Analysis of Nanoseismicity during laboratory hydraulic fracturing experiments
Camilo Moreno, Yashwanth Chitrala*, Carl Sondergeld and Chandra Rai, Mewbourne School of Petroleum and
Geological Engineering, The University of Oklahoma
Abstract
Microseismic mapping of hydraulic fractures has gained
importance recently. The success of a fracturing job
depends on the fracture dimensions. Microseismicity
monitoring offers an efficient means of real time analysis
of hydraulic fracture propagation. The recorded seismic
waveforms are processed and analyzed to locate the source
of an event, to extract information about the fracture
dimensions and fracture mechanisms. Fracturing shale
introduces a complication because of the elastic anisotropy
inherent in shale. This complicates field analysis of closure
stress calculations and the velocity model required for
accurate hypocenter locations. The purpose of our study is
to understand the processes governing fracture propagation
through acoustic emission studies. Focal mechanism
analysis indicates that hydraulic fracturing is dominated by
shear failure mechanism. Spatial distributions of
hypocenters vary from the expected planar features to
diffuse clouds. Spectral analysis shows considerable
variation from event to event but a general consistency
among similar lithologies.
Introduction
Fracture dimensions provide a measure of the effectiveness
of a stimulation treatment. Hypocenter location accuracy
affects the resolution of these dimensions. Field
implementation of monitor programs involve surface or
downhole arrays of sensor and use perforation shots for
calibration. Our laboratory experiments allow us to
surround the sample with an array of sensors. Orientation
of the hydraulic fracture is controlled by in-situ principal
stresses. We duplicate this by applying a horizontal stress.
Height containment is controlled by treatment parameter,
rock moduli and stresses. The injection of fluid to create a
hydraulic fracture in the subsurface induces changes in
effective stress which creates new fractures or re-opens
existing ones. A portion of the energy released during this
process is radiated as seismic waves (P-waves and S-
waves) (Reyes et al., 2009), and these are detected by an
2010 SEG
SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting
array of sensors located at surface or in an observation
well. Analysis of field events indicates that shear failures
dominate the fracturing (Ishida et al., 1997; Baria and
Green, 1986; Talebi and Cornet, 1987; Talebi and Boone,
1998; Urbancic et al., 1999).
Experimental setup
Sixteen B-1025 transducers having a frequency range of 50
KHz to 1.5 MHz are used to record the seismic waveforms.
Each sensor is connected to the signal conditioning unit via
a preamplifier. The total amplification for waveforms and
the trigger are 70 and 66 dB, respectively. All events were
recorded at a trigger threshold voltage of 100 mV. The
recording on all 16 channels starts simultaneously once the
threshold voltage is reached. In this study only the P-wave
arrival times have been used in the hypocenter location
algorithm.
Sample preparation
The cylindrical samples used in this study are Indiana
limestone and pyrophyllite samples which are of 5 inches
high and 4 inches in diameter. Circumferential Velocity
Analysis (CVA) was used to determine azimuthal velocity
variation in each sample. CVA is a pulse transmission
technique where the velocity is measured as a function of
azimuth along the circumference of the sample. The
velocity deviation across the limestone samples was less
than 4%; we treated these samples as homogeneous and
isotropic whereas the pyrophyllite had a measured P-wave
anisotropy of 25%. Previous measurements on pyrophyllite
(Sachse and Ruoff, 1981) suggest it is transversely
isotropic. The measured vertical and horizontal p-wave
velocities are 4187 m/s and 5137 m/s, respectively at 4000
psi, and the calculated anisotropic parameters , and are
0.25, 0.75 and 0.40, respectively. The sensor arrangements
for the two sets of samples are presented in the figures
below. Samples were uniaxially stressed at 4000 psi in a
radial direction (see Fig. 1).
2100
 Analysis of Nanoseismicity

Brekenridge, 1981) at 8 different surface locations. This

process provides calibration for velocity models, transducer
polarities and hypocenter locations. The best resolution of
hypocenters in the Indiana limestone is 3 mm and 7mm
in the pyrophyllite. (see Fig 2). The increased uncertainty
in the pyrophyllite is attributed to the strong measured
velocity anisotropy.

Fig. 1: Indiana limestone sample instrumented and stressed

while undergoing a hydraulic fracture stimulation.

Table 1 gives properties of samples used as well as

completion geometry and pumping rates. Note that the
permeability of the limestone was 6 orders of magnitude
greater than that of the pyrophyllite. This resulted in a very
high leak-off rate which required the greater pumping rates.

Table 1: Properties of test samples, completion

geometry and pumping rates.

Indiana Pyrophyllite
limestone

Petrophysical characteristics
Porosity, %
crushed 20 4
Boyles law 16 3
@800 psi 15 3

Permeability 5 md 8 nd
Mineralogy, wgt% Calcite, 95

Sample and stimulation properties

Length, in 5 4
Diameter, in 4 4
Borehole depth, in 2.5 2
Counter-bore depth, in 0.4 0.4
Perforation depth, in 2 1.6
Frac fluid, viscosity, cp Oil , 50 Oil,50
Pumping rate, cc/min 15 5

Fig.2. Plan views of pencil breaks(black dots) for

Sets of 15 and 14 sensors have been used for the limestone
and pyrophyllite experiments, respectively. The sensors are
distributed to maximize azimuthal coverage. A dense
vertical array of sensors is used for frequency analysis.
Before pumping any fluid the sensor arrangement is
calibrated using a pencil-break source (Hsu and
Indiana limestone (a) and pyrophyllite (b) and the
calculated locations(blue circles). Error bars are
indicated as red crosses and sensors are indicated by
green squares. The average absolute error for
limestones is 2.7 mm and 7.47 mm for pyrophyllite.
Hypocenter locations

2010 SEG
SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting 2101
 Analysis of Nanoseismicity
The spatial distributions and temporal evolution of events
are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Fig.3. Plan (upper) and side (lower) views of event
locations during hydraulic fracturing of Indiana
limestone (C14); events are colored according to order
of occurrence. Red arrow in plan view indicates
direction of maximum horizontal stress (4000 psi).
Green squares are sensor locations. Note the planar
alignment of event and horizontal stress direction in
plan view.
Fig. 3 shows a plan and cross sectional view of event
locations in Indiana limestone. 71 events were locatable
during this experiment. There is a very strong preferred
alignment of events with the superposed horizontal stress;
this is expected. A fracture consistent with the locations
2010 SEG
SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting
was observed on the sample surface. Events are also
confined to the upper half of the sample, above the
perforation. Time progression shows the development of
the fracture as it moves away from the injection source.
There are, however, late stage events recorded in zones
previously fractured
Fig.4. Plan (upper) and side (lower) views of event
locations during hydraulic fracturing of pyrophyllite
(P5); events are colored according to order of
occurrence. Red arrow in plan view indicates direction
of maximum horizontal stress (4000 psi). The black
dashed line shows the bedding orientation within the
pyrophyllite. Green squares are sensor locations. There
is a suggestion of alignment with the superposed stress
field.
2102
 Analysis of Nanoseismicity

Fig. 4 shows a plan and cross sectional view of event Early Time Frequency (KHz) vs X (mm)
locations in pyrophyllite. 49 events were locatable during Intermediate time 600
late time
this experiment. The anisotropic fabric is shown by the
500
dotted lines. Nascent alignment is observed in the direction
of applied stress and locations in cross section appear more 400

Frequency (KHz)
tightly clustered around the injection site. 300

Source mechanism and spectral analysis 200

100
The fundamental objective of the hydraulic fracture
stimulation is to improve the natural permeability by 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
providing a more conducive fracture path. Simple pure X (mm)

tensile fracture will close and shut off permeability.

Proppant is often injected to prevent fracture closure and
maintain permeability. Another mechanism responsible for
permeability enhancement is surface misregistration
induced through shearing. The polarity of the P-wave
arrivals is used for analyzing the fracture mechanisms
which can be used to differentiate shear events from tensile
events. Fracture mechanisms have been classified into four
different categories based on polarity analysis (focal
mechanisms); these are tensile, compressive, shear and
complex. Ambiguity in polarity determination gives rise to
complex events where it is not possible to identify nodal
planes separating the compression and dilatational arrivals.
Frequency analysis of the P-wave portions of the events has
been carried out. It has been observed that the frequencies
of the late time events are lower than those of early events.
This may be related to the fracture propagation processes or
to an increase in attenuation associated with the fracture
density or variable fluid saturation. The focal mechanism
solutions of the events showed the shear mechanism to be
as common as tensile events for both rock types. Greater
than 35% of the located events were classified as shear
events. No compressional events were recorded in the
pyrophyllite, and only a few in the more porous limestone,
leading us to speculate that they may be related to pore
collapse. An example of spectral findings is presented in
Fig. 5. We plot the main frequency of the windowed 5
sec about the P-wave arrivals at the X-Z location of the
event. Note the wide variation in frequencies from 100 to
600 KHz and the general trend of reduced frequency with
increased distance from the injection well. The distance to
sensors is decreasing thus attenuation effects should be
reduced, leaving us to conclude that these observations are
related to the mechanics of hydraulic fracturing.
Fig.5: Cross-sectional view of primary frequencies of all
the events (Indiana limestone). X-direction is along the
hydraulic fracture; plus values to the right and negative
to the left of the stimulation well. Colors indicate
temporal development.
Permeability
We applied the r-t method (Economides and Nolte, 2003;
Shapiro et al., 2006) and the inversion method (Grechka et
al., 2010) to estimate sample permeability. The results are
compared to measurements made on core plugs extracted
from companion samples in Table 2. The analyses
produced more realistic results on the very tight
pyrophyllite material.
Table 2: Values of formation permeability (nanodarcy)
obtained from different methods.
Method Pyrophyllite
r-t method 1
inversion 499
Core measurement* 80 500
Results and discussion
Hypocenter locations agree with the surface projections of
hydraulic fractures, align with applied horizontal stresses,
and produce a time domain picture consistent with fracture
propagation. Focal mechanism studies indicate that shear
failure is as common as tensile failure during fracture
development. Spectral analysis reveals a bandwidth which
is lithology and distance dependent. Permeabilities derived
using both r-t method and inversion method are in
agreement with direct core measurements Source
parameters are also being analyzed for relationships with
fracture development.

2010 SEG
SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting 2103
 EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2010
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES

Baria , R., and A. S. P. Green, 1986, Seismicity induced during a viscous stimulation at the Camborne
School of Mines Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Project in Cornwall, England: Presented at the 8th
International Acoustic Emissions Symposium, Japanese Society for Non-Destructive Inspection.
Economides, M. J., and K. G. Nolte, 2003, Reservoir Stimulation: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Grechka, V., P. Mazumdar, and S. A. Shapiro, 2010, Predicting permeability and gas production of
hydraulically fractured tight sands from microseismic data: Geophysics, 75, no. 1, B1B10,
doi:10.1190/1.3278724.
Hsu, N. N., and F. R. Breckenridge, 1981, Characterization and Calibration of Acoustic Emission
Sensors: Materials Evaluation, 39, 6068.
Ishida , T., Q. Chen, and Y. Mizuta, 1997, Effect of injected water on hydraulic fracturing deduced from
acoustic emission monitoring: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 150, no. 3-4, 627646,
doi:10.1007/s000240050096.
Reyes, J. M., 2009, Application of Relative Location Techniques to Induced Microseismicity from
Hydraulic Fracturing: Presented at the 2009 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE.
Sachse, W., and A. L. Ruoff, 1975, Elastic moduli of precompressed pyrophyllite used in ultra high-
pressure research: Journal of Applied Physics, 46, no. 9, 37253730, doi:10.1063/1.322175.
Shapiro, S. A., C. Dinske, and E. Rothert, 2006, Hydraulic -fracturing controlled dynamics of
microseismic clouds: Geophysical Research Letters, 33, no. 14, L14312,
doi:10.1029/2006GL026365.
Talebi, S., and T. J. Boone, 1998, Source Parameters of injection-induced microseismicity: Pure and
Applied Geophysics, 153, no. 1, 113130, doi:10.1007/s000240050187.
Talebi, S., and F. H. Cornet, 1987, Analysis of microseismicity induced by a fluid injection in a granite
rock mass: Geophysical Research Letters, 14, no. 3, 227230, doi:10.1029/GL014i003p00227.
Urbancic , T. I., V. Shumila, J. T. Rutledge, and R. J. Zinno, 1999, Determining hydraulic fracture
behavior using microseismicity: 37th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics
Association, Proceedings, 991-996

2010 SEG
SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting 2104