SPE 71649
Analysis and Prediction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing
N. R. Warpinski, SPE, Sandia National Laboratoriess, S. L Wolhart, SPE, Gas Technology Institute, and C. A. Wright,
SPE, Pinnacle Technologies, Inc.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of the stress and pressure
changes caused by hydraulic fractures and evaluates the
likelihood and causes of microseismic activity in the vicinity
of the fracture. Coupled with the formation stresses, pressure,
and properties, the analysis predicts where microseisms should
occur in relation to the fracture and makes possible accurate
interpretation of the significance of the microseismic events.
The most important factor controlling the seismically active
zone is the coupling of the fracturing pressure into the
formation. Thus, liquid -saturated reservoirs experience much
more widespread activity than gas reservoirs. The analysis
also shows that the fracture tip induces large shear stresses
that result in a local zone of instability. Such a zone is the
primary reason that microseisms accurately map out the length
and height of the fracture since considerable microseismic
activity occurs around the tip as it propagates
Introduction
Although hydraulic fracturing results have improved
immensely since the inception of this process due to improved
models, pressure analyses, and standard diagnostics, the full
optimization of hydraulic fracture stimulations will not be
possible until accurate methods are available to directly image
the fracture size, shape, and characteristics. At this time, the
only methods available for in situ imaging are through the
detection of fracture-induced microseismic events using
downhole receiver arrays1-15 and by the monitoring of fracture-
induced deformation using downhole tiltmeter arrays9,16-22.
Both of these techniques have their individual strengths,
weaknesses, and interpretation difficulties, but they have been
shown to be valuable tools for fracture imaging under the
appropriate conditions.
Microseismic monitoring, which is the technique
considered here, can image the full fracture geometry and also
has the capability of extracting very detailed information on
fracture complexity.9 In addition, microseismic events contain
embedded information about the source of the energy that may
be useful for understanding the hydraulic-fracture process.23,24
Nevertheless, none of this interpretation can be done
accurately without a full understanding of the stress regime
(both in situ and fracture induced) that is generating the
microseisms. The understanding of this "structural context" for
interpreting hydraulic fractures is the subject of this paper.
Before analyzing the structural context, a short review of a
typical microseismic analysis is provided. Microseismic
events analyzed in many different setting have been shown to
be primarily shear movements of a limited-area rock surface
(e.g., Pearson23). The actual tensile cracking of the fracture is
not usually detected. In the simplest 2-dimensional case, a
pure shear movement emits both compressional waves (p
waves), with maximum energy at 45° angles to the slip
direction, and shear waves (s waves) with maximum
amplitude parallel and perpendicular to the slippage direction.
However, pure shear is unlikely and some compressional or
dilatational motion perpendicular to the slippage plane is
likely (e.g, the slippage riding up over asperities or shearing
asperities). This movement will add other complications to the
radiation pattern.
Nevertheless, detection of the p-wave and s-wave arrivals
provide all of the information to accurately locate the source
point of the event. Given an accurate velocity structure for
both the p waves and s waves, several widely spaced arrivals
for each phase can be used in a regression or minimization
scheme to provide a best-fit location with error estimates.15
For an array in a single well, this location can only be found in
a 2-dimensional framework (elevation and radial distance).
The direction horizontally to the source must be determined by
examining the particle motion of the p waves, which is always
directed towards (or away from) the source. Using this
procedure, 3-dimensional locations can be found using a
single vertical array.
In the microseismic technique, the locations of these shear
events are used to generate an image of a growing fracture.
However, these shear slippages are often found tens or
2 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT SPE 71649

hundreds of feet from the fracture and an exact understanding elliptic integral of the second kind, and k is a modulus defined
of the cause of these events is needed to correctly interpret the as
characteristics of the fracture that is being imaged. In addition,
other source information extracted from these microseisms k = a 2 −b 2 / a . ……………………...………………(2)
needs to be considered within the structural context
The ellipsoidal coordinates are defined by
Structural Context
( ) ( )(
a 2 a 2 −b 2 x 2 = a 2 + λ a 2 + µ a 2 +ε )( )
(b ) y = (b + λ )(b + µ )(b + ε ) ………...………(3)
The structural context is the setting under which microseismic
events are generated and includes formation conditions (stress, b2 2 −a 2 2 2 2 2
pore pressure, mechanical properties, orientation and strength
of weakness planes) and fracture-induced conditions (stress, a 2 b 2 Z 2 = λµε
leakoff, temperature). Obviously, the fracture-induced where
conditions are dependent on formation properties (mechanical
and reservoir) as well as treatment conditions (rate, viscosity, ∞ > λ ≥ 0 ≥ µ ≥ −b 2 ≥ ε ≥ − a 2 . ………….…….………(4)
leakoff control)
Given the potential-function solution, the stresses for this
In Situ Stress Conditions. The in situ stress conditions solution can be found directly from
include the values of the three principal stresses (σmin, σmax,  ∂ 2φ ∂ 3φ 
and σov), their orientations, and the reservoir pressure. These σ gs +σ gs = −8G (1− 2ν r ) +Z , ...…….....(5)
conditions provide some shear stress for favorably oriented x y  ∂ Z2 ∂ Z 3 
weakness planes (e.g., natural fractures), the original normal
stress on the weakness planes (for friction), and the closure ∂2  ∂φ 
stress on the fracture. A check should always be made that the σ gs −σ gs + 2iτ gs = 32G (1− 2ν r )φ + Z , ….(6)
reservoir is not unstable under the initial conditions that are
x y xy 2
∂z  ∂Z
assumed.
∂ 2φ ∂ 3φ
Fracture-Induced Stresses. The fracture-induced stresses are σ gs = −8G + 8GZ ..…….……….…………..(7)
the stresses generated in the rock mass due to the opening of
Z
∂ Z2 ∂ Z3
the hydraulic fracture. These stresses depend upon the size of and
the fracture, the pressure within the fracture, and the
mechanical properties of the rock. The calculation of a gs gs ∂ 3φ
hydraulic fracture in a typical layered medium is a difficult τ + iτ =16GZ , ……………….………….(8)
xz yz
∂ z∂ Z 2
problem requiring finite-element calculations and considerable
input data that are seldom available. In this analysis, the where z is the complex conjugate of z. The superscript gs
problem is simplified by assuming a homogeneous material indicates that these stresses are from this Green/Sneddon
that is linearly elastic. However, the 3-dimensional aspect of solution because the geometry of this solution is different from
the problem is retained by using Green and Sneddon's the overall geometry normally used. A brief overview of a
solution25 for a flat, elliptic crack. The geometry for this stress determination is given in the Appendix and other details
solution is shown in Figure 1. The coordinates x and y are of this solution can be found in Sih and Liebowitz.26
within the crack plane, a complex variable z is defined as
x + iy, and the axis normal to the crack surface is defined by Pore Pressure Changes Due to Leakoff. The pore pressure
the Z coordinate. change induced by a hydraulic fracture is a complex 3-
Green and Sneddon's solution25 is for a constant pressure dimensional problem with time dependent boundary
crack in a homogeneous material and is obtained from a conditions (i.e., the growth of the fracture). In addition, it is
potential function given by also necessary to consider two separate cases for gas

φ=
(
ab 2 p f −σ min ) reservoirs and oil/water reservoirs and two separate cases for
matrix and natural fracture leakoff.
32GE(k ) Liquid Saturated Reservoirs. For liquid reservoirs, it
makes sense to follow the approach of Smith27 and simply
 x 2 y 2 Z 2  ds
...…...(1)
∞
⋅ ∫λ  + + −1 assume a reasonable pressure distribution, which is then
 a 2 + s b 2 + s s  s a 2 + s  b 2 + s  calibrated with a known solution. For the 2D problem, Smith27
   chose an elliptic pressure distribution and matched the profile
with the usual linear flow approximation. For this 3D problem,
in an ellipsoidal coordinate system defined by λ, µ, and ε. an ellipsoidal pressure distribution is assumed and it is also
Here, G is the shear modulus, pf is the internal pressure, a is matched to the linear flow approximation.
the half length, b is the half height, E(k) is the complete
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Using the same ellipsoidal coordinate system given in the
stress section, it is clear that constant values of λ are ellipses
centered about the fracture. Thus, a pressure distribution of the
form
 
−ζ λ 1+ µ +b 2 
( )
p = po + p f − po e   ………………….….(9)
results in constant pressure ellipsoids that decay away from
the fracture. In this equation, po is the virgin pore pressure and
pf is the fracture pressure. The square root term involving µ
allows for pressure decay as the tip of the fracture is
approached.
Similar to Smith’s approach,27 the value of ζ is found by
integrating the error function linear flow profile and the
ellipsoidal profile at the center of the fracture to obtain
correctly scaled pressure distributions. Doing so results in
 gπ 
2 where ηL is the ellipse that represents the farthest extent of the
ζ =  , …………………………………………(10)
 2 
with
ϕ r µlc
g= ……………..……………...……………(11)
klt
where ϕr is the porosity, µ is the viscosity, c is the
compressibility, k is the permeability, and t is time.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the exponential and error
function decays when matched in this manner. It can be seen
that the two profiles are very similar and the exponential
decay should be adequate for these calculations.
If the reservoir is infinite in extent (no layering), then the
ellipsoidal pressure distribution is used throughout the
calculation domain. However, if the formation has
impermeable layers above and/or below the reservoir, then the
pressure in the impermeable layers is always the pore
pressure, except right at the fracture. Obviously, any planes of
weakness that are intersected by the fracture will be exposed
to the high pore pressure, even in the impermeable zones.
Furthermore, in liquid reservoirs it is assumed that the
effect of natural fractures on the pressure distribution is small,
as the pressure coupling is very good regardless. Nevertheless,
a highly fractured reservoir can be accommodated by using a
higher permeability. The value of the permeability would need
to be scaled appropriately.
Gas Reservoirs. For gas reservoirs, the leakoff into the
matrix is very small and seldom exceeds a few tens of feet. In
these reservoirs, leakoff into the natural fractures is the
important issue, as it can result in fracturing fluid moving an
order of magnitude greater distance from the fracture. In either
case the equations are essentially the same, but the
permeability and porosity need to be scaled appropriately.
If it is assumed that the gas-saturated medium behaves like
an evacuated medium, then the behavior is that of standard
viscosity dominated leakoff.28 Since the concern here is with
natural fractures, it is also assumed that the natural fractures
traverse the entire height of the reservoir. In this case, it is
3
expected that the pressure distribution induced by the fracture
is elliptic (since the fractures traverse the entire height of the
reservoir, the ellipsoidal solution is probably not appropriate),
with the major axis of the ellipse obtained by matching the
viscosity-dominated leakoff solution.
Given elliptical coordinates η and ξ, where
x = L coshη cosξ
………...………………………..….(12)
y = L sinh η sin ξ
and L is the fracture length, then constant values of the
parameter η represents ellipses of varying sizes centered about
the fracture. For an evacuated medium, the pressure drop is
linear and should thus be
( )ηη
p = po + p f − po , ……………………………...(13)
L
fracturing fluid. To get ηL, it is necessary to match the leakoff
at the center of the fracture to the standard leakoff equation,
which gives
2 k ( p f − po )t
ηL = . …………...…………..…….(14)
µ l ϕ r L2
For long fractures, y = LηL, so that this equation reduces to
the standard linear-flow leakoff.28 In practical application, this
pressure distribution is elliptic so that the pressure disturbance
out near the tip of the fracture is very small.
Finally, it is necessary to relate the x, y coordinate system
to the elliptic coordinate system. The parameter, η, is all that
is needed and it is found from
x 2 + y 2 − L2 + ( L2 − x 2 − y 2 ) 2 + 4 L2 y 2
sinh 2 η = . ..(15)
2 L2
For a porous medium, the porosity and permeability are that of
the matrix. For natural fractures, the permeability and porosity
are those of the natural fractures and the matrix effect is
ignored. Natural fractures that are not perpendicular to the
hydraulic fracture can be scaled by the sine of the angle.
Poroelastic Stresses. The poroelastically induced stresses
are ignored for gas reservoirs since the physical movement of
fluid into the reservoir is so small. For a naturally fractured
gas reservoir, the leakoff distance may become quite large
(tens of feet), but the total volume of fluid occupying porosity
will be quite low and poroelastic changes will be small.
For liquid saturated reservoirs, the poroelastic effects are
more significant and need to be considered. At this time the
poroelastic stress components are estimated using Smith's 2-
dimensional approach27 and allowed to decay in the same
exponential manner as the pore pressure. This is only a crude
approximation to the true situation and further studies are
under way to improve the analysis by using either Geertsma's
strain nuclei approach or some other more rigorous solution.
4 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT SPE 71649

Thermoelastic Stresses. Thermoelastic stresses may be Stability Calculation

important in some cases, but no attempt has been made to Consider first the stability of a single fracture plane in the
include them yet. above stress environment. Let us assume that the fracture
strike and dip are known. Figure 3 shows the relationship of
Principal Stresses. Once all of the stress components have the natural fracture plane and its outward normal to the x, y, z
been calculated, the principal stresses are found. From this hydraulic fracture coordinate system. In this figure, the North
point on, the effective stresses are used and are determined as direction is in the x-y plane, as is the strike line of the natural
fracture. Because the angles desired are those from the
σ x = σ max +σ xf +σ xp −αp
outward normal to the plane, it is desirable to convert these
σ y = σ min +σ yf +σ yp −αp orientations into two other coordinates. First, the strike and dip
σ z = σ ov +σ zf +σ zp −αp can be related to the polar angle, ϕnf, and the azimuthal angle,
……………...……………(16) θnf, by
τ xy =τ xyf
ϕ nf = dip
τ xz =τ xzf …………...………….(20)
θ nf = strike − ð/2 − frac azimuth
τ yz =τ yzf
However, the principal stresses are not oriented along the
where the subscript f refers to the fracture and the subscript p x, y, z directions, but along some new perturbed planes. To
refers to the poroelastic stress. The fracture stresses are given find the relationship between the natural fracture and the
by σxf = σxgs, σyf = σZgs, and σzf = σygs. The different principal stress planes, it is now necessary to determine the
orientations are due to the geometry of the Green and Sneddon direction cosines of the natural fracture to the x, y, z plane.
solution which was retained here. The only shear stresses Simple geometric considerations show that
developed are those induced by the fracture.
Given the components above, the principal stresses are cos( nf , z ) = cosϕ nf
calculated by solving a cubic equation (see Obert and cos( nf , x) = sin ϕ nf cosθ nf ……………………..……..(21)
Duvall29) for σ1, σ2, and σ3 (σ1 > σ2 > σ3).
cos( nf , y ) = sin ϕ nf sin θ nf
− (σ xσ yσ z −σ xτ yz 2 −σ yτ xz 2 −σ zτ xy 2 − 2τ xyτ yzτ xz )
Now the direction cosines between the principal stress
+ (σ xσ y +σ yσ z +σ xσ z −τ xy 2 −τ yz 2 −τ xz 2 )σ i (17) planes and the natural fracture outward normal can be found
from the intersection relationships29
− (σ x +σ y +σ z )σ i 2 +σ i 3 = 0
cos( n1 , nf ) = cos( n1 , x) cos(nf , x)
The angles of the stresses also need to be calculated, and this + cos( n1 , y ) cos(nf , y )
is done by finding the direction cosines between the principal
+ cos( n1 , z ) cos(nf , z )
stresses and the natural geometric coordinates. These
equations are also found in Obert and Duvall29 as cos( n 2 , nf ) = cos( n 2 , x) cos( nf , x)
Ai + cos( n 2 , y ) cos(nf , y ) …………………...(22)
cos( ni , x) = + cos( n 2 , z ) cos( nf , z )
Ai 2 + Bi 2 + C i 2
cos( n3 , nf ) = cos( n3 , x) cos( nf , x)
Bi
cos( ni , y ) = …………………….….(18) + cos( n3 , y ) cos( nf , y )
Ai 2 + Bi 2 + C i 2 + cos( n3 , z ) cos( nf , z )
Ci
cos( ni , z ) = For ease of nomenclature and use, it is now worthwhile to
2 2 2
Ai + Bi + C i convert back to a coordinate system like that shown in
Figure 3, but where ϕ and θ are now the polar and azimuthal
where angles of the natural fracture outward normal relative to the
principal stress planes. This is given by
Ai = (σ x −σ y )(σ z −σ i ) −τ yz 2
cosϕ = cos( n1 , nf )
Bi =τ xzτ yz −τ xy (σ z −σ i ) ………………….……(19)
 cos( n3 , nf )  ………………………...…….(23)
Ci = τ xyτ yz −τ xz (σ y −σ i ) θ = tan −1  
 cos( n 2 , nf ) 
In this system, the polar angle is relative to the maximum
In this way, all nine direction cosines can be determined,
principal stress, which will usually be associated with the
although only three are independent.
overburden stress in most relaxed basins, but could be
associated with the maximum horizontal stress.
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 5

At this point, the stress normal to the natural fracture plane Results
is obtained from a simple stress transformation to give Results are typically generated as contour plots of the
distribution of stress, pressure, and stability. The first case
σ n = (σ 2 cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ ) sin 2 ϕ +σ 1 cos 2 ϕ ...……(24) considered is for a hydraulic fracture in a liquid saturated
reservoir. The specific parameters used are:
This is the stress that provides the frictional resistance to
Fracture length 400 ft
slippage on the plane. The strike-slip and dip-slip shear
Fracture height 100 ft
stresses can be found from
Fracture pressure 800 psi
τ N1 = −(σ 2 −σ 3 ) sinθ cosθ sin ϕ Minimum horizontal stress 4000 psi
………...(25) Maximum horizontal stress 4800 psi
τ N 2 = (σ 2 cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ −σ 1 ) sin ϕ cosϕ
Overburden stress 5500 psi
but these cannot be used directly because there is no guarantee Pore pressure 2500 psi
that the maximum shear stress is either fully strike slip or dip Young's modulus 4,000,000 psi
slip. Instead, these must be transformed into a single arbitrary Poisson's ratio 0.2
shear stress in the plane given by Coefficient of friction 0.6
Shear strength 0.0 psi
τ = −(σ 2 −σ 3 ) sinθ cosθ sin ϕ cos β Biot's modulus 1.0
……...(26)
− (σ 2 cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ −σ 1 ) sin ϕ cosϕ sin β Permeability 100 md
Porosity 0.15
with the angle β being the angle which maximizes the Leakoff viscosity 1 cp
possibility for shear slippage. Fluid compressibility 3.3e-6 psi-1
Since there is usually very little information on the natural Elapsed leakoff time 1 hr
fractures or their properties, it makes sense at this time to use These parameters are all reasonable for a sandstone reservoir
the simplest possible slippage criterion, that of a linear friction at a depth of about 5,000 ft.
law.29 Defining a stability function by Figure 4 shows a contour plot of the shear stress (in psi)
induced by the opening of the fracture. This plot, as well as all
F = τ −τ o − µ f σ N ………………………….………..(27) others shown here, is a plan-view section of a quarter plane of
the fracture with the wellbore at the top left and the tip of the
where τo is the inherent shear strength of the plane and µf is
fracture 400 ft to the right. The contours are in standard units
the coefficient of friction, it can be seen that slippage will
(psi in this case) and the horizontal section is through the
occur whenever F > 0. Putting all of the terms results in
center of the fracture. The figure shows that the fracture
F = −τ o + − (σ 2 −σ 3 ) sin θ cosθ sin ϕ cos β generates significant amounts of shear stress near the crack
tip. This effect is very favorable for microseismic monitoring
− (σ 2 cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ −σ 1 ) sin ϕ cosϕ sin β (28) because it provides a mechanism for microseismic activity to

{
− µ f (σ 2 cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ −σ 1 ) sin 2 ϕ +σ 1 cos 2 ϕ
At this point, β can be found by finding the maximum of F.
This results in
 (σ cos 2 θ +σ 3 sin 2 θ −σ 1 ) cosϕ 
β = tan −1  2  ……….(29)
 (σ −σ 3 ) sinθ cosθ 
Thus, the determination of the possibility of slippage
occurring along a given fracture plane can be evaluated by
calculating F for the maximum value of β.
In most situations, however, the orientations of natural
fractures or other weakness planes may not be known. It thus
becomes necessary to evaluate F on all fracture planes. It may
be possible to find a simple way to maximize F with respect to
both ϕ and θ, but it is quite difficult and is not available here.
Other features such as only considering a range of strikes and
dips and considering only vertical natural fractures have been
included.
} advance with the tip of the fracture, thus making length
determination quite accurate in many reservoirs.
Figure 5 shows the normal stress induced by the opening
of the fracture. The normal stress is quite stabilizing near the
fracture, but decays fairly rapidly. The normal stress is
negative (tensile) near the tip of the fracture.
Figure 6 shows the pressure distribution around the
fracture due to leakoff and the original reservoir pressure.
Since this case has a fully fluid-saturated medium, the
pressure coupling is good and pore pressure effects are found
quite far away from the fracture after just one hour. The
increased pore pressure is highly destabilizing because it
reduces the net normal stress on any weakness planes.
Figure 7 shows the effective maximum principal stress in
the vicinity of the fracture (this stress is nearly vertical). The
effective stress is found by subtracting αp from the total
stress. This plot illustrates that the effective maximum stress is
greatly reduced in the vicinity of the fracture due to the high
pore pressure in the vicinity of the fracture. There is also a
"well" of lowest stress somewhat offset from the fracture
(between the two 1000 contour lines).
6 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT
Figure 8 shows the effective intermediate principal stress
in the vicinity of the fracture. This stress is generally in the
direction of the original maximum horizontal stress, except
near the fracture tip where stresses get rotated. This stress also
shows the destabilizing effect of the increased pore pressure.
Figure 9 shows the effective minimum principal stress in
the vicinity of the fracture. This stress is predominantly in the
direction of the original minimum stress and has similar
features to the other principal stresses.
The final result from this analysis is shown in Figure 10.
This is a plot of the stability function defined in Equation 26
and 27 in units of psi. Where the stability function is positive,
there is sufficient shear stress to overcome the friction and
inherent strength of the weakness plane and microseismic
activity is likely along the favorably oriented weakness planes.
Other factors, such as the direction of slip and the energy
involved in the process can also be calculated. In this example,
microseismic activity would be expected approximately 140 ft
normal to the fracture plane and approximately 20 ft ahead of
the tip of the fracture (following the 0 psi contour line). Thus,
in a liquid saturated reservoir the zone of microseismic
activity should be relatively wide just due to the pressure
coupling into the formation. This is true even though the
actual fracture fluid only moves a short distance into the
formation (typically on the order of feet).
The second case is exactly the same fracture in a gas-
saturated reservoir. In this case, the largest change is the
pressure coupling into the reservoir. Exactly the same
parameters are used, except that the formation is assumed to
be evacuated so that viscosity-dominated leakoff controls the
movement of fracture fluid into the reservoir and the
associated pressure rise.
Figure 11 shows the pressure distribution that was
obtained for this case. Note that the scale normal to the
fracture is half of the previous plots (Figures 4-9) and that the
pressure disturbance in this reservoir extends about 25 ft.
The stability function, shown in Figure 12, now has an
unstable zone that only extends about 10-12 feet normal to the
fracture surface. There is also a very stable zone from about
25-50 ft normal to the fracture surface due to the added
compressive stress from the fracture without any destabilizing
effect of increased pore pressure. In this case the microseismic
activity would only be observed in a narrow band around the
fracture.
Discussion
These results show that the microseismic activity is controlled
by structural mechanisms associated with the fracture and the
reservoir. There is always some existing in situ stress in the
reservoir which is enhanced by the stresses induced by the
hydraulic fracture. However, the pore pressure is the most
effective element in destabilizing the reservoir, as it reduces
the normal stress on any weakness planes by a much larger
amount than other factor. The reason for this is due to the fact
that the difference between the fracturing pressure and the
virgin pore pressure is usually much greater than the
difference between the fracturing pressure and the in situ
SPE 71649
stresses. In the cases shown here, the perturbation in reservoir
pressure is 2300 psi while the stress perturbation is only
800 psi.
Nevertheless, the existence of favorably oriented weakness
planes such as natural fractures or bedding planes is critical
for the development of microseismic activity. It is likely that
reservoirs with more fracture sets will experience more
microseismic activity.
One of the most important features of this analysis is the
clear difference between microseismic activity in a gas
reservoir compared to a liquid saturated reservoir (oil,
geothermal, water injection, drill-cuttings injection). Gas
reservoirs will normally exhibit a narrow band of microseisms
that clearly define the geometry of the fracture. A simulated
example of such a case is shown in the plan-view map in
Figure 13 (this simulation is also intended to illustrate location
error dues to velocity structure effects or other factors causing
uncertainty in the location). The fracture azimuth and length
are clear in this case and any complexity that might develop
(e.g., secondary fractures) would probably be easy to detect.
On the other hand, a liquid reservoir microseismic map
would look more like the case shown in Figure 14. Here there
is a wide zone of microseismic activity due to the extensive
zone of increased pressure around the fracture. To extract
accurate azimuth information, it would be necessary to look at
the early time data (before the pressure perturbation extends
very far). In addition, it would be difficult to detect any
subsidiary complexity that might occur.
Actual field examples of such cases are shown in Figures
15 and 16. Figure 15 is a plan-view example of a fracture in
the Cotton Valley taken during the Cotton Valley Hydraulic
Fracture Imaging Project.10,30 This particular example is one of
the fractures initiated in several interbedded sandstone
intervals in the upper part of the section, resulting in a fracture
of at least 1,000 ft length on the east wing and an unknown
length on the west wing (although other data have shown that
the fracture is probably symmetric).30 Of principal interest
here is the relatively narrow band of microseisms surrounding
the fracture, in agreement with the analyses provided. Such
images are typical of fractures in gas reservoirs and were
observed in all the fractures in this test series as well as those
at M-site7,9 and other locations.
Figure 16 shows an example of a fracture map in a water-
saturated reservoir taken from the Mounds Drill Cuttings
Injection Project.31 This example shows a plan view of the
microseisms generated during the second day of injections of a
drill cuttings slurry into the Wilcox sandstone (a water
saturated zone). During these tests, seven 50-bbl injections of
a drill-cuttings slurry were performed and monitored using
microseisms. In this case the width of the microseismic zone is
much wider relative to the length than that in Figure 15.
This type of analysis is also essential in attempting to
interpret source information from the characteristics of the
microseismic data. As can be seen by comparing some of the
stress plots and the stability function, there are zones of high
shear stress that are stable and zones of low shear stress that
are unstable. Parameters such as stress drop -- a dubious
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 7

quantity to begin with32,33 -- have no intrinsic meaning unless Ci = direction cosine parameter, L2t4/m2, psi2
accompanied by a structural analysis from which a clear E(k) = elliptic integral of parameter k
understanding of its origin can be assessed. The range of F= stability function, Lt2/m, psi
natural fracture azimuths that can slip can be estimated and g= leakoff parameter, L-1, ft-1
variations in slip direction (e.g., strike slip versus dip slip) can G= shear modulus, Lt2/m, psi
be evaluated. H= fracture height, L, ft
Finally, the purpose of this study has been to develop a k= elliptic parameter
versatile desktop analysis tool that can be easily used for k' = complementary elliptic parameter
scoping calculations and post-mapping analyses. As such, the kl = reservoir permeability, L2, md
focus has been on developing approximate analytic solutions
L= fracture length, L, ft
for the various parts of the process. It is recognized that some
ni = unit normal to ith plane
of the approximations can use improvement for three
nf = unit normal to natural fracture plane
dimensional problems and the focus of future work is to
p= pressure in the formation at any point, Lt2/m, psi
develop more accurate pore-pressure and poroelastic solutions
pf = pressure in the formation at any point, Lt2/m, psi
and to incorporate thermoelastic effects for specialized cases
po = pressure in the formation at any point, Lt2/m, psi
where they are important. This analysis tool now runs as a
s= integration parameter
WINDOWS™ program on any desktop personal computer in
t= time, t, sec
a few minutes at most.
u= parameter of elliptic functions
The most difficult part of performing this analysis is
x= coordinate axis along fracture length, L, ft
obtaining reasonable input data, as stress information and
y= coordinate axis along fracture height, L, ft
mechanical properties are often unknown and natural fracture
z= complex variable
data may not be available. However, many acceptable
z = complex conjugate of z
estimates can be made for most of these parameters in most
Z= coordinate axis normal to fracture surface, L, ft
reservoirs throughout the world (e.g., from structural
α= Biot's modulus
considerations, comparisons with other reservoirs, or borehole
features). β= angle of maximum shear stress, deg
ε= ellipsoidal coordinate, L2, ft2
Conclusions φ= potential function
An analysis has been developed to calculate the stability of η= elliptic coordinate
reservoirs undergoing hydraulic fracturing in order to assess ηL = maximum leakoff extent in η direction
the likelihood of and the expected zone of microseismic ϕ= polar angle, deg
activity that would develop. This analysis shows the ϕr = rock porosity
importance of understanding the structural context of the ϕnf = natural fracture polar angle, deg
reservoir in order to fully understand and interpret λ= ellipsoidal coordinate, L2, ft2
microseismic monitoring results. µf = coefficient of friction
As should be obvious, the pore pressure is the most
µl = viscosity, m/Lt, cp
important factor in microseismic development and the type of
reservoir fluids will strongly influence the zone of θ= azimuthal angle, deg
microseismic activity. Fractures created in liquid-saturated θnf = natural fracture azimuthal angle, deg
reservoirs will generally have wide zones of microseismic σ= stress, m/Lt2, psi
activity that could make it difficult to interpret without a full σi = ith stress component, m/Lt2, psi
understanding of the process. σmax = maximum horizontal in situ stress, m/Lt2, psi
Fractures also develop considerable shear stress σmin = minimum horizontal in situ stress, m/Lt2, psi
mechanically and the largest amount of shear stress is found σn = stress normal to a plane, m/Lt2, psi
near the fracture tip. This zone of increased shear stress σov = overburden stress, m/Lt2, psi
provides a mechanism for microseisms to accurately reflect σx = effective stress in x direction, m/Lt2, psi
the length (and height) of the fracture as many microseisms σy = effective stress in y direction, m/Lt2, psi
should be induced in the near tip zone as the fracture σz = effective stress in z direction, m/Lt2, psi
propagates.
σxgs = stress in x direction, Green/Sneddon, m/Lt2, psi
σygs = stress in y direction, Green/Sneddon, m/Lt2, psi
Nomenclature
a = fracture half length, L, ft σZgs = stress in Z direction, Green/Sneddon, m/Lt2, psi
A = fracture stress constant, L3, ft3 σxf = stress due to fracture in x direction, m/Lt2, psi
Ai = direction cosine paramater, L2t4/m2, psi2 σyf = stress due to fracture in y direction, m/Lt2, psi
b = fracture half height, L, ft σzf = stress due to fracture in z direction, m/Lt2, psi
Bi = direction cosine paramater, L2t4/m2, psi2 σxp = poroelastic stress in x direction, m/Lt2, psi
c = fluid compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1 σyp = poroelastic stress in y direction, m/Lt2, psi
8 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT SPE 71649

σzp = poroelastic stress in z direction, m/Lt2, psi 6. Brady, J.L., Withers, R.J., Fairbanks, T.D. and Dressen, D.,
σ1 = maximum principal stress, m/Lt2, psi “Microseismic Monitoring of Hydraulic Fractures in Prudhoe
Bay,” paper SPE28553 presented at 1994 SPE Annual Technical
σ2 = intermediate principal stress, m/Lt2, psi Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28.
σ3 = minimum principal stress, m/Lt2, psi 7. Warpinski, N.R., Wright, T.B., Uhl, J.E., Engler, B.P., Drozda,
τ= shear stress, m/Lt2, psi P.M. and Peterson, R.E., “Microseismic Monitoring of the B-
τN1 = strike-slip shear stress, m/Lt2, psi Sand Hydraulic Fracture Experiment at the DOE/GRI Multi-Site
τN2 = dip-slip shear stress, m/Lt2, psi Project,” paper SPE 36450 presented at 1996 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 6-9.
τo = shear strength of weakness planes, m/Lt2, psi
8. Truby, L.S., Keck, R.G. and Withers, R.J., “Data Gathering for
τxy = shear stress in xy plane, m/Lt2, psi a Comprehensive Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Project: A Case
τxz = shear stress in xz plane, m/Lt2, psi Study,” paper SPE 27506 presented at 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling
τyz = shear stress in yz plane, m/Lt2, psi Conf., Dallas, TX, Feb. 15-18.
τxyf = fracture-induced shear stress in xy plane, m/Lt2, psi 9. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Fix, J.E., Uhl,
τxzf = fracture-induced shear stress in xz plane, m/Lt2, psi J.E., Engler, B.P., and Wilmer, R.: “Microseismic and
Deformation Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Growth and
τyzf = fracture-induced shear stress in yz plane, m/Lt2, psi Geometry in the C-Sand Interval, GRI/DOE M-Site Project”,
ν= ellipsoidal coordinate, L2, ft2 paper SPE 38573 presented at 1997 SPE Annual Technical
νr = Poisson's ratio Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8.
ξ= elliptic coordinate 10. Walker, R.N., “Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging
ζ= leakoff factor for poroelastic calculation, L-2, ft-2 Project,” paper SPE 38577 presented at 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
October 5-8.
Superscripts 11. Phillips, W.S., Rutledge, J.T., Fairbanks, T.D., Gardner, T.L,
gs = Green and Sneddon solution Miller, M.E., and Maher, B.S., "Reservoir Fracture Mapping
Using Microearthquakes: Two Oilfield Case Studies," SPEREE
Subscripts 13 (Apr. 1998) 114.
f = fracture 12. Withers, R.J., Perkins, T.K. and Keck, R.G., “A Field
l = leakoff Demonstration of Hydraulic Fracturing for Solids Waste
max = maximum Disposal, Part Two: Real Time Passive Seismic Monitoring
min = minimum System and Data Analysis,” in Deep Injection Disposal of
nf = natural fracture Hazardous and Industrial Waste, J.A. Apps and C.F. Tsang,
eds., Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1996) 705.
ov = overburden
13. Brady, J.L., Withers, R.J., Fairbanks, T.D. and Dressen, D.,
p = poroelastic “Microseismic Monitoring of Hydraulic Fractures in Prudhoe
r = rock Bay, paper SPE 28553 presented at 1994 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Π , New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28,
Acknowledgments 387.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Gas 14. Rutledge, J.T., Albright, J.N., Fairbanks, T.D., Murph, M.B. and
Research Institute for this program. Work at Sandia Natl. Labs Roberts, P.M., “Microseismic Monitoring of the Chaveroo Oil
was performed under GRI contract 5089-211-2059. Field, New Mexico,” presented at 60th Annual Meeting of the
Society of Exploration Geophysicists (1990).
15. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Wolhart, S.L.
References
and Uhl, J.E., “Mapping Hydraulic Fracture Growth and
1. Albright, J.N. and Pearson, C.F., "Acoustic Emissions as a Tool
Geometry Using Microseismic Events Detected by a Wireline
for Hydraulic Fracture Location: Experience at the Fenton Hill
Retrievable Accelerometer Array,” paper SPE40014 presented
Hot Dry Rock Site," SPEJ 22 (Aug. 1982) 523.
at 1998 Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
2. Thorne, B. J., "An Assessment of Borehole Seismic Fracture
March 15-18.
Diagnostics," paper SPE 18193 presented at 1988 SPE Annual
16. Branagan, P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Engler, B.P., Wilmer, R.,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
“Measuring the Hydraulic Fracture-Induced Deformation of
123.
Reservoir and Adjacent Rocks Employing a Deeply Buried
3. Hart, C. M., Engi, D., Fleming, R. P. and Morris, H. E.,
Inclinometer Array: GRI/DOE Multi-Site Project,” paper SPE
"Fracture Diagnostics Results for the Multiwell Experiment's
36451 presented at 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Paludal Zone Stimulation," paper SPE 12852 presented at
Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9.
SPE/DOE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium,
17. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Engler, B.P., Wilmer, R., and
Pittsburgh, PA (May 13-15, 1984) 221.
Wolhart, S.L.: “Evaluation of a Downhole Tiltmeter Array for
4. Vinegar, H.J., Wills, P.B., De Martini, D.C., Shlyapobersky, J.,
Monitoring Hydraulic Fractures”, Proc. 36th U.S. Rock
Deeg, W.F.J., Adair, R.G., Woerpel, J.C., Fix, J.E. and Sorrells,
Mechanics Symposium, Columbia University, NY (June 29 -
G.G., "Active and Passive Seismic Imaging of a Hydraulic
July 2, 1997).
Fracture in Diatomite," JPT 44 (Jan. 1992) 28.
18. Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., G. Wang, and Weijers, L.,:
5. Vandamme, L., Talebi, S. and Young, R.P., “Monitoring of a
“Downhole tiltmeter fracture mapping: A new tool for direct
Hydraulic Fracture in a South Saskatchewan Oil Field,” JCPT
measurement of hydraulic fracture growth,” Proc., 37th U.S.
33 (Jan. 1994) 27.
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vail, CO (June 6-9 1999) 1061.
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 9

19. Engler, B.P. and Warpinski, N.R., “Hydraulic Fracture Imaging Appendix - 3 Dimensional Stress Calculation
Using Inclinometers at M-Site: Finite-Element Analyses of the The stress normal to the face of a long vertical fracture can be
B-Sandstone Experiments,” Gas Research Institute Topical found from Equation 7 as
Report, GRI-97/0361, Chicago, IL (Dec. 1997).
20. Wright, C.W., “Tiltmeter Fracture Mapping: From the Surface  2A  sn u dn u 
and Now Downhole,” Petroleum Engineer International (Jan. σ gs = 8G −  − E (u )
 ab  cn u
Z 2
1998). 
21. Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., Golich, G.M., Ward, J.F., Demetrius,
2 AZ  2 sn 2 u  du ∂ λ
S.L., Minner, W.A. and Weijers, L., “Downhole Tiltmeter + k ' 
Fracture Mapping: Finally Measuring Hydraulic Fracture ab 2  cn 2 u  dλ ∂ Z
Dimensions,” paper SPE 46194 presented at SPE Western
2 2
Regional Conference, Bakersfield, CA (May 10-13, 1998). 4 AZ 2  2 sn u dn u  du  ∂λ
22. Griffin, L.G., Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., Weijers, L. and + k '     ………(A-1)
Moschovidis, Z.A., “Tiltmeter Mapping to Monitor Drill ab 2  c n 3u  dλ  ∂ Z 
Cuttings Disposal,” Proc., 37th U.S. Rock Mechanics
2 AZ 2  2 sn 2 u 
Symposium, Vail, CO (June 6-9, 1999) 1033. + k ' 
23. Pearson, C., "The Relationship between Microseismicity and ab 2  cn 2 u 
High Pore Pressures during Hydraulic Stimulation Experiments
in Low Permeability Granitic Rocks," JGR 86, No. B9 (Sept 10,  d 2 u  ∂ λ  2 d u ∂ 2 λ 
1981) 7855. ⋅   +  ,
24. Givowitz, S.J., Young, R.P, Talebi, S. and Rawlence, D.J.,  dλ2  ∂ Z  d λ ∂ Z 2 
 
"Source Parameters of Seismic Events at the Underground
Research Laboratory in Manitoba, Canada: Scaling Relations where sn, dn and cn are Jacobian elliptic functions, A is given
for Events with Moment Magnitude Smaller than -2," Bulletin of by
the Seismological Society of America 81, No. 4 (Aug. 1991)
1157. ab 2 P
A=− , ………………….….………..…...(A-2)
16G E (k )
25. Green, A.E. and Sneddon, I.N., “The Distribution of Stress in
the Neighbourhood of a Flat Elliptic Crack in an Elastic Solid,”
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 46 (1950) 159. u is defined as
26. Sih, G.C. and Liebowitz, H., “Mathematical Theories of Brittle
Fracture”, in Fracture, Liebowitz, ed., II, Academic Press, New cn u
York, NY (1968) 137. λ = a2 , …….………………………………....(A-3)
sn u
27. Smith, M.B., “Stimulation Design for Short, Precise Hydraulic
Fractures,” SPEJ (June 1985) 371.
28. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R., Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE k ′ 2 =1− k 2 , …………………………………….…(A-4)
Monograph 2, Richardson, TX (1970) 32.
29. Obert, L. and Duvall, W.I., Rock Mechanics and the Design of
and E(k) is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind.
Structures in Rock, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, NY The additional derivatives are found from
(1967) 23.
du − sn 3 u
30. "Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging and Waterfracs = , ………………………………(A-5)
Projects,", CDROM, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI- dλ 2a 2 cn u dn u
99/0269, Gas Research Institute, Version 3, Chicago, IL (Dec.
1999).
31. "Mounds Drill Cuttings Injection Project," CDROM, Gas d 2u − sn 2 u  sn 2 u 2 sn 2 u  du
= 3 + +k  , ……….(A-6)
dn 2 u  dλ
Research Institute Report No. GRI-99/0173, Gas Research
dλ 2 2a 2  cn 2 u
Institute, Version 2, Chicago, IL (June 1999).

( )( )
32. Atkinson, G.M. and Beresnev, I.A., "Don't Call It Stress Drop,"
Seismological Research Letters 68, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 1997) 3. ∂λ 2 Z a 2 + λ b 2 + λ
= , ………………………..(A-7)
33. Beresnev, I.A., "What We Can and Cannot Learn about
Earthquake Sources from the Spectra of Seismic Waves,"
∂Z (λ − µ )(λ −ε )
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 91, No. 2,
(April 2001) 397.
∂ 2λ 1  Z2
34. Whittaker, E.T. and Watson, G.N., A Course of Modern = 1−
Analysis, Cambridge (1927). ∂Z2 2λH 12  λ 2 H 12
35. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A., Handbook of Mathematical …….(A-8)
Functions, Dover Publications, New York, NY (1970).  
Z 2  x2 y2 Z 2 
+  + + 
( ) ( )
4λ H 14  a 2 + λ 3 b 2 + λ 3 λ 3 
 
10 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT SPE 71649

and SI Metric Conversion Factors

(λ − µ )(λ − ε ) cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa⋅s
h12 =
( )(
4λ a 2 + λ b 2 + λ ). …………………..………(A-9) ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
ft2 × 9.290 304 E-02 = m2
More information about these derivatives and other md × 9.869 233 E-04 = µm2
characteristics of the ellipsoidal confocal coordinate system psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
can be found in Whittaker and Watson.34 This same reference
has extensive information about the Jacobian elliptic
functions, as does Abramowitz and Stegun.35 In addition, Sih
and Liebowitz26 provide some discussion on the 3D-elliptic-
crack solution that is useful. The other stresses can also be
found using the same procedure as outline for σZgs.
The calculation of the λ, µ, ν coordinates requires the
solution of the cubic equation

(
λ3 + λ 2 a 2 + b 2 − x 2 − y 2 − Z 2 )
(
+ λ a b −b x − a y − a Z 2 −b 2 Z 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
) …….…...(A-10)
− a 2b 2 Z 2 = 0
for λ followed by solution of the quadratic equation

( ) (
µ 2 a 2 λ + λ + µ a 2 b 2 Z 2 + b 2 λZ 2 + a 4 λ + a 2 λ 2
)
….(A-11)
− a 2 λx 2 + b 2 λx 2 + a 4 b 2 Z 2 + a 2 b 2 λZ 2 = 0
for µ and then
a 2b 2 Z 2
ε= . ………...…………………………..(A-12)
λµ
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 11

2b
x

Z
a

Fig. 1 Geometry for 3-dimensional flat elliptic crack.

Fig. 4 Shear stress induced by fracture.

0.8
erf
exp
amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

parameter

Fig. 2 Comparison of error function and exponential decay.

Fig. 5 Normal stress induced by fracture.

z Fracture
Plane
Outward
Normal North
(in x-y plane)
Fracture
Plane

strike
ϕnf
y
θnf

x
dip

Fig. 3 Coordinate system for fracture plane relative to x,y,z

coordinates of the fracture.
Fig. 6 Pressure distribution around fracture.
12 N.R. WARPINSKI, S.L. WOLHART AND C.A. WRIGHT SPE 71649

Fig. 7 Maximum stress distribution around fracture.

Fig. 10 Stability function around fracture.

Fig. 8 Intermediate stress distribution around fracture. Fig. 11 Pressure distribution in gas-saturated reservoir.

Fig. 9 Minimum stress distribution around fracture.

Fig. 12 Stability function for gas-saturated reservoir.
SPE 71649 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF MICROSEISMICITY INDUCED BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 13

200 1000
PLAN VIEW
500

SOUTH-NORTH (ft)
OBSERVATION
100
0 WELL
South-North (ft)

-500
0
-1000
TREATMENT
-100 -1500 WELL

-2000
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 WEST-EAST (ft)
W e s t-East (ft)
Fig. 15 Example microseismic map in a gas reservoir (Cotton
Fig. 13 Simulated microseismic map for a gas reservoir. Valley).

400
200

300
South-North (ft)

100
200
South-North (ft)

TREATMENT
WELL
0
100
OBSERVATION
WELL
-100
0
-400 -200 0 200 400
West-East (ft)
-200 Fig. 16 Example microseismic map in a liquid reservoir (Mounds).
-400 -200 0 200 400

West-East (ft)

Fig. 14 Simulated microseismic map for a liquid-saturated

reservoir