ARMA 09-3

CRITICAL REVIEW OF LEAK-OFF TEST AS A PRACTICE FOR

DETERMINATION OF IN-SITU STRESSES
Gang Li
Halliburton, Houston, TX, U.S.A.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA09/All-ARMA09/ARMA-09-003/1777880/arma-09-003.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021

Apiwat Lorwongngam, Jean-Claude Roegiers
Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, U.S.A.

Copyright 2009 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th th
This paper was prepared for presentation at Asheville 2009, the 43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4 U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in Asheville, NC June 28 – July 1,
2009.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical
reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA 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 acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: A precise estimation of the in-situ stress tensor is important for any underground excavation. It is particularly
crucial in petroleum engineering when reservoir condition of pressure and temperature are usually high. Leak-off tests (LOT) are
regularly performed in new wells where the formation characteristics have not been established yet. A number of technical
communications have stated that leak-off test can be used for measuring the minimum in-situ stress magnitude, which is not
completely correct due to the operational procedure itself and the inaccurate guidelines adopted for interpreting leak-off tests. The
authors first performed critical reviews of the leak-off test and the extended leak-off test, and then studied the three-dimensional
stress distribution around the bottom of the borehole. Instead of creating a vertical fracture which can be expected from the
solution of an infinite borehole, leak-off test procedures may initiate a horizontal fracture along the bottom of the wellbore before
the fracture turns in the direction according to the orientation of maximum principal stress prevailing in the reservoir.

pressure of the open formation, usually conducted

1. INTRODUCTION immediately after drilling below a new casing shoe. A
A precise estimation of the in-situ stress tensor is number of technical communications have stated that
important for any underground excavation. It is leak-off tests can be used for measuring the minimum
particularly crucial in petroleum engineering when in-situ stress magnitude due to their similarity to small
reservoir conditions of pressure and temperature are volume hydraulic fracturing method, which is not
usually high. Various types of tests for in-situ stress completely correct due to the operational procedure
measurement in downhole formation can be performed itself and the inaccurate guidelines adopted for
such as strain-relief, overcoring, and hydraulic interpreting leak-off tests [3, 4]. Extended leak-off tests
fracturing. To measure rock stress distribution at depths (ELOT/XLOT) are improved LOTs by repeating the
of several thousands of meters from a surface access, pressurization cycles as in hydraulic fracturing
ISRM has suggested hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or methodology to overcome the tensile strength and stress
hydraulic testing of pre-existing fractures (HTPF) as concentration around the borehole. However, XLOTs
methods for rock stress estimation [1]. Hydraulic still maintain the same test configurations as LOTs and
fracturing is a technique first developed by the three-dimensional stress distributions around the bottom
petroleum industry in order to stimulate production from of the borehole are not considered.
reservoirs. Further analysis of its mechanics adopted it This paper will initially review LOT and XLOT for
for use as a technique of stress determination. Hydraulic stress estimation, and compare them to hydraulic
fracturing is now widely used for in situ stress fracturing. A numerical study on stress distributions
determination. However, special test equipment and
around the bottom of the borehole will be carried out to
personnel qualification are essential for its success. verify the applicability of the HF theory to LOT and
Leak-off tests (LOT) are regularly performed in new XLOT.
wells where the formation characteristics have not been
established yet [2]. The principal purposes of such leak-
off tests are to determine the strength or fracture
2. LEAK-OFF TESTS AND EXTENDED
LEAK-OFF TESTS
Leak-off tests are performed immediately beneath
cemented casing in order to test the integrity of the set
cement and determine the drilling fluid density for the
next drilling operations. The well is shut-in at the
beginning of the test, and fluid is pumped into the
wellbore to gradually increase the pressure that the
formation experiences. The fluid will enter the formation
through permeable paths in the rock or by creating a
space by fracturing the rock [5, 6]. The maximum
operating pressure is usually maintained slightly lower
than the leak-off test result to permit safe well control
operations. A typical leak-off test curve is shown in Fig.
1.
Fig. 1. Illustration of a typical leak-off test.
The leak-off pressure (Plo) is the pressure where the
volume-pressure curve starts to deviate from the straight
line. In other words, it is the pressure where opening of
the rock starts to dominate. It generally depends on the
type of formation and the existence of pre-existing
fractures. The test is normally stopped shortly after
reaching the leak-off pressure.
Leak-off tests have been used for stress determination
over the past 40 years due to the need of stress
information for drilling, planning, sealing capacity of
faults, mud weight design, fracture gradient estimation,
sand control, and wellbore stability. Moreover, LOTs are
simple, cheap and similar to hydraulic fracturing tests. In
LOTs it is assumed that the leak-off pressure (Plo)
corresponds to the initiation of a longitudinal fracture in
the borehole wall and that the pressure is equal to the
fracture initiation pressure calculated from elasticity
theory for stress distributions around a cylindrical hole.
In saturated rocks with low permeability, the pore
pressure is often assumed to be unaffected by the state of
stress and that Terzaghi’s effective stress is applicable to
tensile cracks. Therefore, the maximum horizontal
principal stress (σH) magnitude is given by Eq. (1):
 H  3 h  T  Plo  P0 (1)
where T is the tensile strength of the borehole formation
and Po is the pore pressure. The leak-off pressure,
instead of the shut-in-pressure in HF, is considered equal
to the minimum horizontal stress, σh as shown in Eq. (2):
Plo   h (2)
The above calculations of the principal horizontal
stresses are for vertical boreholes and for leak-off tests
yielding longitudinal fractures.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA09/All-ARMA09/ARMA-09-003/1777880/arma-09-003.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
The interpretation of LOTs for stress estimation using
the above theoretical framework has been questioned;
mainly concerning the assumption for describing the
fracture initiation pressure as the leak-off pressure Plo
[7]. Moreover, the shut-in pressure (Ps), instead of the
leak-off pressure Plo, is the pressure needed to
equilibrate the fracture-normal stress, and it is unclear
whether the instantaneous shut-in pressure from one
pressurization cycle as in LOTs is representative of the
minimum in-situ stress. Therefore, an improved
procedure named the extended leak-off test (XLOT) has
been developed to overcome the above difficulties for a
more refined estimation of in-situ stresses.
Extended leak-off tests (XLOTs) add repeated
pressurization cycles to standard LOTs and yield
improved stress estimation. A typical XLOT plot is
shown in Fig. 2. The test starts from pumping in the
formation as LOT until a leak-off point is obtained. The
pump is then shut-in and the pressured is monitored until
the curve indicates the closure of the fracture. Two or
more cycles are performed next to find the fracture
reopening pressure (Pr). First cycle shut-in pressure
gives estimation of the minimum stress magnitude. The
best estimation of stress magnitude can be obtained from
second and third cycle shut-in pressures. In Fig. 2, Leak
off pressure (LOP) is the first point that deflects from the
pressure-time curve; fracture initiation pressure (FIP) is
the pressure at the formation breakdown; initial shut-in
pressure (ISIP) is the pressure where the fracture/well
system equilibrates immediately after pumping is
stopped; fracture closure pressure (FCP) indicates the
minimum in-situ stress component if the closing fracture
is aligned perpendicular to the minimum stress direction;
fracture reopening pressure (FRP) can be found at the
second test cycle or subsequent cycles.
Fig. 2. Illustration of a typical extended leak-off test.
The theory behind XLOT is similar to hydraulic
fracturing in the aspect of multiple cycles. If a fracture is
generated in an ideal poroelastic formation and oriented
co-axially with the borehole, the magnitude of the
minimum horizontal principal stress can be estimated
directly from the fracture shut-in/closure pressure. The
magnitude of the maximum horizontal principal stress
can be estimated from either of the following two
expressions:
for fracture initiation,
 H  3 h  T  Pi  P0 (3)
for fracture re-opening,
 H  3 h  Pr  P0 (4)
where Pi is the fracture initiation pressure, and Pr is the
fracture reopening pressure. In XLOTs the orientation of
the induced fracture in the borehole wall is normally not
determined, which means that the directions of the two
horizontal principal stresses are unknown by XLOTs.
3. CRITIQUES OF LOT/ XLOT FOR STRESS
ESTIMATION
Besides the questions stated above on interpretation of
the theory of LOT, LOT as a practice for in-situ stress
estimation can be questioned in the following aspects:
• LOTs are performed without a downhole packer,
which is essential in hydraulic fracturing to create a well
defined sealed-off zone.
• To perform LOTs in a very deep well, a large
volume of drilling fluid is required for pressurizing the
bottom hole, typically in the range of 30-200 m3, which
violates the requirement of hydraulic fracturing to avoid
problems pressurizing a large fluid volume.
• Uncertainties of neglecting shear stresses can be
significant. Shear stresses should not be neglected in the
inversion process; significant errors can happen [3].
• The pressure records from LOTs may not reflect
the initiation of the fracture necessary to predict the
stress field. In fact, it may be an artifact of mud
compressibility, casing expansion, leakage of the casing
cement, etc.
• If the open hole portion of the well is more than
a few meters in length, the leak-off test data should not
be used for stress estimation due to the influence of pre-
existing cracks. The test will most likely re-open a pre-
existing fracture in the test region rather than generate a
new fracture.
Extended leak-off tests (XLOTs) are performed in a
similar procedure to standard LOTs, therefore most of
the critiques for LOTs in practical procedures apply well
to XLOTs. The following differences between XLOT
and hydraulic fracturing (HF) need to be considered in
stress estimation:
• In XLOT, the open bottom hole is still
pressurized without using packers as in hydraulic
fracturing tests, which results in lack of accuracy in
determining the orientation of maximum and minimum
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA09/All-ARMA09/ARMA-09-003/1777880/arma-09-003.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021
horizontal stress due to the fracture initiation orientation.
• In hydraulic fracturing tests, the pressurizing
fluid is water or brine, which makes the interpretation of
the test itself easier comparing with the non-Newtonian
drilling fluid used in XLOT.
• Faster pumping rate and large volumes of
relatively compressible fluid in XLOT can lead to
rotation of fractures.
• XLOTs still lack fracture orientation
information, which makes XLOTs less reliable than
hydraulic fracturing.
XLOTs have been used by the industry over the past 20
years to overcome many of the limitations of the
standard LOT procedure without taking significantly
more time. A number of technical communications have
stated that XLOTs do provide consistent stress data and
the pressure records do appear to contain the same
characteristics as in the more accurate hydraulic
fracturing tests [2, 6].
However, the effect of the test geometry on fracture
initiation in “barefoot” well configuration needs further
studies for better understanding of XLOTs. For instance,
in 2001 Eberhardt presented a paper entitled “Numerical
Modeling of Three-Dimension Stress Rotation Ahead of
an Advancing Tunnel Face” [8]. This paper studies the
changes in orientation and magnitude during an
excavation. It shows that the stress field tensors changes
magnitude and rotates ahead of an advancing tunnel face
by using three dimensional finite-element models. It also
proved that while drilling the tunnel, the primary in situ
stress field is disturbed and redistributed. Therefore, if
this orientation changes in time, such as during the
advancement of the tunnel face, the type of damage and
fracture induced in rock mass may vary depending on
the type and degree of stress rotation. In the conclusion,
he stated that the results of stress orientation and
magnitude changes ahead of an advancing tunnel
controls the preferred direction for fracture propagation,
and it could also be applied to deep borehole drilling.
Essentially, this paper leads to question the validity of
the leak-off tests and extended leak-off tests; especially
the influence of the borehole bottom geometry.
4. NUMERICAL STUDY OF LOT/XLOT
To understand the influence of the borehole bottom
geometry on fracture initiation, a three-dimensional
finite difference program named FLAC3D (Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3-Dimensions) was
applied to simulate pressurization of a borehole in
LOT/XLOT [9]. FLAC3D has been widely used to solve
a wide range of complex problems in geomechanics. It is
borehole, and compressive stresses along the upper
section of the borehole wall. Fig. 5 shows the calculated
stress distribution at the borehole wall at the bottom of
the borehole modeled by FLAC3D under different
values of with σx. The calculated stress component σzz is
the maximum principal stress at vertical direction, and
σθθ is the tangential stress components at horizontal
direction at the same point.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA09/All-ARMA09/ARMA-09-003/1777880/arma-09-003.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021

adopted in this study since its explicit calculation
scheme enables a large three-dimensional calculations be
made without excessive memory requirements.
The FLAC3D model for LOT/XLOT is shown in Fig. 3.
The void cylinder with diameter d and length 10d stands
for the bottom part of the borehole. A brick-shaped
formation with dimensions of 5d5d20d is modeled
around the borehole. Dimensions of the formation are
decided so that the artificial boundary conditions outside
the formation will not affect the stress distribution
around the borehole wall. Several cases under different
far field stress states were studied.

Fig. 4. Cross section view of contours of the maximum

principal stress (Pa) at the bottom of the borehole.

Fig. 5. Calculated stress distribution at the borehole wall close

to the bottom of the borehole.
Fig. 3. The FLAC3D model for LOT/XLOT.
It is obvious from Fig. 5 that under certain stress
Since the purpose of this study is to find the fracture
conditions, i.e., when σx /σz equals to one or two, the
initiation orientation, no fracture propagation process
vertical principal stress component σzz is tensional while
will be simulated. An elastic formation with density of
the horizontal tangential stress component σθθ is
2200 kg/m3 is assumed. Material properties for typical
compressive. According to theories of hydraulic
shale are adopted in the numerical model with elastic
fracturing and fracture mechanics, a horizontal fracture
bulk modulus of 8.8 GPa and elastic shear modulus of
will be generated under the above conditions. This is a
4.3GPa. The displacements of the bottom plane at z = 0
violation of the requirements necessary for stress
are fixed at all directions. During this simulation the two
determination based on hydraulic fracturing equations.
far field stress components σy and σz are assumed to be
In hydraulic fracturing, the fracturing process with
constants with σy = 40 MPa and σz = 30 MPa, and
downhole packers can be assumed as a two-dimensional
borehole pressure is assumed to be 60 MPa.
plain strain problem, while in leak-off tests or extended
The cross-section view of contours of the maximum leak-off tests the stress concentration at the bottom of
principal stress distribution at the bottom of the borehole the borehole has to be considered and it becomes a three-
with σx = 40 is shown in Fig. 4. There exist tensional dimensional problem. Therefore a leak-off test or
stresses around the borehole wall at the bottom of the
extended leak-off test under the above far field stress
conditions may not be used for stress determination.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The extended leak-off tests are more reliable than
standard leak-off tests due to the shut-in response
acquired from repeated pressurization cycles. However,
minifrac or LOTs, Proc. Eurock 94, SPE/ISRM Int.
Conf. Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering,
Delft Netherlands, 399-409.
8. Eberhardt, E. 2001. Numerical Modelling of Three-
Dimensional Stress Rotation Ahead of an Advancing
Tunnel Face. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38: 499-51.
9. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 1997. FLAC3D-Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA09/All-ARMA09/ARMA-09-003/1777880/arma-09-003.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 07 June 2021

both LOTs and XLOTs have certain defects comparing
Version 2.0, User’s Manual, Minneapolis, MN,
with hydraulic fracturing (HF) and the influence of the
Itasca.
borehole bottom geometry on fracture initiation process
is not considered.
A three-dimensional numerical modeling was carried out
to study the stress distribution around the bottom of the
borehole. Instead of creating a vertical fracture which
can be expected from the solution of an infinite
borehole, LOT/ELOT procedures may initiate a
horizontal fracture along the bottom of the wellbore
before the fracture turns in the direction according to the
orientation of maximum principal stress prevailing in the
reservoir.

REFERENCES
1. Haimson, B.C. and Cornet, F.H. 2003. ISRM
suggested method for rock stress estimation-part 3:
hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or hydraulic testing of
pre-existing fractures (HTPF). International Journal
of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 40: 1011-
1020.
2. Raaen, A.M., Horsrun, P., Kjorholt, H., and Okland,
D. 2006. Improved routine estimation of the
minimum horizontal stress component from
exptended leak-off tests. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. 43: 37-48.
3. Mortens, G., Antonio, C., Per, H., and Rune, M.H.
1998. Leak-off tests for horizontal stress
determination. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering. 20: 63-71.
4. Hudson, J.A., Cornet, F.H., and Christiansson, R.
2003. ISRM suggested method for rock stress
estimation-part 1: strategy for rock stress estimation.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences. 40: 991-998.
5. Kunze, K.R. and Steiger, R.P. 1992. Exxon
Production Research Co. Accurate in-situ stress
measurements during drilling operations, SPE 24953,
67th ATCE, Washington, D.C., 491-499.
6. Addis, M.A., Hanssen, T.H., Yassir, N., Willoughby,
D.R., and Eneer, J. 1998. A comparison of leak-off
test and extended leak-off test data for stress
estimation, SPE/ISRM 47235, Trondheim Norway,
131-140.
7. Detournay, E. and Carbonell, R. 1994. Fracture
mechanics analysis of the breakdown process in