Core-Based Prediction of Lithologic Stress

Contrasts in East Texas Formations

M.J. Thiercelin, SPE. and R.A. Plumb, SPE. Schlumberger Cambridge Research

Summary more, testing even the simplest of stress models requires extensive
This paper presents an evaluation of two fundamentally different data processing.
stress models: an elastic model, which is based on linear transverse
isotropic elasticity, and a failure model, which is based on the concept Elastic and Failure Stress Models
that rocks are in an equilibrium statc of shear failure. The models are Elastic Model. The stress/strain response of a fluid-saturated po-
evaluated by using physical parameters measured on core, pore pres-
rous material assumed to be linear elastic is 20 ,21
sure, and in-situ stress data from the Oas Research Institute (ORI)
Staged Field Experiments (SFE's) in east Texas. It is shown that the
elastic and failure models provide satisfactory predictions for most of
::::
E = C
-(:::: ::::)
0 - Kp p ...............•.•••..••....•.... (I)
the lithologies encountered. However, the failure model is more accu-
rate for predicting stress in soft shales. An example of stress predic- or, in suffix notation,
tions based on log-derived elasticity parameters that gives stress es-
Eij = Cijkl(Okl - KktPP)' . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
timations comparable to core-based predictions is also shown.
The most commonly invoked stress model is based on linear elas-
Introduction ticity and assumes that rock is a semi-infinite isotropic poroelastic
The elastic uniaxial strain model is often used in the petroleum in- medium subjected to gravitational loading and zero horizontal strain.
dustry to predict the minimum stress as a function of depth and rock The vertical stress is therefore a result of the overburden and is a prin-
lithology. 1-4 Its popularity certainly comes from its simplicity: it re- cipal stress. The other two principal stresses lie in the horizontal
quires only parameters that can be estimated from wireline measure- plane. The influence of uniform horizontal principal strains or aniso-
ments or core data. tropy also could be considered. In the following section, we will ana-
It is, however, difficult to accept the idea that such a model can lyze the case of isotropic and transversely isotropic material.
apply to rock that has undergone compaction, cementation, heating,
cooling, and tectonic deformations spanning millions of years. In Isotropy. For an isotropic material,
some situations, stress models that assume that the rock is close to
shear failure S,6 or under lithostatic stress 7 appear physically more 1 J.l -~
0 0 0
reasonable. In other situations, more-complex models, which in- E E E
clude effects of inelastic creep, 8.9 load history,8,9 anisotropy, 10 ther- J.l I J.l
mal stresses, 8 and topography 11,12 may have to be considered.
-E E E
0 0 0

The more-complex models may require rock parameters that -~ J.l I

0 0 0
E E E
must be measured in the laboratory or assumed. The elastic uniaxial
strain model could then retain some value if it is able to predict, with c= 0 0 0
2(1 + J.l)
0 0
some accuracy, the influence of rock lithology on the state of stress. E
Unfortunately, studies published so far show mixed results. In some 2(1 + J.l)
cases, qualitative agreement was found between the uniaxial strain 0 0 0 0 0
E
elastic model and the measured stresses, in that the rocks with the 2(1 + J.l)
highest Poisson's ratio have the highest stress magnitudes, but an 0 0 0 0 0
E
accurate quantitative prediction of lithologic stress contrasts was
rarely obtained. 13 · IS Stress data from the northeastern U.S.'6·18 (3)
showed unexpected behavior in clear contradiction with the clastic
uniaxial strain model. Stress magnitudes in low-Poisson's-ratio (4)
sandstones and siltstones were greater than in shales with a high
Assuming a uniaxial strain condition, the relation between mini-
Poisson's ratio. The fact that the elastic uniaxial strain model does
mum horizontal stress 0Hmin and overburden 0v is
not always predict the correct sense of stress contrast required the
investigation of more general models.
This paper presents an evaluation of stress models that require °Hmin - Xp" = I ~ J.l (ov - Xpp) . (5)
laboratory-determined rock properties, although the relevance to
log-based stress models will be indicated where appropriate. The The dependence of horizontal stress on rock lithology results
study is limited to models based either on elastic deformation (elas- from the dependence of Poisson's ratio,J.l, on rock lithology. By def-
tic stress model) or on frictional behavior (failure model). This eval- inition, the two principal horizontal stresses are equal.
uation has been performed with data acquired from the ORI SFE's If the uniaxial strain assumption is relaxed and uniform (vs.
1,2, and 3. 19 The use of rock properties obtained through laboratory depth) anisotropic tectonic strain is added, the elastic model be-
measurements was feasible in the SFE's because cores were avail- comes
able from all the lithologies that were stress tested.
Although one has to recognize that the contemporary state of
stress in reservoirs is the result of a complex history dominated by
geologic and petroleum production processes, it is instructive to de-
, EJ.l
termine how well these simple physical models perform. Further- ;- I - J.l 2Ellm ,,' ...................•.............. (6)
!t (
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers
and 0Hmax - XP p = 1 _ J.l °v - XPI' ) + E
I _ J.l2EHmax
Original SPE manuscript received for review April 15, 1991. Revised manuscript received
March 29, 1993. Paper accepted for publication Oct. 21, 1992. Paper (SPE 21847) first pre· t./i
sented at the 1991 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoirs + -I--,E llmin · (7)
Symposium held in Denver, April 15-17. -w
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994 251
 TABLE 1-DOWNHOLE STRESS STATE
Depth Ov OHmin-Pp (OHmin - Pp)/(ov-Pp)
(:~a)
°Hmin °v-~
Well (m [It]) Lithology (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (M a)
SFE 1 1879 [6,164] Mudstone 23.4 45.1 7.2 16.2 37.9 0.45
19.6 3.8 25.5 0.15
SFE 1 18BB [6,194] Sandstone 20.9 45.3 12.9 B.O 32.4 0.25
SFE 1 1904 [6,244] Mudstone 24.1 45.6 13.2 10.9 32.4 0.34
19.9 4.2 25.7 0.16
SFE 1 2276 [7,466] Sandstone 26.B 54.6 20.1 6.7 34.5 0.19
SFE 1 22B3 [7,4BB] Mudstone 36.7 54.7 20.9 15.B 33.B 0.47
23.7 13.0 31.0 0.42
SFE 2 2520 [8,265] Sandstone 36.9 60.4 27.7 9.2 32.7 0.28
SFE2 2532 [B,305] Mudstone 39.7 60.7 27.8 11.9 32.9 0.36
SFE2 2653 [8,703] Sandstone 36.3 63.6 29.7 6.6 33.9 0.19
SFE2 2899 [9,509] Sandstone 40.7 69.5 32.8 7.9 36.7 0.22
SFE2 3014 [9,BBB] Sandstone 41.9 72.3 34.1 7.B 38.2 0.20
SFE2 3032 [9,945] Sandstone 42.1 72.7 34.3 7.B 3B.4 0.20
SFE3 2842 [9,324] Sandstone 40.0 6B.2 30.5 9.5 37.7 0.25
SFE3 2912 [9,554] Shale 54.B 69.9 31.3 23.5 3B.6 0.61

A dependence of stress on E is obtained, which means that the Mohr-Coulomb Failure Model. A stress model based on the
greater the E the greater the horizontal stress. This model gi ves a bet- Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion assumes that the maximum in-situ
ter qualitative description of the state of stress measured in areas in shear stress is governed by the shear strength of the formation. 5,6
which compressive tectonic stresses are suspected. This model can The Mohr-Coulomb criterion for shear failure in a plane is 22
account for situations where sandstones are under higher horizontal
stress than adjacent shales. The overburden stress is a principal r = c + tan(a)(oll - pp) . ......................... (13)
stress but not necessarily the maximum principal stress. Ifthe strains
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion can be rewritten to give 01 at
are equal to zero, this model reduces to the uniaxial strain model.
failure in term of 03:
Transverse Isotropy. Transverse isotropy characterizes a rock that is 01 - Pp = auf + N a (03 - pp), ..................... (14)
isotropic in the bedding plane but differs in the direction normal to
this plane. Transverse isotropy is actually a more-representative mod-
el for shales and unfractured laminated rocks than the conventional
65r---~--~--~--~--~--~--~--'
isotropic approximation. With the assumption that direction three is
the direction normal to the plane of isotropy, the tensor Cis 60

1 /1 /1' ~ 55
E -E E 0 0 0
/1 1 /1' ~ 50
0 0 0
E E E' ~ 45 o
::: "3
c= -~ _ /1' J... 0 0
~40
0 ........ (8)
E' E' E'
0 0 0 G' 0 0
0 0 0 0 G' 0
2(1 + /1)
0 0 0 0 0
E
Tensor 1C is given by

1Cij = X(oij - ~hihJ .............................. (9)

Horizontal stresses are predicted using the assumption that the bed- IO 20 30 40 50 00 70 so
ding plane is horizontal. Under uniaxial strain conditions, one obtains
Mean pressure in MPa
E /1'
°Hmin - XPP = E' I _ /1 [ov - xO - ~)ppl, .......... (10)
Core dept.h in met.er:
which is a generalization to a porous and fluid-saturated material of
the stress model derived by Amadei et al. \0 Notice that anisotropy + 2651 III
introduces an effect ofthe ratio of the E in the generation of stresses.
By adding uniform horizontal strains, the equations for horizontal o 26.52 III
stress become

E /1' [ 1 * 2653 m
°Hmin - XPP = E'l -/1 °v - x(1 - ~)pp
x 26.54 m
E E/1
+ 1 _/12€Hmin + I _/12€Hmax .................... (II)
EEl 2657 III

and 0Hmax -
E /1'
XPp = E'l _ /1 [0v - xO - ~)pp 1 Fig. 1-Scatterplot showing E as a function of mean pressure in
SFE 2 sandstones between 2649 and 2657 m [8,691 and 8,717ft];
E E/1 core depths (in meters [feet]) are +=2651 [8,698],0=2652 [8,701],
+ -1--2€Hmax + -1--2€lImin' .............•..... (12)
*=2653 [8,704], x =2654 [8,707], and 0=2657 [8,717].
-/1 -/1

252 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994

 TABLE 2-ELASTIC PROPERTIES
Depth E' E
Well (m [ft]) Lithology GPa GPa 1/' 1/ x

SFE2 2513 [8,242] Sandstone 39 65 0.12

2533 [8,307] Mudstone 27 36 0.27
2652 to 2653 [8,699 to 8,702] Sandstone 49 48 0.12 0.69
2898 [9,506] Sandstone 56 66 0.13 0.14 0.59
2920 [9,571] Siltstone 35 58 0.35
3012 [9,881] Sandstone 59 62 0.13 0.15 0.55
3030 [9,940] Sandstone 57 66 0.13 0.55
2835 [9,300] Sandstone 49 48 0.19
SFE3 2856 [9,367] Shale 9 26 0.17 0.16

where Na = tan2(% +~) .......................... (IS)
and 0ul = 2cfN;, . ................................ (16)
If the critical shear stress is controlled by slip along preexisting
surfaces, c can be assumed to be negligible. However, a residual co-
hesion may still exist. a is usually measured by using peak strength
data as a function of confining pressure (a =ap ) obtained during
triaxial testing. One can also use the angle of friction that character-
izes the frictional properties of two surfaces that are touching. This
angle can be measured by using residual strength data as a function
of confining pressure (a =ar ) obtained during triaxial testing once
the sample has failed. Using a r rather than ap in a failure stress mod-
el should be more consistent with the assumption that the minimum
stress is controlled by friction along preexisting planes.
Finally, if the formation is in extension, the vertical stress is the
maximum principal stress and Eq. 14 becomes
0Hmin - Pp = ~ (ov - pp), ....................... (17)
a
in which the effect of cohesion has been neglected.
Field Cases
We have evaluated elastic and failure models using data obtained
from SFE's 1,2,15,23 and 3. 24 These wells have been drilled in the
East Texas basin.
Stress measurements in SFE's I and 2 are in the Cretaceous Travis
Peak formation. Travis Peak is composed of fine- to very-fine-
grained sandstones, muddy sandstones, and sandy mudstones. Po-
rosity ranges from 3% to 17% but is typically < 8%. Matrix perme-
ability is less than = 0.00 1 ~m [ = 1 md] because of abundant quartz
cement. 25 SFE 3 is < 1.61 km [< 1 mile] from SFE 1, but stress
measurements are from the Jurassic Taylor sandstone and Bossier
shale. Grain size, porosity, and permeability are similar to those in
the Travis Peak formation.
Laubach26 and Laubach and Monson 27 analyzed fractures in
cores from SFE 2 and other East Texas basin wells. They found that
most of the reservoir sandstones and bounding shales are naturally
fractured. Vertical-extension fractures are prevalent in the sand-
stones, while fractures dipping < 45° are more common in mud-
stones. Extension fractures exhibit a range of quartz mineralization
from almost no quartz to fully mineralized. Low-angle fractures in
the mudstones occasionally show slickensides, which indicates that
shear movement has occurred. More complete geologic descrip-
tions are given in the references cited above. 26-27
In-Situ Data
Stress State. We have good estimates of the vertical stress and the
least horizontal stress in the SFE wells. By integrating the bulk den-
sity log, we estimated the vertical stress to be equal to 0.024 MPa/m
[1.06 psi/ft]. We also have good evidence that the overburden is a
principal stress from the analysis of strain relaxation cracks 27 or
Borehole televiewer (BHTV) images. 28
The minimum stress was measured with small-volume hydraulic
fractures. The test procedure for stress using the microhydraulic
fracturing technique in a cased-hole situation 29 essentially consists
of perforating a 0.6-m [2-ft] interval, isolating the interval with
straddle packers, and fracturing the rock with low-viscosity fluids.
Usually < 0.4 m3 [100 gal] is injected into the formation at a flow
rate on the order of 0.0005 m 3/s [0.13 ft 3/sec). The downhole pres-
sure is recorded during pumping and shut-in to determine the mini-
mum stress from the pressure records. The minimum stress in the
SFE's has been obtained from an estimation of the closure stress
instead of the instantaneous shut-in pressure (lSIP).30 On the basis
of fracture behavior considerations in a permeable medium during
shut-in, the closure stress is assumed to be a better measure of the
minimum stress than is the lSI? The closure stress is taken as the
point on the pressure-decline curve where the pressure deviates
from a linear relationship to the square root of shut-in time. 31 -34 The
stress-state values, which are given in Table 1, are published
data. 23 ,24 Pore pressure is one of the most difficult parameters to ob-
tain for low-permeability formations. Pore-pressure measurements
with either repeat formation tester or pressure buildup were made in
the SFE's. These techniques work well in reservoir rocks with
permeability on the order of tens of millidarcies or more but are

TABLE 3-STRENGTH PROPERTIES

Depth ap a; ar av
Well (m [tt]) Lithology (degrees) (degrees) (degrees) (MPa)

SFE 1 1878 to 1880 [6,159 to 6166] Mudstone 43.9 33.7 43.6± 1.2
1887 to 1880 [6,190 to 6,193] Sandstone 48.6 42.6 117.2±15.6
1897 [6,224] Mudstone 51.9 57.4 112.4
1897 [6,226] Mudstone 51.5 58.5 257.2
2262 to 2269 [7,420 to 7,444] Sandstone 51.3 46.4 58.6±9.6
2275 [7,461] Sandstone 56.9 50.6 169.7
2281 to 2283 [7,483 to 7,489] Mudstone 35.5 24.1 64.8± 1
SFE2 2513 [8,242] Sandstone 196.9±25.1
2533 [8,307] Mudstone 32.7 27.0 64.1
2652 to 2653 [8,699 to 8,702] Sandstone 55.7 52.5 49.9 200.7±10.1
2898 [9,506] Sandstone 56.5 56.0 51.6 260
2920 [9,571] Siltstone 40.2 38.8 73.9± 13.3
3012 [9,881] Sandstone 59.8 55.7 260
3030 [9,940] Sandstone 321.4
SFE3 2835 [9,300] Sandstone 48.5 47.2 44.2 152.0 ± 19.8
2856 [9,367] Shale 29.0 16.8 49.1±11.78

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1994 253

 60
~
55
c...
:::E 50
.S
"0 45
~
C,)
:e 40
~
'"'" 35
~
t:s
30
e'"
::s 25
e § 25
'8
::; 20
15
10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minimum stress measured in MPa
Fig. 2-ScaHerplot showing stress prediction from the elastic
uniaxial strain model, assuming isotropy and lC = 1.
much less accurate when permeability is on the order of :s 0.0001
,Um [:s 0.1 md]. The problem in determining pore pressure is most
pronounced in mudstones and shales. In this study, we estimated
pore pressure in shales and mudstones by interpolation of measure-
ments made in adjacent but more-permeable layers. This approach
is valid if the thickness of the impermeable layers is relatively small,
as observed in most of the Travis Peak formation, and if the perme-
able layers have not been depleted. Unfortunately, some of the sand-
stones penetrated by SFE 1 have been significantly depleted owing
to production from adjacent wells. Therefore, for the low-perme-
ability mudstones in SFE 1, we have indicated two values of pore
pressure: the first obtained by interpolation of the pore pressure
from the value measured in adjacent layers and the second by inter-
polation of the pore pressure from apparently non depleted layers.
This approach (see Table I) shows that stresses predicted for SFE
I at 1879 and 1904 m [6,165 and 6,247 ft] are inaccurate because
of the large uncertainty in the value of the pore pressure.
Laboratory Data
Elastic parameters E', E,,U', and,U, were measured by triaxial tests on
SFE 2 and SFE 3 cores to provide stiffness tensor values for use in
stress prediction. Samples were loaded at a constant axial strain rate
of 2 x 10-5 seconds-I under drained conditions. Samples were tested
"as preserved," and deformation was measured with either cantilever
displacement gauges or strain gauges bonded directly to the samples.
Test results show that the elastic parameters are not constant but
are function of the stress state. An example of nonlinear behavior is
demonstrated in Fig. 1, which shows the tangent E' determined dur-
ing loading as a function of the mean pressure [1/3(01 + 203)]. Six
sandstones from SFE 2 obtained from depths between 2649.9 and
2656.6 m [8,694 and 8,716 ft] are shown. The data scatter, which is
on the order of ± 10 GPa [1.45 106 psi], is typical of SFE's sand-
stones within a 6-m [J9.7-ft] interval. The values of E' do not be-
come constant until very high confining pressures are reached. For
example, the sandstone obtained at 2653 m [8,704 ft] appears to
reach its linear elastic regime only at about 50 MPa [7250 psi].
Although we believe that the nonlinear elastic behavior of these
rocks is caused by coring-induced microcracks,35.36 it was not pos-
sible to prove the hypothesis with in-situ measurements. Uncertain-
ty about the origin of the microcracks introduces uncertainty in de-
termining elastic parameters from laboratory data. To overcome
some of the uncertainties, we chose to determine our parameters
from the linear portion of the stress/axial-strain curves. Linearity is
observed at high confining pressures once all the microcracks are
closed. The effects of this approach on the stress predictions will be
discussed where appropriate. Table 2 gives the elastic parameters
determined from the linear portion of the deformation curves ob-
254
60,-~--~-'--~--~-T--~--~~--'
55
~'" 50
c::
.- 45
"2
i:~
'"
til
~ 30
'"
E
'2 20
._
:::E
15
IO~~--~~--~~--~~--~~~
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6()
Minimum stress measured in MPa
Fig. 3-ScaHerplot of stress prediction from the elastic uniaxial
strain model, assuming transverse isotropy, lC = 1, and ~ = o.
tained at 30 MPa [4350 psi] confining pressure. This approach gives
values of E and E' that are close to the un fractured rock values.
These should be considered as lower bounds to the actual unfrac-
tured values. The,U' values reported are the values measured at the
same stress level as E. Finally, we found that,U is difficult to measure
with accuracy because it has to be measured exactly in the bedding
plane. The values in Table 2 are given only for samples in which the
results were repeatable. Notice that the mudstones and siltstones
usually exhibit a higher JI than the sandstones. An exception is the
SFE 3 shale, the only sample that exhibits significant anisotropy.
Table 2 also lists values of the Biot coefficient, lC, which have
been published by the Gas Research InstY The determination of 1(
has been made within I m [3.3 ft] of the depth indicated in Table 2.
Although not reported, the lC coefficient must certainly be pressure
sensitive in the Travis Peak formation because it is in theory a linear
function of the compressibility of the matrix. The stiffness matrix
measured during the lC determination 37 is in agreement with the val-
ues in Table 2 and suggests that lC has been determined at a stress
level similar to that of the elastic parameters.
Strength Determination. Triaxial strength tests were made on pre-
served samples as a function of confining pressure. Sample pres-
ervation and loading-rate conditions are the same as those used in
the elastic parameter testing.
Loading was continued after peak strength so that a residual
strength could be measured on some sandstones. Tests were can'ied
out to a confining pressure of up to 30 MPa [4350 psi]. Higher con-
fining pressures were generally not tested because the sandstone
strength exceeded the strength limit of the triaxial cells used. Table
3 gives uniaxial strength Oitl and three representations of the angle
of friction: ap ' a~ a r . These friction angles were determined by lin-
ear regression by using the peak strengths, ap and a;', and residual
strength, ar , as a function of confining pressure. ap was obtained by
using all the peak-strength data; a;' was obtained without using
uniaxial strength data to see whether eliminating samples that failed
by axial splitting gave better strength predictions.
Table 3 shows that most of the sandstones are extremely strong and
have a compressive strength of =200 MPa [=2900 psiJ. Generally,
we find that the peak strength and friction angle of Travis Peak sand-
stones increase slightly with depth. It is also clear that the friction angle
is lithology dependent, the lowest friction angles being found in shales
and in some mudstones. We also find that the textural term of mudstone
as it is used in core description rarely carries reliable information about
rock strength or elastic properties. Some mudstones are as stiff and as
strong as the sandstones, while others are compliant and weak.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994
 60 ue of 1( worsens the prediction of the elastic uniaxial strain model.
Although predicted stresses are 1 to 2 MPa [145 to 290 psi] too low,
55 the sense of lithologic stress contrast is correct, with the stress in the
shales being greater than the stress in the sandstones. The magnitude
of the stress contrast is also correct, especially if anisotropy is taken
into account.

Failure Models. The stress predictions using Eq. 17 and the value
a
of p and a;
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. A better pre-
diction is obtained if one uses a; a
rather than p . Again, we see that
the model underpredicts the in-situ stress, but the sense and magni-
tude of stress contrast is well matched.

15
1OL-----'---'---'--------'---'---'--------'---'---'------'
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Minimum stress measured in MPa
Fig. 4-Scatterplot of stress prediction from the elastic uniaxial
strain model, assuming transverse isotropy and from measured
1(values.
Stress Prediction
Previous work in the east Texas SFE's showed that the in-situ
stresses are correlated with the stress predicted by the elastic uniax-
ial strain model (Eq. 5) using the log-derived Poisson 's.4,15,37 These
results suggest that the elastic strain terms in Eq. 6 are negligible.
It also was shown that, when using the dynamic Poisson's ratio, the
predictions were better if 1( = 1 (which is the upper bound) instead
of if values typically measured in the laboratory were used. 4 ,37
Therefore, the following predictions have been made, neglecting
the horizontal strain and using either a value of 1( = I or the laborato-
ry-derived values of 1( given in Table 2.
Elastic Models. Fig. 2 shows the elastic prediction using the iso-
tropic model given by Eq. 5 and the assumption 1( = I. The predic-
tions are systematically low. However, all but two points are within
2 MPa [290 psi] of the measured stress. The predicted stress for the
SFE 3 shale (the highest measured stress value) is about 15 MPa
[2175 psi] too low. In Fig. 3, the influence of anisotropy is taken into
account (see Eq. 10), which results in a dramatic improvement of the
stress prediction for the SFE 3 shale. In these predictions, it was as-
sumed that!l =!l' when values for!l were not available and ~ = O.
Finally, Fig. 4 confirms a result already mentioned 37 : a realistic val-
Discussion
One problem in the evaluation of stress models is related to prob-
lems of scale. In-situ stress data, as typically acquired in the petro-
leum industry, represent the stress averaged over vertical distances
45 50 55 60 that span distinct lithological variations. Consequently, we are nev-
er sure whether the interval of cores tested is really representative
of the lithology that has been stress tested. Furthermore, in some
cases (especially in SFE 3) we have not obtained cores that corre-
spond exactly to the depth of the stress test.
Heterogeneity is also typical of the rock tested. Within a few feet,
rock properties may change significantly, even with apparently the
same lithology. However, we found that the variability affects the
elastic properties and cohesion more than it does the friction angle.
A typical example shown in Table 3 is the mudstone at 1897 m
[6,224 ft] in SFE 1, which shows a large variation of cohesion with-
out any variation of friction angle within an interval of 0.6 m [2 ft].
When evaluating models, one must also question the accuracy of
in-situ stress and pore-pressure measurements. Stress measurements
are uncertain when a closure pressure is not well defined or when
multiple closures are observed. Variability of several MPa is not un-
common for stress interpretations. Vertical stresses are estimated
from the density log and not measured. Pore pressure accounts for
roughly 75% of the predicted stress in SFE 2 sandstones. However,
accurate pore-pressure measurements in tight gas sandstones are dif-
ficult to achieve owing to their very low diffusivity. Pore pressure in
shale is only obtained by interpolating the pore pressure measured in
the adjacent, more-permeable layers. It is likely that pore-pressure es-
timates are within only a few MegaPascals (MPa) of the true value.
But the major problem concerns the evaluation of the elastic mod-
els with the determination of elastic parameters for nonlinear rocks.
We chose to use the elastic parameters of un fractured rock (intrinsic
elastic properties). These are determined from the apparently linear
elastic regime observed at a confining pressure much higher than the
estimate of the in-situ value. An alternativc solution would be to de-

60~~-~~--~--~~--~-~~--. 60.-~--~~--~~--~~--~~--.

55 55
«I
«I c..
50 ~ 50
~ .5
.S 45 '0 45
~
asu u
40 '6 40
t ....c..
~

~)I(
35 35
<J)
<J)
lIE '"
'"
~
l:l 30
~ 30
)I(
<J) '"e
8 25 ::I 25
::I )I( e
8 '2
'2 20 20
~
~ )I(
15
15
10 10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minimum stress mea~ured in MPa Minimum stress measured in MPa

Fig. 5-Scatterplot of stress prediction from the failure model Fig. 6-Scatterplot of stress prediction from the failure model
witha=ap . with a~ .

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994 255


60
55
'"
c..
:; 50
.5
~::I 45
~ ity about the form of the effective stress law: the effective stress for
e 40
Vl
Vl
~
!:I 35
Vl
(;!
~ 30
25
20
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Total stress predicted in MPa
Fig. 7-Scatterplot of stress prediction from the elastic uniaxial
strain model and Poisson's ratio derived from logs, Well SFE 2.
termine the elastic parameters at downhole in-situ conditions. This
approach would imply, however, that the nonlinearity was an intrinsic
characteristic of the rocks tested. It also would worsen the predictions.
Determination of intrinsic elastic properties is not an easy task.
We observed a constant value for the Young's modulus at high con-
fining pressure, but a value of fl' independent of the state of stress
was never achieved. Walsh 38 previously described the problem we
face. At low stress, when the cracks are opened, the measured value
of the Poisson's ratio is less that its intrinsic value. Meanwhile, un-
der high shear stress, sliding of one crack face relative to another re-
sults in a measured value of the Poisson's ratio that is higher that its
intrinsic value. The beginning of an unloading phase under high
confining pressure should better estimate the Poisson's ratio. We
had less difficulty determining fl because the deformations mea-
sured during loading parallel to the bedding plane are more linear
than the deformations measured during loading normal to the bed-
ding plane. This is to be expected because fl is measured in a direc-
tion that is the least affected by strain-relaxation microcracks.
Strain-relaxation microcracks are predominantly oriented in a plane
perpendicular to the direction of overburden and parallel to the bed-
ding plane in east Texas. 29
The fact that we obtained elastic properties of the sandstones that
are essentially isotropic at high confining pressure and therefore not
influenced by oriented microcracks suggests that the microcracks
have been completely closed and intrinsic parameters obtained,
Poisson's ratio included.
Despite the uncertainty associated with model parameter selec-
tion, this study shows that the predictions of the elastic models and
the failure model are in reasonable quantitative agreement with the
measured stresses. Both models predict higher stress in the shales
than in the sandstones and both slightly underpredict stress levels by
a few MegaPascals.
Concerning the elastic models, we found a better quantitative predic-
tion where transverse isotropy was accounted for. We also obtained bet-
ter predictions when 1C = 1 rather than when laboratory values, which
are typically < 1, are used. This result is, however, inconsistent with
elasticity theory. But the determination of 1C is also somewhat contro-
versial. Warpinski and Teufel 39 and Laurent et al. 40 showed that the
value of 1C obtained from laboratory experiments is a function of the
procedure used. In particular, Warpinski and Teufel 39 claimed that the
value of 1C that is representative of downhole condition is often under-
estimated by conventional experimental procedures.
Aside from a slight offset, the failure stress model also gave good
agreement with the measured stress. The observed underprediction
of stress may be because the predictions used friction angles based
on peak strength rather than on residual strength data. Residual fric-
tion angles in sandstones are lower than friction angles determined
256
using peak strength (Table 3). A viscous component in the failure
behavior of the rocks and an underestimation of the overburden also
will result in underestimation of minimum stress.
The failure model has the distinct advantage of requiring only one
material parameter, the friction angle, which is unambiguous to
measure experimentally. The friction angle also appears to be less
sensitive to minor lithologic heterogeneity and microcracks than are
elastic parameters or cohesive strength. Finally, there is no ambigu-
failure is the Terzaghi effective stress 0 - pp. The failure model pro-
vides a very good stress prediction for the depleted sandstones of
Well SFE I (see Fig. 6: measured stresses equal to 20.9 and 26.8
MPa [3000 and 3900 psi]). The corresponding core-based elastic
predictions are not shown because we were unable to recover the
original stress/strain data, but predictions based on dynamic elastic
moduli have been reported by Whitehead et al. 15 Whitehead et a/.
could not match the observed stress here using the measured pore
pressure. They obtained a match after deriving a empirical "effec-
tive" pore-pressure function of the actual pore-pressure values.
The assumption that the rocks of the east Texas region are close to
a failure state is supported by the observation of recent movements
on the eastward-trending ElkhartlMount Enterprise fault zone. 37 ,41
Natural extension and shear fractures have also heen described in core
samples of sandstones and mudstones, respectively. The east-north-
east/west-southwest strike of vertical-extension fractures is subparal-
lel to induced hydraulic fractures, indicating that the region is charac-
terized by a least-compressive stress directed toward the U.S. gulf
coast. Shear fractures in mudstones strike parallel to the extension
fractures but have dips that range from subhorizontal to about 40°.
Laubach et al. 42 argued that the extension and shear fractures repre-
sent the response of different lithologies to burial and compaction of
the Travis Peak formation while subjected to a stress field similar to
the contemporary stress field. The interpretation of the natural frac-
tures is consistent with boundary conditions assumed by the failure
model but does not provide evidence for contemporary deformation.
Some of the geologic observations also place two constraints on
the application of stress models. First, if one believes that the in-situ
stress is controlled by the frictional strength of regional faults, then
stress predictions should be based on a friction angle determined on
these faults (which may differ from the friction angle measured on
new fractures owing to mineralization of the fracture surfaces). Se-
cond, the penetrative extension fracturing observed throughout the
Travis Peak indicates that if the region is deforming elastically, say,
as a result of changes in reservoir pressure or small amounts of uplift
or subsidence, then one should use elastic moduli of fractured rock
instead of the moduli of un fractured rock. These moduli could be an
order of magnitude or significantly lower than the ones measured on
the unfractured rocks and may prevent elastic models from achiev-
ing realistic predictions.
Despite the limitations described above, the two simple but physi-
cally different stress models, the failure model and the elastic uniax-
ial strain model, give reasonable quantitative predictions of the least
horizontal total stress in the East Texas basin. These evaluations
were made using model parameters obtained in the laboratory, but
stresses predicted by the elastic model by using Poisson's ratio
derived from logs for the SFE 2 well are similar (Fig. 7). Although
the failure model is geophysically more appealing than the elastic
uniaxial strain model in this area, it is interesting to examine why the
two models give similar predictions in east Texas. Note that, al-
though the two models represent different deformation mechanisms
and different boundary conditions, both models describe the con-
tribution of overburden and pore pressure to the minimum effective
stress. This influence can be formulated using a generalization of
the coefficient of Earth stress Ko:
a~min = Koo?, ................................. (18)
wherc 0' = cffective stresses (Biot cffective stresses for the elastic
models and Terzaghi effective stresses for the failure model) and
Ko = (£I£')I(f.-t' 11 - fl) in the elastic model and Ko = IINa in the fail-
ure models.
The similarity in both predictions should be observed as a positive
correlation between the value of Ko with the friction angle and the
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994
 0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
v ~
E 0.6 .E 0.6
.;
~
00.5 ~ 0.5
:.:: lIE
0.4 0.4
lIE

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0
o L-~ __~__~~__~__~~__~__~~
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 O.n 0.7 O.S 0.9 o 0.1 0.2 n.3 0.4 0.5 O.n 0.7 0.8 0.9
Ko ela<;tic Ko elastic (dynamic)

Fig. 8-Scatterplot of Ko for the failure model as a function of Ko Fig. 9-Scatterplot of Ko for the failure model as a function of Ko
for the elastic uniaxial strain model (transverse isotropy). forthe elastic uniaxial strain model (Poisson's ratio derived from
logs).

value of Ko with the elastic constants. This is exactly what it is found The similarity between the predictions of both models is caused
using the data in Tables 2 and 3 (Fig. 8). Actually, the correlation by an observed positive correlation between the coefficient of Earth
indicates a negative correlation between the friction angle and Pois- stress determined using the friction angle and the one determined
son's ratio for isotropic rocks; i.e., the higher the Poisson's ratio the using Poisson's ratio. This correlation explains why elastic models
lower the friction angle. A similar correlation is found if one uses may predict stress as well as failure models in tectonically relaxed
a Poisson's ratio derived from logs for the elastic Ko (Fig. 9). How- basins and why sonic logs provide satisfactory stress prediction.
ever, in this case, the correlation is weaker, especially if one includes
the Bossier shale found in SFE 3 (the rock with the highest value of Nomenclature
Ko failure) because of the assumption of isotropic behavior current- _ c = cohesion, m/Lt 2
- . 2
1y imposed by sonic logs. C. Cijkl = tensor of compliance, mILt
This correlation explains why elastic models may predict stress £= Young's modulus in the plane of isotropy, mlLt 2
as wcll as failure models in tectonically relaxed basins and why son- £' = Young's modulus normal to the plane of isotropy, mlLt2
ic logs provide satisfactory stress prediction, at least with the rock G' = shear modulus in any planes normal to the plane of
tested in the SFE wells. isotropy, mlLt2
Finally, although we have shown that very simple elastic and fail- hi = direction cosines of the i axis in relation to the axis of
ure models provide satisfactory stress predictions in east Texas, we symmetry
do not claim that these simple models include all effects presumed Ko = coefficient of Earth stress
to account for contemporary stresses in petroleum reservoirs. For Pp = pore pressure
example, we have not tried to reproduce the burial history of the ba- Na = passive coefficient
sin, and we have excluded thermal stress. The systematic underpre- a = angle of friction
dictions observed for both models could easily be accounted for by
ap, = angle of internal friction using peak strength
a p = angle of internal friction using peak strength under
inclusion of thermal stress or viscous deformations or by geophysi-
nonzero confining pressure
cally reasonable variations in pore pressure and vertical stress. The _a r = angle of friction using residual strength
model evaluations, however, indicate the sensitivity of stress pre- €, € ij = strain tensor
dictions to the different rock properties associated with the different fHmax = maximum horizontal strain
hypothetical deformation mechanisms. fHmin = minimum horizontal strain

Conclusions K,K ij = second-order tensor that generalizes Biot's

coefficient
Laboratory measurements of elastic and strength parameters have K= poroelastic constant
been carried out on cores from locations where in-situ stress and j.<= Poisson's ratio in the plane of isotropy for stress
pore pressure have been determined. These rock properties have acting in the plane of isotropy
been used to evaluate simple geophysical models of in-situ stress, j.<'= Poisson's ratio for stress acting normal to the plane of
namely elastic models and a failure model. The models evaluated do isotropy
not include all effects presumed to account for contemporary minimum horizontal stress, miLt 2
stresses in petroleum reservoirs but consider effects that can be maximum horizontal stress, mlLt 2
modeled using parameters which are relatively simple to determine. stress tensor where compressive stresses are positive,
Results show that stress models based on the hypothesis that mlLt 2
rocks are in a state of failure gi ve similar predictions of the state of Ov= vertical stress, mlLt 2
stress to the elastic uniaxial strain models in most of the lithologies 0)= maximum principal stress, mlLt 2
encountered, although the failure model may be more geophysically 03= minimum principal stress, mlLt 2
reasonable in the tectonically relaxed East Texas basin. 0 11 = normal stress across a plane, mlLt2
The failure model appears to be more accurate in shales than the °u/= ultimate strength at zero confining pressure, mlLt 2
elastic models, although taking elastic anisotropy into account re- r= shear stress across a plane, mlLt2
duces the difference between the two predictions. s= poroelastic constant

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1994 257

Acknowledgments
We thank GRI for providing cores and access to the well, Olive Liu for
helping with processing of the sonic data, and employees of Schlum-
berger Dowell Tulsa and Schlumberger Cambridge Research for con-
ducting the laboratory measurements. Instructive discussions were held
with Dr. John Cook of Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Steve Lau-
bach of BEG, and Ercil Hunt ofE. Hunt Assocs. Schlumberger is grate-
fully acknowledged for allowing publication of these results.
References
I. Anderson, R.A., Ingram, D.S., and Zanier, A.M.: "Determining Fracture
Pressure Gradients From Well Logs," lPT (Nov. 1973) 1259.
2. Rosepiler, J.: "Determination ofPrincipai Stresses and Confinement of
Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton Valley," paper SPE 8405 presented at the
1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
3. Newberry, B.M., Nelson, R.E, and Ahmed, U.: "Prediction of Vertical
Hydraulic Fracture Migration Using Compressional and Shear Wave
Slowness," paper SPE 13895 presented at the 1985 SPEIDOE Low
Penneability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 19-22.
4. Ahmed, U. et al.: "Enhanced In-Situ Stress Profiling Using Microfrac-
ture, Core, and Sonic-Logging Data," SPEFE (June 1991) 243.
5. Fenner, R. "Untersuchen zur Erkeiitnis des Gebirgsdrucks," Glukauf
(1938) 74.
6. Hubbert, M.K. and Willis D.G.: "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing,"
Trans .. AIME, 210 (1957) 153.
7. Talobre. 1.: 111 Mecaniqlle des Roches. Dunod, Paris (1957).
8. Prats, M.: "Effect of Burial History on the Subsurface Horizontal
Stresses of Fonnations Having Different Material Properties," SPEl
(Dec. 1981) 658.
9. Warpinski, N.R.: "Elastic and Viscoelastic Calculations of Stresses in
Sedimentary Basins," SPEFE (Dec. 1989) 522.
10. Amadei, B., Swolfs H.S., and Savage W.S.: "Gravity Induced Stresses
in Stratified Rock Masses," Rock Mech. & Rock Eng. (1988) 21,1-20.
II. Savage, W.Z., Swolfs. H.S., and Powers, P.S.: "Gravitational Stresses in
Long Symmetric Ridges and Valleys," Inti. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. (1985) 22, 5,291.
12. Bauer, S.1 .. Holland, J.E, and Parrish, D.K.: "Implications Ahout In Situ
Stress at Yucca Mountain," Proc.. 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Me-
chanics (1985) 1113-20.
13. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P., and Wilmer, R.: "In-Situ Stress Measure-
ments at U.S/DOE's Multiwell Experiment Site, Mesaverde Group,
Rifle, Colorado," lPT(March 1985) 37, 3, 527.
14. Veatch, R.W. Jr. and Mosdovidis, R.W.: "An Overview of Recent Ad-
vances in Hydraulic Fracturing Technology," paper SPE 14085 presented
at the IntI. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing (1986) 421-54.
IS. Whitehead, WS., Hunt, E.R., and Holditch, S.A.: "Effects of Lithology
aod Reservoir Pressure on the In-Situ Stresses in the Waskom (Travis
Peak) Field," paper SPE 16403 presented at the 1987 SPEIDOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 18-19.
16. Plumb, R.A. and Singer, J.: "Insights Into the Mechanical Properties of
Tight Formations: A Study of In-Situ Stress and Fracture Distribution
at Auburn, New York," SDR Research Report (1983).
17. Evans, K.F., Engelder, T., and Plumb, R.: "Appalachian Stress Study I-A
Detailed Description of In-Situ Stress Variations in Devonian Shales of the
Appalachian Plateau," 1. Geophysical Res. (1989) 94, B6, 7129.
18. Plumb, R.A., Evans, K., and Engelder, T.: "Lithology Dependent Stress
Contrasts in Paleozoic Sedimentary Rocks of New York State," 1. Geo-
physical Res. (1990).
19. Holditch, S.A. et al.: 'The GRI Staged Field Experiment," SPEFE
(Sept. 1988) 519.
20. Carroll, M.M: "An Effective Stress Law for Anisotropic Elastic De-
formation," 1. Geophysical Res., 84, B13, 7510.
21. Thompson, M. and Willis, J.R.: "A Reformulation of the Equations of
Anisotropic Poro-Elasticity," 1. Appl. Mech. (1991) 58, 612.
22. Coulomb, C.A.: "Sur Une Application Des Regles de Maximis et Mini-
mis a'Quelques Problemes de Statique Rclatifs a' L'architecture," Acad.
Royale des Sciences Memoires de Math. & Physique par Dil'ers Sa-
vants, 7, (1773) 343-82.
23. Whitehead, W.S., Gatens, 1., and Holditch, S.: "Determination of In-Situ
Stress From Hydraulic Fracturing Through Hydraulic Fracturing Mea-
surements in Two Distinct Geologic Areas," Proc .. Second IntI. Work-
shops on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Minneapolis
(June 15-18, 1988) 856-915.
24. Stage Field Experiment No.3, Application of Advanced Technologies
in Tight Gas Sandstones-Travis Peak and Cotton Valley Formations,
Waskom Field, Harrison County, Texas Reservoirs," CER Corp. and
258
S.A Holditch & Assocs., Inc. (eds.), Report No. GRI-91/0048. GRl,
Chicago (Feb. 1991).
25. Tye, R.S. et al.: "The Role of Geology in Characterizing Low-Perme-
ability Sandstones, North Appleby Field, East Texas Basin," paper SPE
18964 presented at the 1989 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, March 6-8.
26. I,aubach. S.E.: "Subsurface Fractures and Their Relationship to Stress His-
tory in East Texas Basin Sandstone," Tectonophysics. 156 (1988) 37-49.
27. Laubach, S.E. and Monson, E.R.: "Coring-Induced Fractures: Indica-
tors of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in a Naturally Fractured Reser-
voir," paper SPE 18164 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Houston, Oct. 2-5.
28. Plumb, R.A.: "Fracture Patterns Associated With Incipient Wellbore
Breakouts," Proc .. Rock at Great Depth Symposium (1989) 761-68.
29. Warpinski. N.R. and Teufel, L.W.: "In-Situ Stresses in Low-Penneabil-
ity, Nonmarine Rocks," lPT (April 1989) 405; Trans .. AIME, 287.
30. "Advancements in Travis Peak Fonnation Evaluation and Hydraulic
Fracture Technology, Stage Field Experiment No. I," CER Corp. and S.A.
Holditch & Assoc. (eds.). Report No. GRI-88/00n, GRI, Chicago (1988).
31. Nolte, K.G.: "Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing
Pressure Decline," paper SPE 8341 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-28.
32. Erdle, J.C. el al.: "Results of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment BHP
Analysis in Peru," paper SPE 10310 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
33. Elbel, J.L. et al.: "Stimulation Study of Cottage Grove Formation," lPT
(July 1984) 1199.
34. Nolte. K.G.: "A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With Ap-
plication to Three Models," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 571 ; Trans .. AIME, 284.
35. Strickland, EG. and Ren, N-K.: "Use of Differential Strain Curve Anal-
ysis in Predicting the In-Situ Stress State for Deep Wells." Proc., 21 st
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Rolla. Missouri (1980) 523-32.
36. Thiercelin, M. et al.: "Laboratory Determination of the In-Situ Stress
Tensor," Proc.. IntI. Symposium on Engineering in Complex Rock
Formation. Beijing, (1986) 278-83.
37. "Stage Field Experiment No. 2,"Report No. GRI-89/0140, CER Corp.
and S.A. Holditch & Assocs., Inc. (cds), GRI, Chicago. I (1989).
38. Walsh, 1.13.: "The Effect of Cracks in Rocks on Poisson's Ratio," 1. Geo-
ph."s. (1965) 70, 20. 5249.
39. Warpinski, N.R. and Teufel. L.W.: "Determination of the Effective-
Stress Law for Permeability and Deformation in Low-Permeability
Rocks," SPEFE (June 1992) 123; Trans .. AIME. 293.
40. Laurent, J., Bouteca, M., and Sarda, J-P.: "Pore Pressure Influence in the
Poroelastic Behaviour of Rocks: Experimental Studies and Results,"
Proc.. European Petroleum Conference, The Hague (1990) 385-92.
41. Collins, E.W. Hobday. D.K., and Kreitler, C.W: "Quaternary Faulting
in East Texas," Geological Circular 80-1, The U. of Texas Bureau of
Economic Geology, Austin. TX (1980).
42. Laubach, S.E., Baumgardner, R.W., and Meador, K.1.: "Analysis ofNat-
ural Fractures and Borehole Ellipticity, Travis Peak Formation," GRI
Report No. 87/0211 (1987).
SPEFE
Marc J. Thiercelin is program leader at Schlumberger Cam-
bridge Research in Cambridge, England. Previously. he worked
for Dowell-Schlumberger in St.-Etienne, France, and in Tulsa. His
interests include rock and fracture mechanics. He holds an en-
gineering degree from Ecole de Geologie de Nancy, France,
and a PhD degree in rock mechanics from the Inst. de Mecani-
que de Grenoble, France. Richard A. Plumb joined the Inter-
pretation and Geomechanics Program at Schlumberger Cam-
bridge Research in 1992. Previously, he worked for 10 years at
Schiumberger-Doll Research in Ridgefield, CT. His research inter-
ests include in-situ stress, fractures. and strength and deforma-
tion processes in sedimentary rocks. He served on the 1988-90
Forum Series Members Committee. Plumb holds a BA degree in
physics and geology from Wesleyan U., an MA degree in geolo-
gy from Dartmouth C., and a PhD degree in geophysics from
Columbia U.
Thiercelin Plumb
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1994