of hmin from the ISIP data, we
usually do not know the magnitude of hmax. Repeating the same computations with larger stress difference
shows that the biggest effect of increasing is to decrease the fracture deflection angle, as shown in Figure
12. For example, the maximum fracture deflection for the case of = 1000 psi and c = 2.5 is less than 8.
As explained above, the actual fracture deflection will be smaller than the numbers computed here. This data
shows that effect of stress shadowing is more prominent for smaller differences between the two original
in-situ horizontal principal stresses. Repeating the same computations with c = 1 reduced the maximum
fracture deflection angle to less than 4.

SPE-184818-MS

11

Figure 12 Fracture deflection angle resulting from stress shadowing for large

Comparison with field data

The magnitudes of ISIP for the different stages of the above treatment and comparison with actual field data
are presented in Figure 13. Features of the field data that will influence such comparisons include;

Figure 13 Computed stress shadow matched with actual field data for assumed fracture length of 1500 ft.

1. There usually exists some ambiguity in estimating the value of ISIP from field data. These ambiguities
are caused by the movement of fluid inside the fracture during the initial closure process.
2. Regrettably, in a rush to minimize the total treatment time for cost saving, most field data include very
little pressure data beyond the immediate end of pumping. This makes it nearly impossible to make
reasonable estimation of the ISIP. This was in fact the case for the data used in this analysis and vast
majority of the data reviewed by this author.
3. The magnitude of ISIP at the end of each stage of pumping reflects an aggregate of the multiple
clusters that were fractured concurrently during that stage. Consequently this value includes the effect
of the dynamic active fracture interactions (DAFI) that were present during that stage.
4. As stated earlier, one of the consequences of stress shadowing is fracture deflection in the later stages
of fracturing. These deflections cause the largest effect of stress shadow to be manifested in a direction
perpendicular to fracture orientation which would be different than the wellbore axis, thus reducing
the number of stages whose effect is accumulating during the entire treatment. The net effect would be

12

SPE-184818-MS

a reduction in the magnitude of stress shadow during the latter stages of fracturing. This data appears
to support this observation.
5. These computations were based on an assumed small difference between the two horizontal in-situ
principal stresses. Larger differences between these stresses make the computations reported here
more representative of actual field conditions.
6. Larger magnitude of tail shadowing reduces the level of front shadowing as computed here, especially
in later stages.
Figure 13 shows that the cumulative effect of stress shadowing is relatively small and in the same order
of magnitude as other variables that influence fracturing pressure and ISIP. It is therefore not surprising
that stress shadowing does not manifest itself more prominently during multi-stage hydraulic fracturing of
horizontal wells. Furthermore, the ISIP data during the early stages of fracturing are more in compliance
with the theoretical computations than the later stages. Part of the reason is that larger numbers of fractures
cause a larger tail shadow and transfer more shadowing deformations behind the newly created fractures.
Effect of fracture length estimation
The computations reported above were based on an assumed fracture length of 1,500 ft. Repeating the same
computations with a lower assumed length of 1,250 ft. resulted in the match presented in Figure 14. This
lower assumed length is associated with a higher magnitude of P during the treatment, Appendix B, and
causes an increase in the magnitude of stress shadow. While the difference in the two matches reported
here is well within accuracy of the recorded data, using highly unreasonable estimates of fracture length
can readily be recognized from the match between field and computed data (in addition to the computed
magnitude of P). This point suggests the possibility of using the match as a way of getting a rough estimate
of fracture length.

Figure 14 Computed stress shadow matched with actual field data for assumed fracture length of 1,250 ft.

Note. The most uncertain part of the data analyzed above is the values of ISIP. Some of the reported
values represent less than one minute of shut-in time and while pressure data was fluctuating due to water
hammer effect at shut-in. Attempts were made to use two other pressures (average and minimum pressures)
as indicators of stress shadowing, but they showed more variation than ISIP.
Another point worth noting is that the data from many of the fractures examined for this paper did not
show pressure differences that could reasonably be attributed to stress shadowing.

SPE-184818-MS

13

Conclusions
The findings of this paper indicate that the actual magnitude of stress shadowing is considerably smaller than
generally assumed by the fracturing community, including this author as indicated in previous publications,
Daneshy (2015). Some of the reasons for this difference can be summarized as follows;
1. Stress shadowing changes the stresses on both sides of each created fracture. However, our concern
and measurements reflect only one side of the wellbore; on the un-fractured side of it. Since the
formation on this side of the fractures is intact and has essentially an infinite extent, the deformations
caused by previous passive fractures are distributed over a long interval, which reduces the magnitude
of the resulting stresses. Since these stresses gradually diminish with distance, their effect on stress
shadowing is significant over only a limited number of future fractures.
2. Presence of previous fractures reduces the stiffness of the formation behind each created fracture. This
causes more of the fracture deformation to be borne by tail stress shadow.
3. Gradual closure of the previous fractures reduces their effective width and the induced stress shadow.
Combined with the effect of distance, this results in relatively constant stress shadow after a certain
number of fractures (depending on the fracturing conditions).
4. While stress shadowing causes deflection in the path of created fractures, the magnitude of this
deflection is strongly dependent on the difference between the two original horizontal principal
stresses; large stress difference causes smaller fracture deflections.
5. One factor that has strong influence on the computations of stress shadowing is the assumed model
for fracture growth that also influences stress computations. In this author's view, Khristianovich and
Zheltov (1955) model offers a more realistic picture of fracture growth, as manifested by the match
between actual and field data presented in this paper.
6. The analysis reported here considered the case of fractures perpendicular to the borehole axis. The
case for fractures inclined with respect to the wellbore also needs a similar review and analysis.

Recommendations
Ability to detect and determine the effects and magnitude of stress shadowing is very strongly dependent
on our ability to determine the value of ISIP and its time. These requirements differ with the present
industry drivers for recording and reporting fracturing data. The present practices (both Service Company
and Operator) are motivated by the following imperatives;
1. Reducing the total time for fracturing services. This is sometimes construed to represent operational
efficiency. As part of this objective, very little shut-in data is collected at the end of each pumping
stage in order to reduce the total service time and its cost. Absence of representative shut-in data
makes it nearly impossible to determine the presence and extent of stress shadowing. Incorporating a
10 minute shut-in time at the end of each fracturing stage adds little to the total fracturing time. For
example, for a 40 stage fracturing treatment, the total added time is around 6.5 hours, which is a small
percentage (often less than 5%) of total service time.
2. Absence of clock time. Nearly all fracturing data are reported versus the elapsed or pumping time,
unless specifically requested from the fracturing service provider. Data acquisition systems used
for recording real-time fracturing data routinely acquire the data against the computer clock time.
The reported elapsed or pumping time is in fact a computed number. Therefore reporting the data
against the clock time does not cost anything. On the other hand, having clock time allows accurate
determination of the closure time of all previous fracture stages.

14

SPE-184818-MS

Considering the benefits of evaluating and using stress shadowing effects for improving the fracturing
results, in the view of this author adding the time needed for recording shut-in pressure is considered a
good investment.

Nomenclature

E
H
Vp
Wp
Xf
Y
P
Ps
xx, yy, xy

xx, yy, xy
hmax, hmin
h1, h2

References

formation Young's modulus, psi

fracture height, ft.
proppant bulk volume in the fracture, ft3
injected proppant weight, lbs.
fracture length, ft.
spacing between adjacent fractures, ft.
net fracturing pressure, psi
stress shadowing pressure, psi
incremental stresses caused by stress shadowing, psi
dummy variable
fracture deflection angle, degrees
fracture volume/proppant bulk volume
fracture volume/proppant bulk volume for a closing/closed fracture
formation Poisson's ratio
proppant specific gravity
stress components within the formation, psi
maximum and minimum in-situ principal stresses, psi
maximum and minimum altered principal stresses, psi
fracture width, in.
closing/closed fracture width, in.

Bunger, A. P., Zhang, X., Jeffrey, R. G., (2012). "Parameters Affecting the Interaction Among Closely Spaced Hydraulic
Fractures" SPE Journal, March 2012, 292 306
Daneshy, A. A., Au-Yeung, J., Thompson, T., Tymko, D., (2014). "Fracture Shadowing: A Direct Method for
Determination of the Reach and Propagation Pattern of Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wells" HFQ, Vol. 1, No.
1, 61 68
Daneshy, A. A., Pomeroy, M., (2014). "In-situ Determination of Fracturing Parameters from Communication Between
Horizontal Wells", HFJ, Vol. 1, No. 2
Daneshy, A. A. (2014). "Fracture Shadowing: Theory, Applications and Implications" SPE 170611, presented at the 2014
SPE ATCE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 27 - 29
Daneshy, A. A. (2015). "Stress Shadowing: The Compelling Evidence?" HFJ, Volume 2, Number 1, January 2015, 96 98
Daneshy, A. A. (2015). "Dynamic Active Fracture Interaction (DAFI) in Horizontal Wells" HFJ, Volume 2, Number 2,
March 2015, 8 20
Fisher, M. K., Heinze, J. R., Harris, C. D., Davidson, B. M., Wright, C. A., Dunn, K. P. (2004). "Optimizing Horizontal
Completion Techniques in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping" SPE 90051, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston Texas, USA, 26 29 September 2004
Jeffrey, R. G., Chen, Z., Mills, K. W., Pegg, S. (2013). "Monitoring and Measuring Hydraulic Fracturing Growth During
Preconditioning of a Roof Rock over a Coal Longwall Panel". Proceedings of the International Conference for Effective
and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing (Edited by Bunger, McLennan, and Jeffrey). May, 2013.
Khristianovich, S. A., Zheltov, Yu. P. (1955). "Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid",Proc.
Fourth World Pet. Cong. II, 579 586
Perkins, T. K., Kern, L. R., (1961). "Widths of Hydraulic Fractures" J. Pet. Tech, Sept. 1961, 937 949
Roussel, N. P., Sharma, M. M. (2011). "Optimizing Fracture Spacing and Sequencing in Horizontal-Well Fracturing" SPE
Production and Operations, May 2011, 173 184

SPE-184818-MS

15

Sesetty, V., Ghassemi, A. (2013). "Numerical Simulation of Sequential and Simultaneous Hydraulic Fracturing". Chapter
33 of "Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing", edited by Bunger, A., McLennan, J., Jeffrey, R., Chapter,
ISBN 978-51-1137-5, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56309
Sneddon, I. N. (1946). "The Distribution of Stress in the Neighborhood of a Crack in an elastic solid" Proceedings Royal
Soc. Of London, 1946, 229 260
Sneddon, I. N. (1951). "Fourier Transforms" McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 405 427

16

SPE-184818-MS

Appendix A
The discussion presented here is related to a homogeneous, isotropic, linearly elastic formation with Young's
modulus E and Poisson's ration, . The fracture is assumed to be linear and two-dimensional. Fracture
growth is assumed to occur along its length. The partially closed fracture is assumed to have an elliptical
cross-section, with constant height, H, volume, Vf, length, Xf, maximum width, c, and kept open by the
injected proppant plus a fraction of the injected fluid. The proppant weight injected into the fracture is
denoted by Wp, with specific gravity, . The packed proppant inside the fracture is assumed to have porosity,
. Under these assumptions;
(A - 1)
Proppant bulk volume, Vp, is given by:
(A - 2)

Figure A-1Well and fracture diagram.

Fracture width in horizontal wells is controlled by formation Young's modulus, E, and spacing between
adjacent fractures, Daneshy (2015). Designating this spacing by Y, fracture width is given by;
(A - 3)
Assuming that at the time under consideration the open fracture volume is c times the bulk proppant
volume, one can compute the fracture length, Xf, by;
(A - 4)
For a closed fracture, c = 1. From Eq. (A-4)
(A - 5)
Knowing the fracture dimensions, one can now calculate the stresses that will be created within the
formation due to the presence of this fracture. The equations for these stresses are given by Sneddon (1951)
to be:
(A - 6)

SPE-184818-MS

17

(A - 7)
(A - 8)
Where
(A - 9)
The new state of stress at different points within the formation is given by
(A - 10)
(A - 11)
(A - 12)
The two new and altered principal stresses, h1 and h2, and their orientation with respect to the xy
coordinate system can be computed from;
(A - 13)
(A - 14)
where is the angle between h1 and x-axis, with positive angles being counter-clockwise. Since fracture
orientation is perpendicular to h2, the angle defines fracture orientation.

18

SPE-184818-MS

Appendix B
Rational estimation of Xf and P
One of the critical challenges for a reasonable review of stress shadowing is estimation of a rational fracture
length for a closing/closed fracture. If one assumes that in order to inject the proppant inside the fracture,
its extending width needs to be at least times its closed width, then combining Eqs. (A-3) & (A-9);
(B - 1)
gives the corresponding value for Xf as;
(B - 2)
A ball-park average estimate of P can be computed from the pressure data at the end of the pumping
stages. The value of can be assumed to be 3 -4 times the fracture width at full closure. Substituting this
data in Eq. (B-2) provides a rational ball-park estimate of propped fracture length.