Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Lithology-dependent minimum horizontal stress and in-situ

stress estimate
Yushuai Zhang a, Jincai Zhang b,c,⁎
a
Wanfang College of Science and Technology, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozhuo, Henan 454000, China
b
College of Earth Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, Shandong, China
c
Geomech Energy, Houston, TX, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on the generalized Hooke's law with coupling stresses and pore pressure, the minimum horizontal stress is
Received 5 December 2016 solved with assumption that the vertical, minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are in equilibrium in the
Received in revised form 2 March 2017 subsurface formations. From this derivation, we find that the uniaxial strain method is the minimum value or
Accepted 4 March 2017
lower bound of the minimum stress. Using Anderson's faulting theory and this lower bound of the minimum hor-
Available online 6 March 2017
izontal stress, the coefficient of friction of the fault is derived. It shows that the coefficient of friction may have a
Keywords:
much smaller value than what it is commonly assumed (e.g., μf = 0.6–0.7) for in-situ stress estimate. Using the
Minimum horizontal stress derived coefficient of friction, an improved stress polygon is drawn, which can reduce the uncertainty of in-situ
In-situ stress stress calculation by narrowing the area of the conventional stress polygon. It also shows that the coefficient of
Coefficient of friction friction of the fault is dependent on lithology. For example, if the formation in the fault is composed of weak
Weak fault and stability shales, then the coefficient of friction of the fault may be small (as low as μf = 0.2). This implies that this fault
Improved stress polygon is weaker and more likely to have shear failures than the fault composed of sandstones. To avoid the weak
fault from shear sliding, it needs to have a higher minimum stress and a lower shear stress. That is, the critically
stressed weak fault maintains a higher minimum stress, which explains why a low shear stress appears in the
frictionally weak fault.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In-situ stress is one of the most important parameters for geosci-
ence modeling and geo-engineering design, particularly in the oil
and gas industry. For example, the minimum horizontal stress is
very critical for fracture gradient prediction, casing design and
wellbore stability assessment in drilling operations and for planning
hydraulic fracturing in tight reservoirs. The in-situ stress includes
three mutually orthogonal principal stresses in the subsurface; typi-
cally, they are the vertical (overburden) stress, the maximum hori-
zontal and minimum horizontal stresses (σV, σH, σh). In-situ stress
can be measured from borehole coring samples using the anelastic
strain recovery method (e.g., Cui et al., 2014). The minimum hori-
zontal stress is commonly estimated from downhole tests, such as
leak-off test (LOT), extended leak-off test (XLOT), or diagnostic frac-
ture injection test (DFIT) (e.g., Bredehoeft et al., 1976; Haimson and
Fairhurst, 1967; Raaen et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2008; Lang et al.,
2011). However, LOT data normally are not available at the location
and depth of interest. Furthermore, most LOT tests only provide frac-
ture initiation pressures or fracture breakdown pressures and do not
⁎ Corresponding author at: Geomech Energy, Houston, TX, USA.
E-mail address: jjczhang@163.com (J. Zhang).
indicate fracture closure pressures (i.e., the minimum stress). There-
fore, challenges still exist for efficiently, routinely and accurately de-
termining the minimum horizontal stress. Similarly, challenges also
exist in theoretically estimating the horizontal stresses (e.g.,
Schmitt et al., 2012; Zhang, 2013a).
In order to constrain in-situ stresses, the stress polygon based on
stress regimes has been used for decades (e.g., Zoback et al., 2003;
Sibson, 1974); however, it needs input of the coefficient of friction
of the fault which may not be easily obtained. Conventionally, it is as-
sumed that the coefficient of friction of the fault is a constant (μf =
0.6–0.7) based on Byerlee's law (Byerlee, 1978). This assumption
may cause a large uncertainty in in-situ stress estimation because
of the uncertainty in estimate of μ f ; in fact, some faults are weak
with very low μ f . For instance, Bird and Kong (1994) and Carena
and Moder (2009) concluded that all faults in the vicinity of the
transform plate boundary of the western USA are frictionally weak
to very weak (μf ≤ 0.2). Iaffaldano (2012) inferred that the coefficient
of friction of large-scale plate boundaries is in the range of 0.01–0.07.
Byerlee (1978) pointed out that if the sliding surfaces are separated
by gouge composed of some clay minerals, the friction is very low.
Engelder and Fischer (1994) concluded that the minimum horizontal
stress calculated from a friction of μf = 0.6 underestimates the min-
imum stress in the central North Sea Graben and does not match the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.03.002
0040-1951/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8
leak-off data in the Scotian Shelf, Canada. Not surprisingly, recent
work shows that the coefficient of friction of the fault is highly relat-
ed to the lithology or mineralogy of the fault gouge. For example, ex-
treme fault weakness (μf ~ 0.1) occurs within a 3 m wide creeping
fault core (Zoback et al., 2010) in the San Andreas of central Califor-
nia because of the presence of weak clay minerals (Carpenter et al.,
2011; Collettini et al., 2011). Saffer and Marone (2003) observed a
coefficient of friction in the fault gouge of 0.42–0.68 for illitic shale;
however, under identical conditions, a low friction (μ f = 0.15–
0.32) is inferred in a smectitic shale. There are also questions
concerning whether μf is the same for all faults in a region, whether
it is even constant along strike on the same fault (Carena and
Moder, 2009), or whether it is depth-dependent. Field measure-
ments of in-situ stress shows that the horizontal stresses are highly
dependent on lithologies (e.g., Warpinski and Teufel, 1989;
Wileveau et al., 2007; Gunzburger and Magnenet, 2014). For in-
stances, coal seams and shales have much higher minimum horizon-
tal stresses than the adjacent sandstones, as shown in Fig. 1.
The commonly-used methods for determining in-situ stress are
briefly reviewed in this paper. Then, an improved method for calculat-
ing the minimum horizontal stress is given. Because an in-situ stress
polygon is closely related to the coefficient of friction of the fault, this
parameter needs to be accurately determined. A new method is given
to derive the coefficient of friction of the fault. This method can explain
why the horizontal stresses depend on lithologies.
1.1. In-situ stress in various faulting regimes
Three stress regimes from Anderson's faulting theory (Anderson,
1951) can be used to describe in-situ stress states (e.g., Zoback et al.,
2003; Peng and Zhang, 2007):
1. Normal faulting stress regime. In this case, the vertical stress drives
normal faulting, and fault slip occurs when the minimum stress
reaches a sufficiently low value. In this stress state, the vertical stress
is the greatest principal stress, i.e. σV ≥ σH ≥ σh.
2. Strike-slip faulting stress regime. In this case, the vertical stress is the
intermediate principal stress, i.e. σH ≥ σV ≥ σh.
3. Reverse (or thrust) faulting stress regime. In this case, the vertical
stress is the least principal stress, i.e. σH ≥ σh ≥ σV.
Assuming there are critically oriented faults constraining stress mag-
nitudes, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Jaeger and Cook, 1979) for a fault
Fig. 1. The minimum horizontal stress profile (σh) measured from min-frac tests in
Colorado (modified from Warpinski and Teufel, 1989). Note 1 ft. = 0.305 m, 1 psi =
0.00689 MPa.
using the principal effective stresses is shown in the following equation
when there is no shear failure/sliding in the fault:
2C cosϕ f 1
σ 01 ≤ þ σ0 ð1Þ
1− sinϕ f k f 3
1− sinϕ f qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi −2
kf ¼ ¼ μ 2f þ 1 þ μ f ð2Þ
1 þ sinϕ f
where σ′1 is the maximum effective stress, σ′3 is the minimum effective
stress, C is the cohesive strength of the fault, φf is the angle of internal
friction of the fault, μf is the coefficient of friction of the fault, and μf =
tanϕf.
For deep formations, the cohesion of the fault is often neglected.
Therefore, to avoid a fault from frictional sliding, the in-situ stress
should satisfy the following equation - a similar equation was used by
Zoback et al. (2003) and Sibson (1974):
1 0
σ 01 ≤ σ ð3Þ
kf 3
In porous media, the effective stress and total stress have the follow-
ing relationship (Biot, 1941):
σ 0ij ¼ σ ij −αδij pp ð4Þ
where σ′ij and σij are the effective stress and total stress tensors, respec-
tively, α is Biot's effective stress coefficient, δij is the Kronecker delta, pp
is the pore pressure.
It should be noted that pore pressure is not hydrostatic in many deep
formations, but overpressured, as shown in Fig. 2. To accurately deter-
mine in-situ stress, the first requirement is to obtain pore pressure of
the formations (e.g., Eaton, 1975; Zhang, 2011). From Eqs. (3) and (4),
the in-situ stresses can be expressed in the following forms for different
faulting stress regimes:
Fig. 2. In-situ stress and pore pressure (pp and MDT) versus depths in a deepwater well
with the lower bound of the minimum horizontal stress (Sh_LB) and upper bound of
the maximum horizontal stress (SH_UB) calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9) assuming a
constant μf of 0.6. The MDT points are the measured formation pore pressures from the
borehole after drilling; Sv is the vertical stress; LOT data are the measured formation
leak-off pressures.
 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8 3

Normal faulting regime: Fig. 2, where the vertical stress and measured pore pressure at depth of
4316 m from the sea level (3458 m from the sea floor) are: σV =
σ 01 σ V −αpp 1 82.5 MPa, pp = 69.7 MPa. For simplification, a Biot's coefficient of 1 is ap-
¼ ≤ ð5Þ
σ 03 σ h −αpp k f plied to Eqs. (8) and (9) to calculate the bounds of the minimum and
maximum horizontal stresses. From these data, an in-situ stress polygon
Strike-slip faulting regime: is plotted, as shown in Fig. 3. The maximum and minimum horizontal
stresses are constrained in the stress polygon by considering the three dif-
σ 01 σ H −αpp 1 ferent stress regimes. However, there is still a large uncertainty. Therefore,
¼ ≤ ð6Þ
σ 03 σ h −αpp k f the stress polygon may need improvement.

Reverse faulting regime: 1.2. Vertical stress

σ 01 σ H −αpp 1
¼ ≤ ð7Þ Vertical stress is generated by the weight of the overlying forma-
σ 03 σ V −αpp k f tions. Hence, it can be obtained by integrating bulk density logs, which
are normally available in exploration and production wells. Therefore,
Hence, from Eq. (5) the lower bound of the minimum horizontal vertical stress can be calculated by the following equation:
stress (σLB
h ) can be obtained:
Z z
 
σ V ¼ ρw gzw þ g ρb ðzÞdz ð10Þ
σ LB
h ¼ k f σ V −αpp þ αpp ð8Þ zw

From Eq. (7), the upper bound of the maximum horizontal stress
(σUB
H ) can be expressed as:
1  water depth, and in onshore case, zw = 0.
σ UB
H ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp
kf
It should be noted that Biot's effective stress coefficient, α, ap-
proaches to 1 when the rocks approach to failure states.
Fig. 2 plots in-situ stress profile estimated from the above method in
a deepwater well with water depth of 858 m. The figure shows the pore
pressure, vertical stress and the calculated lower and upper bounds of
the horizontal stresses (Eqs. (8) and (9)) to constrain in-situ stress. In
the normal faulting stress regime, the minimum horizontal stress
should be in between of the lower bound of the minimum horizontal
stress and the overburden stress. However, in the strike-slip and thrust
stress regimes, the maximum horizontal stress should be located in be-
tween of the overburden stress and the upper bound of the maximum
horizontal stress. It can be observed that the range of the lower bound
of minimum horizontal stress and the upper bound of the maximum
horizontal stress is so big. Therefore, the uncertainty of the in-situ stress
estimation is very large.
The stress polygon can be drawn using the in-situ stress and pore
pressure relationships in different stress regimes from Eqs. (5)–(9). This
is shown in Fig. 3 assuming μf = 0.6. Fig. 3 uses the example shown in
where ρb (z) is the formation bulk density as a function of depth and can
be obtained from well logging (Zhang, 2013b), ρw is the density of sea
water for offshore drilling, z is the depth from the sea level, zw is the
ð9Þ
1.3. The maximum horizontal stress
When a borehole is drilled with a mud pressure higher than the for-
mation breakdown pressure, the drilling-induced tensile fracturing oc-
curs. The maximum horizontal stress in the case of non-penetrating
fluid (for impermeable formations) can be estimated from drilling
induced tensile fractures in a vertical well using the following elastic
solution (originally derived by Haimson and Fairhurst, 1967), if a dril-
ling-induced tensile fracture occurs at a mud pressure of pw:
σ H ¼ 3σ h −pw −pp þ T 0 þ σ t ð11Þ
where pw is the downhole mud pressure when tensile fracturing is in-
duced, T0 is the tensile strength of the rock, σt is the thermal stress, σ t ¼
αt E
1−ν ðT w −T f Þ; Tw, Tf are the downhole mud and formation temperatures,
respectively.
Detournay and Cheng (1988) proposed a poroelastic solution for
breakdown pressure induced by pressurization of a borehole in hydrau-
lic fracturing in the case of penetrating fluid (for permeable formations).
The maximum horizontal stress in permeable formations can be derived
from it, if a drilling-induced tensile fracture occurs at a mud pressure of
pw in a vertical well:

σ H ¼ 3σ h −2ð1−ηÞpw −2ηpp þ T 0 þ σ t ð11aÞ

where η is a poroelastic coefficient ranging from 0 to 0.5 and

η = α(1− 2ν)/[2(1− ν)], ν is the drained Poisson's ratio.
The maximum horizontal stress can also be estimated from wellbore
breakouts when the applied mud weight in drilling operations is less
than the shear failure gradient (Barton et al., 1988). Li and Purdy
(2010) proposed a new method to determine the maximum horizontal
stress using observations of the angle of the width of the breakout in
vertical boreholes:

UCS þ ðq þ 1Þpw −α ðq−1Þpp −ð1−2 cos2βb Þσ h þ σ t

σH ≤ ð12Þ
1 þ 2 cos2βb

Fig. 3. Stress polygon obtained from Eqs. (8) and (9) with measured pore pressure of
69.7 MPa and vertical stress of 82.5 MPa in a borehole, assuming that the coefficient of
friction of the fault (μf) is 0.6. The plotted depth is 4316 m TVDss or 3458 m below the
sea floor (refer to Fig. 2). In the plot, NF, SS, and RF represent the normal, strike-slip, and
reverse faulting stress regimes, respectively.
where UCS is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, 2ßb is the
wellbore breakout angle, pw is the mud pressure, q is a parameter
related to the internal friction angle of the rock with q = (1 + sin φ)/
(1− sin φ), ϕ is the angle of internal friction of the rock.
4 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8
2. Commonly-used methods for determining the minimum horizon-
tal stress
2.1. Minimum stress measurements from the leak-off tests
The minimum horizontal stress can be determined by direct mea-
surements, i.e. via the commonly accepted method of micro-hydraulic
fracturing (e.g., Haimson and Cornet, 2003), or its oil field equivalent:
mini-frac, leak-off test (LOT), or extended leak-off test (XLOT, White
et al., 2002). The minimum stress in normal faulting stress regime is
the minimum principal horizontal stress. This stress is typically equal
to the fracture closure pressure, which can be observed after shut-in
on the decline curve of a leak-off test (Whitehead et al., 1986; Zhang
and Roegiers, 2010). Fig. 4 schematically presents two typical cases of
extended leak-off tests, each case with two pressurization cycles.
In a typical leak-off test, a borehole interval is isolated and sealed
with the casing or inflatable packers; i.e., only the open hole below
the casing and any new formation drilled prior to the test are exposed
to fluid pumped at a constant rate. The pressure increase in the hole is
typically linear as long as there are no leaks in the system, and the ex-
posed formation is not highly permeable. At some point, the rate of
pressurization changes such that the pressure-time curve departs
from linearity. This departure from linearity is referred to as the fracture
initiation pressure (pi), as shown in Fig. 4(a). The pressure is then typi-
cally seen to increase at a lower rate until a maximum pressure, the
breakdown pressure (pb), is reached. After the rock is broken down (hy-
draulic fracture created), at some point the pressure in the borehole re-
mains fairly constant (pprop) at the same flowrate; the fracture is
propagating. When the pumps are turned off, the pressure immediately
drops to the instantaneous shut-in pressure (pisip). After the well is
shut-in, the pressure begins to decline as the fracture starts to close;
the pressure acting to close the fracture is equal to the minimum hori-
zontal stress (σh); i.e.:
σ h ¼ pc
where pc represents the closure pressure.
A second pressurization cycle can be performed to obtain more data.
Because a fracture has been created by the first cycle, there is no tensile
strength in the fracture reopening; i.e.:
T 0 ¼ pb −pr
where pb is the fracture breakdown pressure, pr is the fracture
reopening pressure.
In some case, particularly in brittle rocks or rocks with high tensile
strength, no fracture initiation pressure is seen, and the pressure-time
Fig. 4. Schematic plots of the pumping pressure and time or volume of injected fluid in two extended leak-off tests. (a) Typical XLOT with fracture initiation pressure; (b) XLOT without
fracture initiation pressure (or fracture initiation pressure is equal to formation breakdown pressure) and with high tensile strength.
curve remains fairly linear until formation breakdown, as shown in
Fig. 4(b). In this case the fracture initiation pressure (pi) is the break-
down pressure (pb). It should be noted that a term of leak-off pressure
(LOP) is normally used as the LOT pressure. The leak-off pressure is de-
fined as that a pressure at a point in a pressure-time plot deviates from
linearity (Edwards et al., 1998). Therefore, the leak-off pressure or LOT
pressure can have a value anywhere between the fracture initiation
pressure (pi, as shown in Fig. 4(a)) and the breakdown pressure (pb,
as shown in Fig. 4(b)). It is clear that the leak-off pressure is not the min-
imum horizontal stress. Some empirical correlations between the leak-
off pressure (pLOP) and the minimum horizontal stress are obtained
from leak-off tests, such as σh = 0.901pLOP (Breckels and van Eekelen,
1982; Edwards et al., 1998).
The minimum horizontal stress and tensile strength can be obtained
when XLOT data are available; then, the maximum horizontal stress in
both impermeable and permeable cases can be calculated from the
breakdown pressure using Eqs. (11) and (11a) by replacing pw with pb.
2.2. Minimum stress estimation from the uniaxial strain model
Another commonly-used method to estimate the minimum horizon-
tal stress is based on a uniaxial strain assumption. This method assumes
that the two horizontal stresses are equal and that no lateral strain exists.
The minimum horizontal stress obtained from the uniaxial strain model
can be expressed as a function of vertical stress and pore pressure:
ν  
σh ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp ð15Þ
min
1−ν
where σh_min is the minimum horizontal in-situ stress, ν is the Poisson's
ratio and can be obtained from the compressional and shear velocities
ðvp =vs Þ2 −1
1
(vp and vs), and ν ¼ 2 .
ðvp =vs Þ2 −1
However, it has been found that this method or Eq. (15) is not accu-
ð13Þ rate for estimating the minimum stress (e.g., Whitehead et al., 1986;
Whitehead et al., 1987; Meng et al., 2011). In fact, this equation is only
a special case of the minimum horizontal stress, because horizontal
strains normally are not zeros, and σh ≠ σH. This is one of the reasons
why it is over-simplified.
3. The minimum horizontal stress calculation from in-situ stress
ð14Þ configuration
3.1. Calculation of the minimum horizontal stress
It could be assumed that the three principal stresses in subsurface
formations might satisfy Hooke's law. According to Hooke's Law, the
 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8 5

minimum horizontal strain can be written as the following form, if the minimum horizontal stress, pore pressure, and Poisson's ratio are avail-
stresses are expressed in effective stress forms: able. Using Eq. (20), the minimum value of the minimum horizontal
  stress at different depths is calculated by assuming α = 1. The calculated
σ 0h −ν σ 0V þ σ 0H values and measured data are plotted in Fig. 5. The calculated minimum
εh ¼ ð16Þ
E values of the minimum horizontal stresses obtained from the proposed
method (Eq. (20)) are compared to the measured results and are
where εhis the strain in the minimum horizontal stress direction, E is the
shown in Fig. 5. It indicates that the uniaxial strain model or Eq. (20) is
Young's modulus, σV′, σH′ and σh′ are the effective vertical, maximum hor-
the lower limit of the minimum horizontal stress. The measured data
izontal and minimum horizontal stresses, respectively, ν is the Poisson's
also show that the sandstone has a lower minimum horizontal stress
ratio.
than the shale. This may be caused by the fact that sandstones normally
Solving Eq. (16) one obtains:
have lower values of Poisson's ratios than those in shales.
σ 0h −νσ 0H ¼ Eεh þ νσ 0V ð17Þ
4. Lithology-dependent coefficient of friction and improved method
Because σH′ ≥ σh′, σh′ − νσH′ ≤ σh′ − νσh′. Hence, the following relation- for in-situ stress estimate
ship can be obtained from Eq. (17):
4.1. Lithology-dependent coefficient of friction of the fault
ν E
σ 0h ≥ σ0 þ ε ð18Þ
1−ν V 1−ν h Studies and experiments (e.g., Takahashi et al., 2007; Tembe et al.,
2010) in clay-quartz gouges show that the clay content has a significant
Normally, the layered formations extend very long in two horizontal
effect on the frictional strength of the fault; i.e., as clay content increases,
directions; therefore, the strain in the minimum horizontal direction is
the coefficient of friction decreases (e.g., when clay content is 100%,
much smaller than the strains in the vertical direction. Particularly,
μf b 0.1 for smectite). Analyzing the data of Takahashi et al. (2007), the
when the formations of interest are laterally constrained by stiff faults,
following linear relationship can be obtained for a smectite and quartz
the stress state is similar to the condition of uniaxial strain loading. In
mixture:
this extreme case, εh is close to zero. Therefore, from Eq. (18) the mini-
mum value of the effective minimum horizontal stress can be expressed
as the following: μ f ¼ 0:68−0:6C S ð23Þ
ν
σ 0h ¼ σ0 ð19Þ
1−ν V
where CS is the weight fraction of clay content (smectite) and CS is be-
Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (19), the minimum value of the mini- tween 0 and 1.
mum horizontal stress can be written as following: Analyzing the data from Tembe et al. (2010), the following linear re-
lationship can be obtained for illite-quartz mixture:
ν  
σ min
h ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp ð20Þ
1−ν
μ f ¼ 0:68−0:42C I ð24Þ
This is the same form as the one obtained from the uniaxial strain
model (i.e., Eq. (15)). However, it is not a general case for calculating
the minimum horizontal stress, but only a special case - the minimum where CI is the weight fraction of clay content (illite) and CI = 0–1.
value of the minimum horizontal stress. Therefore, the coefficient of friction of the fault is lithology-depen-
Combining Eqs. (4) and (18) the minimum horizontal stress can be dent, and this needs to be considered when one applies Eqs. (8) and
written in the following form: (9) to estimate in-situ stress.

ν   E
σh ≥ σ V −αpp þ αpp þ ε ð21Þ
1−ν 1−ν h

From Eq. (21), the minimum horizontal stress can be estimated

when the vertical stress, pore pressure, Poisson's ratio and horizontal
strain are known. It can be seen that the uniaxial strain model (Eq.
(15)) is only a specific case of the minimum horizontal stress.
Since the horizontal strain (εh) is difficult to determine, the follow-
ing simplified equation can be used to estimate the minimum horizontal
stress, i.e.:

ν   c
σh ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp þ σV ð22Þ
1−ν 1−ν

where c is the minimum stress coefficient and can be obtained by cali-

brating in-situ measured data (e.g., LOT, XLOT, DFIT).

3.2. Application of the proposed minimum horizontal stress method

The proposed method is applied to calculate the minimum horizontal

stress in the Piceance basin near Rifle of Colorado, USA. Extensive in-situ
stress measurements were performed in this basin by small-volume, Fig. 5. Vertical stress, pore pressure and minimum stress measured from the hydraulic
hydraulic-fracture stress tests (Warpinski et al., 1985). We examine the fracture tests in Colorado (Warpinski et al., 1985). The calculated minimum values of
test results and well logging data in this field. The vertical stress, the minimum horizontal stress (Sh-min) from Eq. (20) are plotted for comparison.
6 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8
4.2. Relationship of the coefficient of friction of the fault and Poisson's ratio
As indicated, two methods can be used to calculate the lower bound
of the minimum horizontal stress: one from a uniaxial strain model (Eq.
(20)), the other from a stress regime constraint (Eq. (8)). Proximity that
the two lower bounds are equal, the coefficient of friction can be esti-
mated, as shown in the following:
ν sist of shales. Thus, the strength or the coefficient of friction of the fault
kf ¼ ð25Þ
1−ν
Substituting Eq. (2) to Eq. (25), one obtains:
sinϕ f ¼ 1−2ν ð26Þ
1−2ν
μ f ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð27Þ
2 ν ð1−νÞ
This equation is applicable in the following range of Poisson's ratio:
0.16 b ν b 0.5. By submitting Eq. (25) to Eqs. (8) and (9) the lower
bound of the minimum horizontal stress and the upper bound of the
maximum horizontal stress can be obtained as following.
In normal and strike-slip faulting regimes:
ν   the new lower bound and upper bound horizontal stresses from Eqs.
σ LB
h ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp ð28Þ
1−ν
In strike-slip and reverse faulting regimes or tectonic stress regime:
1−ν   corresponds to a higher minimum horizontal stress. At the depth of
σ UB
H ¼ σ V −αpp þ αpp ð29Þ
ν N6000 m the formations are mostly sandstones. They have larger coef-
Hence, the proposed equation to estimate the minimum horizontal
stress (Eq. (22)) can be rewritten as the following form:
   
σ h ¼ k f σ V −αpp þ αpp þ c 1 þ k f σ V ð30Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi −2
ν
where k f ¼ 1−ν or k f ¼ ð μ 2f þ 1 þ μ f Þ ; c can be obtained from ana-
lyzing measured data; e.g., c = 0.024 and k0 = 0.45 in the Qinshui
coalbed basin (Meng et al., 2011).
From Eqs. (28) and (29), the new stress polygon can be plotted, and
this stress polygon depends highly on Poisson's ratio. Eq. (27) indicates
that the coefficient of friction of the fault can be related to Poisson's
ratio. Poisson's ratio is dependent on lithology and depth; therefore,
the coefficient of friction of the fault should also depend on lithology
and depth. For example, a sandstone normally has a smaller Poisson's
ratio than a shale; hence, the sandstone in the fault has a larger coeffi-
cient of friction (e.g., when ν = 0.23, μf = 0.64 from Eq. (27)) than
the shale. This may be the reason why the sandstone normally has a
smaller horizontal stress. A shale normally has a higher Poisson's ratio,
thus a smaller coefficient of friction (e.g., ν = 0.4, therefore μf = 0.2
from Eq. (27)). This is verified by experimental results; for example,
the measurements by Ikari et al. (2011) show that fault gouges contain-
ing clay minerals are frictionally weak (μf b 0.5), whereas gouges rich in
silicate minerals (e.g., quartz, feldspar) are stronger (μf N 0.6). Goulty
(2008) pointed out that the residual shear strength for any lithology is
governed by the coefficient of friction on a fault surface after initial dis-
placement has occurred, which is lower than the coefficient of friction
measured by a peak strength test in a triaxial cell. The reduced coeffi-
cient of friction is known as the ‘coefficient of residual friction’ or the co-
efficient of friction of the fault. From measurements using a ring shear
apparatus, Bishop et al. (1971) found coefficient of residual friction is
about 0.16 in undisturbed samples of London Clay, which is
stratigraphically equivalent to the Eocene claystones in the North Sea
Basin. From well data in claystone sequences containing polygonal
fault systems in the Central North Sea, Goulty and Swarbrick (2005)
estimated that the slip on fault surfaces is consistent with μf = 0.11 ±
0.02.
Therefore, the common assumption of a fault strength of μf = 0.6–
0.7 may be inappropriate. From Eq. (27), the case of μf = 0.6–0.7
would corresponds to a low Poisson's ratio rock (e.g., sandstone, lime-
stone). For shales and other ductile rocks, μf values should be lower be-
cause of the higher values of Poisson's ratios (e.g., if ν = 0.4, μf = 0.2).
Therefore, the fault strength is lower when the formations mainly con-
may not be as large as has been previously assumed (i.e., μf = 0.6–0.7). It
should be smaller (e.g., as small as μf = 0.1–0.2) in shales or mudrocks.
Therefore, using the same μf for different rocks may be inappropriate be-
cause it may not reflect the real properties of the rocks and faults.
4.3. The minimum horizontal stress calibration and stress polygon
constraint
Using the coefficient of friction calculated from Eq. (27) or Eqs.
(28)–(29), a stress polygon can be prepared, and the uncertainty of
the minimum horizontal stress can be reduced. Using the same case
study as shown in Fig. 2, the in-situ stress can be better constrained by
the aforementioned procedure with the coefficient of friction (μf)
being calculated from Poisson's ratio using Eq. (27) or directly using
(28) and (29). That is shown in Fig. 6 and it presents the lower and
upper bounds of the horizontal stresses calculated for μf derived from
Eq. (27) at the depths from 3200 to 6800 m. The formations are mainly
shales from 3200 to 5800 m with μf of 0.15–0.3 (if Eq. (27) is used). This
ficients of friction (0.4–0.56); therefore, a lower minimum horizontal
stress is calculated. Compared to Fig. 2, the range of the stress bounds
from the calculated coefficients of friction (Eq. (27)) in Fig. 6 is much
smaller. Therefore, in-situ stress is better constrained and the uncertain-
ty in the stress estimation is reduced. Fig. 6 also implies that the coeffi-
cient of friction of the fault depends on Poisson's ratio or lithology,
because of Poisson's ratio is a function of the lithology.
Fig. 7 shows the stress polygon for the same case (Fig. 3) with a co-
efficient of friction calculated from the proposed method or Eq. (27) (μf
of 0.2). Compared the new stress polygon (μf of 0.2) to the old one (μf of
0.6), the new polygon is smaller and the two horizontal stresses are
much better constrained (Fig. 7). With this proposed method and com-
bining other methods (borehole breakouts and drilling-induced tensile
fractures; e.g., Bradley, 1979; Zhang et al., 2003a; Zhang and Roegiers,
2005; Zhang et al., 2009), in-situ stress can be more accurately
estimated.
Fig. 7 can be explicitly illustrated by Mohr circles, as shown in Fig. 8.
The Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope and maximum shear stress (τfmax)
along the fault are:
τ f ¼ μ f σ 0n ð31Þ
σ 0V −σ 0h
τf max ¼ ð32Þ
2
where σ′n is the effective normal stress, σ′ V and σ′ h are the maxi-
mum and minimum effective stresses, respectively, τ f and τ fmax
are the shear stress and the maximum shear stress in the fault,
respectively.
Fig. 8 indicates that in the critically stressed condition (before shear
failure) a stronger fault (μf = 0.6 in Fig. 8) has a smaller effective mini-
mum stress (σ′h_s), or higher shear stress (τs_max). However, a friction-
ally weak fault (e.g., μf = 0.2 in Fig. 8) needs a higher effective
minimum stress (σ'h_w) (thus smaller Mohr circle and much lower
shear stress, τw_max) to keep the fault stability. This may potentially ex-
plain the low inferred shear stresses along strike-slip faults, such as the
 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8 7

Fig. 6. In-situ stress profile versus depth below the sea level for the same case as shown in Fig. 2. The in-situ stress, particularly the maximum horizontal stress, is better constrained
compared to Fig. 2. The left track plots Poisson's ratios derived from sonic logs; the middle track shows the coefficient of frictions calculated from the Poisson's ratio from Eq. (27); the
right track presents vertical stress, pore pressure, the minimum and maximum horizontal stress bounds calculated by the proposed method from Eqs. (28) and (29).

San Andreas (e.g., Hickman, 1991; Townend and Zoback, 2004). The link
between frictional strength and minimum stress has important implica-
tions for slip behavior on natural faults. For instance, in order to keep the
frictionally weak fault from slip, an unstable natural fault would require
modification of the minimum stress (increase of the minimum stress, as
suggested in this paper) or the fault gauge composition (as suggested by
Ikari et al., 2011).
4.4. Lithology-dependent minimum horizontal stress
To illustrate the relationship between lithology and the minimum
horizontal stress, the measured minimum horizontal stress in Fig. 5 is
schematically plotted in Fig. 9. It can be observed that the sandstone
normally has a smaller minimum horizontal stress, because of its small-
er Poisson's ratio. By contrast, the shale has a higher minimum horizon-
tal stress; therefore, it can be used as a barrier of the hydraulic fracture
propagation when hydraulic fracturing is performed in adjacent
sandstone.
5. Conclusions
A lower bound minimum horizontal stress can be estimated from
uniaxial strain model and Anderson's faulting theory. Combining these
two methods, the coefficient of friction of the fault can be obtained
using the formation Poisson's ratio. The derived coefficient of friction
of the fault varies with depth and lithology. For a rock with a high
Poisson's ratio (such as some shales), the coefficient of friction of a
fault is calculated to be low; e.g., if ν = 0.4, then μf = 0.2. Therefore,
the assumption of fault strength of μf = 0.6–0.7 may be only appropriate
for the rock (e.g., sandstone or limestone) with a low Poisson's ratio. For
the shales and other ductile rocks, the μf values should be lower because
of the higher value of Poisson's ratio (e.g., ν = 0.4, then μf = 0.2). There-
fore, the fault strength is lower or the minimum horizontal stress is larg-
er when the formations mainly consist of shales (normally μf = 0.2). For
a frictionally weak fault it needs a higher minimum stress (or much
lower maximum shear stress) to avoid the fault from slip. This may po-
tentially explain the low inferred shear stresses along strike-slip faults,
such as the San Andreas. Correlating the frictional coefficient with
Poisson's ratio has its engineering convenience, but may have uncer-
tainties. For the engineering applications, we recommend calibrating
the proposed method with measured data.

Fig. 7. Stress polygons with the same vertical stress and pore pressure (as shown in Fig. 3)
in the shale at the depth of 4316 m below the sea level, but with two coefficients of
frictions of the fault μf = 0.6 and μf = 0.2. The latter is calculated from the proposed
method (Eq. (27)), which has a much smaller stress polygon, i.e., a much lower
uncertainty in stresses.
Fig. 8. Mohr circle diagrams showing the interaction of fault coefficient of friction, shear
stress and effective stresses (maximum or vertical stress and minimum stress) in
critically stressed state. The vertical stress and pore pressure are the same to the one
shown in Figs. 3 and 7 with two coefficients of frictions of μf = 0.6 for a stronger fault
and μf = 0.2 for a weak fault. The frictionally weak fault requires a much larger
minimum stress (or lower maximum shear stress) to maintain it stable.
8 Y. Zhang, J. Zhang / Tectonophysics 703–704 (2017) 1–8
Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the relationship of lithology and the minimum
horizontal stress.
We find and verify that the uniaxial strain method is the minimum
value or lower bound of the minimum stress. This minimum stress
can be used as the lower bound horizontal stress in drawing a stress
polygon. This improves the stress polygon which is lithology-depen-
dent. This improved stress polygon can narrow the area of the conven-
tional stress polygon in certain conditions, e.g. in shales. A new method
of the minimum horizontal stress calculation is also proposed. In this
method, the minimum horizontal stress is the one from the uniaxial
strain model plus a term which relates to Poisson's ratio and the mini-
mum horizontal strain or vertical stress. Case applications demonstrate
that the proposed method provides better results in the horizontal
stress estimates and in-stress constraints.
References
Anderson, E.M., 1951. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Application to
Britain. second ed. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Barton, C.A., Zoback, M.D., Burns, K.L., 1988. In-situ stress orientation and magnitude at
the Fenton geothermal site, New Mexico, determined from wellbore breakouts.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 15, 467–470.
Biot, M., 1941. General theory of three dimensional consolidation. J. Appl. Phys. 12,
155–164.
Bird, P., Kong, X., 1994. Computer simulations of California tectonics confirm very low
strength of major faults. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 106, 159–174.
Bishop, A.W., Green, G.E., Garga, V.K., Andresen, A., Brown, J.D., 1971. A new ring shear ap-
paratus and its application to the measurement of residual shear strength.
Geotechnique 21, 273–328.
Bradley, W.B., 1979. Failure of inclined boreholes. Trans. ASME 101, 232–239.
Breckels, I.M., van Eekelen, H.A.M., 1982. Relationship between horizontal stress and
depth in sedimentary basins. SPE 10336. JPT 1982, 2191–2199.
Bredehoeft, J.D., Wolff, R.G., Keys, W.S., Shuter, E., 1976. Hydraulic fracturing to determine
the regional in situ stress field in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 87,
250–258.
Byerlee, J., 1978. Friction of rocks. Pure Appl. Geophys. 116, 615–626.
Carena, S., Moder, C., 2009. The strength of faults in the crust in the western United States.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 287, 373–384.
Carpenter, B.M., Marone, C., Saffer, D.M., 2011. Weakness of the San Andreas Fault re-
vealed by samples from the active fault zone. Nat. Geosci. 4, 251–254.
Collettini, C., Niemeijer, A., Viti, C., Smith, S., Marone, C., 2011. Fault structure, frictional
properties and mixed-mode fault slip behavior. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 311, 316–327.
Cui, J., et al., 2014. Determination of three-dimensional in situ stresses by anelastic strain
recovery in Wenchuan Earthquake Fault Scientific Drilling Project Hole-1 (WFSD-1).
Tectonophysics 619-620, 123–132.
Detournay, E., Cheng, A.H.-D., 1988. Poroelastic response of a borehole in a non-hydro-
static stress field. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 25, 171–182.
Eaton, B.A., 1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. Soc. Pet. Eng.
AIME. Paper SPE 5544.
Edwards, S.T., Meredith, P.G., Murrell, S., 1998. An investigation of leak-off test data for es-
timating in-situ stress magnitudes: application to a basin wide study in the North
Sea. SPE/ISRM 47272.
Engelder, T., Fischer, M.P., 1994. Influence of poroelastic behavior on the magnitude of
minimum horizontal stress, Sh in overpressured parts of sedimentary basins. Geology
22, 949–952.
Goulty, N.R., 2008. Geomechanics of polygonal fault systems: a review. Pet. Geosci. 14,
389–397.
Goulty, N.R., Swarbrick, R.E., 2005. Development of polygonal fault systems: a test of hy-
potheses. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 162, 587–590.
Gunzburger, Y., Magnenet, V., 2014. Stress inversion and basement-cover stress transmis-
sion across weak layers in the Paris basin, France. Tectonophysics 617, 44–57.
Haimson, B.C., Cornet, F.H., 2003. ISRM suggested methods for rock stress estimation –
part 3: hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or hydraulic testing of pre-existing fractures
(HTPF). Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 1011–1020.
Haimson, B.C., Fairhurst, C., 1967. Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rocks.
SPE J. 7, 310–318.
Hickman, S.H., 1991. Stress in the lithosphere and the strength of active faults. Rev.
Geophys. 759–775 (U.S. Natl. Rep. to Int. Union of Geodesy and Geophys).
Iaffaldano, G., 2012. The strength of large-scale plate boundaries: constraints from the dy-
namics of the Philippine Sea plate since ~ 5 Ma. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 357–358,
21–30.
Ikari, M.J., Marone, C., Saffer, D.M., 2011. On the relation between fault strength and fric-
tional stability. Geology 1, 83–86.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. third ed. John Wiley &
Sons.
Lang, J., Li, S., Zhang, J., 2011. Wellbore stability modeling and real-time surveillance for
deepwater drilling to weak bedding planes and depleted reservoirs. Paper SPE/
IADC 139708.
Li, S., Purdy, C., 2010. Maximum horizontal stress and wellbore stability while drilling:
modeling and case study. Paper SPE 139280.
Meng, Z., Zhang, J., Wang, R., 2011. In-situ stress, pore pressure and stress-dependent per-
meability in the Southern Qinshui Basin. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48, 122–131.
Peng, S., Zhang, J., 2007. Engineering geology for underground rocks. Spring 2007.
Raaen, A.M., Horsrud, P., Kjørholt, H., Økland, D., 2006. Improved routine estimation of the
minimum horizontal stress component from extended leak-off tests. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 37–48.
Saffer, D.M., Marone, C., 2003. Comparison of smectite- and illite-rich gouge frictional
properties: application to the updip limit of the seismogenic zone along subduction
megathrusts. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 215, 219–235.
Schmitt, D.R., Currie, C.A., Zhang, L., 2012. Crustal stress determination from boreholes
and rock cores: fundamental principles. Tectonophysics 570, 1–26.
Sibson, R.H., 1974. Frictional constraints on thrust, wrench and normal faults. Nature 247,
542–544.
Takahashi, M., Mizoguchi, K., Kitamura, K., Masuda, K., 2007. Effects of clay content on the
frictional strength and fluid transport property of faults. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B08206.
Tembe, S., Lockner, D.A., Wong, T.F., 2010. Effect of clay content and mineralogy on fric-
tional sliding behavior of simulated gouges: binary and ternary mixtures of quartz, il-
lite, and montmorillonite. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B03416.
Townend, J., Zoback, M.D., 2004. Regional tectonic stress near the San Andreas fault in
central and southern California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (L15S11).
Warpinski, N.R., Teufel, L.W., 1989. In-situ stresses in low permeability, nonmarine rocks.
J. Pet. Technol. 41 (4), 405–414 (SPE-16402-PA).
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P., Wilmer, R., 1985. In-situ Stress Measurements at U.S. DOE's
Multiwall Experiment Site. Mesaverde Group, Rifle, Colorado, pp. 527–536 (SPE
12142, JPT).
White, A.J., Traugott, M.O., Swarbrick, R.E., 2002. The use of leak-off tests as means of
predicting minimum in situ stress. Pet. Geosci. 8, 189–193.
Whitehead, W.S., Hunt, E.R., Finley, R.J., Holditch, S.A., 1986. In-Situ Stresses: a comparison
between log-derived values and actual field-measured values in the Travis Peak for-
mation of East Texas. Paper SPE 15209.
Whitehead, W.S., Hunt, E.R., Holditch, S.A., 1987. The effects of lithology and reservoir
pressure on the in-situ stress in the Waskom (Travis peak) field. Paper SPE/DOE
16403.
Wileveau, Y., Cornet, F.H., Desroches, J., Plumling, P., 2007. Complete in situ stress deter-
mination in an argillite sedimentary formation. Phys. Chem. Earth 32, 866–878.
Zhang, J., 2011. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications, and new
approaches. Earth-Sci. Rev. 108, 50–63.
Zhang, J., 2013a. Borehole stability analysis accounting for anisotropies in drilling to weak
bedding planes. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 60, 160–170.
Zhang, J., 2013b. Effective stress, porosity, velocity and abnormal pore pressure prediction
accounting for compaction disequilibrium and unloading. Mar. Pet. Geol. 45, 2–11.
Zhang, J., Roegiers, J.-C., 2005. Double porosity finite element method for borehole model-
ing. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 38, 217–242.
Zhang, J., Roegiers, J.-C., 2010. Discussion on “integrating borehole-breakout dimensions,
strength criteria, and leak-off test results, to constrain the state of stress across the
Chelungpu Fault, Taiwan”. Tectonophysics 492, 295–298.
Zhang, J., Bai, M., Roegiers, J.-C., 2003. Dual-porosity poroelastic analyses of wellbore sta-
bility. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 473–483.
Zhang, J., Standifird, W., Lenamond, C., 2008. Casing ultradeep, ultralong salt sections in
deep water: a case study for failure diagnosis and risk mitigation in record-depth
well. Paper SPE 114273.
Zhang, J., Lang, J., Standifird, W., 2009. Stress, porosity, and failure dependent compres-
sional and shear velocity ratio and its application to wellbore stability. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 69, 193–202.
Zoback, M.D., et al., 2003. Determination of stress orientation and magnitude in deep
wells. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 1049–1076.
Zoback, M., Hickman, S., Ellworth, W., 2010. Scientific drilling into the San Andreas fault
zone. Eos 92, 197–204.