See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290843693

Stress determination from hydraulic tests on pre-existing fractures

Article · January 1986

CITATIONS READS

38 614

1 author:

Francois Cornet
University of Strasbourg
158 PUBLICATIONS 3,900 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Francois Cornet on 15 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 89, NO. B13, PAGES 11,527-11,537, DECEMBER 10, 1984

In Situ StressDetermination From Hydraulic Injection Test Data

F. H. CORNET AND B. VALETTE

Laboratoired'EtudeG•ophysique
de StructuresProfondes,
Institut de Physiquedu Globe,
Universit• Paris VI

Laboratoryand field resultshave shownthat the orientationof a hydraulicallypropagatedfractureis

not always perpendicularto that of the minimum principal stressbut may be influencedby local
weaknessplanessuchas preexistingnatural fissures:the lower the flow rate, the strongerthe weakness
planesinfluence.This observationhas led to a new stressdeterminationmethod basedon the measure-
ment of the normal stresssupportedby fractureplanes,with variousdips and strikes.This new method
providesmeansto evaluatethe precisionof the stressdeterminationand can be applied to situationsin
whichnoneof the principalstresses is vertical.When all the fractureplanesare parallelto the borehole
axis, the method is still applicable if fast flow rate reopeningpressurescan be measuredand if the
principal stressdirectionsare assumedto be independentof depth. Validity of the methodis illustrated
by analyzingresultsfrom two setsof data, one of whichhasbeendiscussed previouslyin the literature.

1. INTRODUCTION In this paper we discussthe questionof hydraulicfracture

Hydraulic fracturing is now widely used for in situ stress
measurements(seee.g., Kehle [1964], Ha?msonand Fairhurst
[1969], Ha?mson[1978], and Hickman and Zoback [1983]).
With this techniquea portion of a borehole,free from natural
fissures,is sealedoff with a straddlepacker and then submit-
ted to a constantflow rate injection.The pressurerisesup to a
maximum value, the breakdown pressurePb then drops and
stabilizesat the so-calledpropagation pressure.When injec-
tion stops,a shut-in pressurePs can be measuredif the well
remainssealedoff (seeFigure 1).
If the borehole is parallel to one of the principal stress
directionsand if the rock is assumedto be linearly elastic,
homogeneous,and isotropic with respect to both its elastic
behavior and its strength, measurementsof breakdown pres-
sure and shut-in pressureare used to evaluate the magnitude
of some componentsof the local stresstensor. For fractures
parallel to the borehole axis (as often observedwith inflatable
straddle packers),the following relationshipsare used for dry
rocks(see,e.g.,Scheidegger[1962] and Fairhurst [1964]):
--a H -[-3an+ ar= P•, (1)
an = Ps (2)
where an and an are the principal stresscomponentsin the
plane perpendicularto the borehole axis (an > an; compres-
sionsare reckonedpositive)and ar is the so-called"tensile
orientation as well as resultsobtained with reopeningpressure
testsand shut-in pressuretests.These testsare shown to pro-
vide means for determiningthe local stressfield without any
of the assumptionsmade with the classicalhydraulic frac-
turing method, provided they can be conductedon fracture
planeswith variousdips and strikes.
When all the fracture planes lie at the same depth, the
inverseproblem of stressdetermination is linear, and its solu-
tion is straightforward(i.e., when only one fracture existsfor
each singletest). We considerhere the situation in which tests
are conducted from one or two boreholes so that fracture
planes lie at various depths. It is assumedthat one of the
principal stressesis vertical but not necessarilyparallel to the
borehole axis and that the stress field varies linearly with
depth. The generalcasein which none of the principal direc-
tions is vertical can be handled in exactly the same manner
except that testing of a larger number of fracture planes is
necessaryif the solution is to be well constrained.The situ-
ation in which the spatial stress variations are nonlinear is
discussedby Valette [1982].
Data gathered in three 200-m-deep boreholes drilled in
granite, as well as results published by Ha?mson[1980] for
Waterloo quartzite, are usedto illustrate this new stressdeter-
mination technique.
2. DISCUSSION OF THE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

strength"of the rock. From Griffith's[1921] theory it can be STRESSDETERMINATIONTECHNIQUE

shownthat for isotropicrocks the fracture extendsin a direc-
tion perpendicularto that of an so that determinationof the
fracturestrike at the well bore yieldsthe anorientation.
With this theory a first difficulty is encounteredwith deter-
2.1. Orientationof Hydraulic Fractures
Accordingto the Griffith's[1921] criterionof fracture,brit-
tle fracture occurs when

mining the "tensilestrength"of the rock [e.g., Harmson,1968;

Hudsonet al., 1973]. A secondone arisesfrom the fact that the
breakdownpressure,as definedabove,may not coincidewith
fracture inception [Zoback et al., 1977]. In addition, the frac-
ture orientationat the well bore may not be perpendicularto
the andirectioneither becausethe boreholeis not perpendicu-
lar to the an direction [Daneshy, 1973; Zoback and Pollard,
1978] or becausethe rock massis anisotropicwith respectto
its strength,as will be discussed later.
Copyright1984by the AmericanGeophysicalUnion.
Paper number4B1136.
0148-0227/84/004B-1136505.00
11,527
[AW(ds)- AU(ds)] > AD(ds) (3)
where
A W(ds) work of external forcesduring crack growth ds with
area da and normal n (ds = n da);
AU(ds) strain energyvariation in the rock mass;
AD(ds) surfaceenergyabsorbedby crack growth ds.
It is assumed,after Griffith, to correspondto an increasein
potential energy.
When there is strict equality betweenboth terms of (3), the
fracturingprocessis quasi-static,while if the left term is larger
than the right one, somekinetic energyis generated.
11,528 CORNETAND VALETTE:STRESSDETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULIC TESTING

11.44
8.58
/ Fracture
propagation
under
very
slow
flow
rate
(5cm3/sec.)
2e[W

o I I I 1 I I
0 i 2 3 4 5 6

TIME (Minutes)
Fig. 1. Typical pressure-time
recordobservedduringa hydraulicfracturingtest.

For quasi-staticfracture processes,of all possiblecrack ex-
tensionconfigurationsds,with area da, the one which actually
occursdso,maximizesthe decreasein potential energy of the
system:
[A W(ds)- A U(ds)- AD(ds)]
- [A W(dso)- A U(dso)- AD(dso)]< 0
If the rock is isotropic with respectto its strength,then
AD(ds)= AD(dso)= 7da, where 7 is Griffith's free surface
energyper unit area, and equation(4) becomes
XU(ds)] - XU(dSo)]< 0
Equation (5) implies the well-known result that a hydraulic
fractureextendingin an isotropicmaterial is orientedperpen-
dicularly to the least principal stress(a3).
If the rock is anisotropic with respectto its strength then
AD(ds)= ?(n)da,where ?(n) dependsupon the orientation of
the normal tO the surfaceincrement,and propagation of the
fracture may not occur in a plane perpendicularto the a3
direction.Here the conceptof anisotropymust be taken in its
broadest sense;it may refer either to a rock matrix property
or to the influence of more or less recemented preexisting
joints..Inthe latter case,eventhoughthe rock matrix may be
isotropicwith respectto its strength,the rock massis not, and
its directions of weaknessmay change from point to point.
The rock mass is both anisotropicand heterogeneouswith
very viscousand the pumping rate high, no percolation into
the formation occurs before fracture initiation. In this case,
equation(1) can be replacedby [Bredehoeftet al., 1976]
-Po -aH q- 3an+ aT = Pt, (6)
wherePo is the pore pressure.
(4)
If the rock matrix permeabilityis such that the fracturing
fluid percolatesinto the rock mass before fracture initiates,
different equationsmust be used [Ha?rnson,1968; Rice and
Cleary, 1976]. This paper is concernedonly with relatively
imperviousrock masses,and the influenceof fluid penetration
(5)
will be consideredonly for the caseof preexistingweakness
planes with higher hydraulic conductivity than the rock
matrix. This is discussed in more detail in the next section.
2.2. The ReopeningPressureTests
If it is assumedthat (1) or (6) are valid, i.e., that the fracture
is orientedperpendicularlyto the andirection,the value of as
can be determinedfrom measurements of breakdownpressure
and shut-inpressures providedthe tensilestrengthof the rock,
ar, is known.However,aspointedout by manyauthors[e.g.,
Hairnson,1968; Hudson et al., 1973; Cornet, 1982], the value
obtainedfor ar dependsstronglyon the methodof measure-
ment. In order to circumventthis difficulty, Bredehoeftet al.
[1976] proposed to determine as from reopening pressure
measurements.

respectto its strength. The reopeningpressureis definedas the injection pressure

This showsthat a hydraulic fracture cannot be assumed,a required to cancel the tangential stressat the well bore wall,
priori, to propagatefrom the well bore in a plane perpendicu- where the fracture was initiated during the fracturing oper-
lar to the minimum principal stressdirection. As a conse- ation.
quence,the relative orientationof the fractureplane with re- It is not always the maximum pressurereachedduring the
spectto that of a3 must be taken as an unknown so that the injectiontest. This latter value, as pointed out by Zoback and
stress field cannot be determined from (1) and (2). Fur- Pollard [1978], merelyreflectsthe equilibriumbetweeninject-
thermore the fracture may assumedifferent orientationsas it ed flow and absorbedflow (whichin the caseof an impervious
propagatesaway from the well either becauseof a changeof rock matrix correspondsto the fluid flow into the fracture).
the principal stressorientation or becauseof the existenceof It can be shown [Cornet, 1982] that the reopeningpressure
preexistingfracturesalong the path of the hydraulicfracture is very strongly flow rate dependent becausealthough the
[Cornet, 1982]. fracture might be closed,its permeabilityis usually much
Equation (1) is valid only for dry rocks. In many instances larger than that of the rock matrix. As a consequence, some
the rock massis saturatedbyøafluid under pressureand (1) percolationmay occur before the fracture opens.This perco-
must be modified to take into account this pore pressure. lation inducesa changein the tangential stressmagnitude at
When the rock is imperviousenough,or the fracturing fluid the wellbore wall. For example,when an= 0, it has been
 CORNETAND VALETTE: STRESSDETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULIC TESTING
found with a numericalmodel [Cornet, 1982] that for a frac-
ture with a lengthequal to 0.7 time the boreholeradiusand
oriented perpendicularlyto the an direction, the reopening
pressureis equal to 30.nif thereis no fluid percolation,1.540.n
if the fluid pressureis applied uniformly up to the half crack
length and 1.180.nif the pressureis uniform up to the crack
tip.
For this reason two different types of reopeningpressure
testsmust be considered:(1) testsat flow rates large enough
that no percolationoccursbeforefracture opening;thesetests
can be conductedonly oncethe pore pressurehas returnedto
its original value at everypoint in the rock mass,and (2) tests
at slow flow rates so that percolation occursbefore the frac-
ture opens;the rate must be slow enough to prevent signifi-
cant pressuregradientswithin the fracture.
Determinationof reopeningpressureobservedat large flow
ratesprovidesusefulinformationsif the fractureis parallel to
the borehole axis. Indeed, for such a geometry the normal
stressexertedon the fractureplane at the well bore wall is, for
impervioussaturatedrocks(seeAppendix 1),
0.0/•= (0'11+ 0'22)-- 2(a• - 0'22
) cos2//
--40.•2 sin 2•/- Pw- Po (7)
where
stress components at infinity (that is outside
•11, 0'22, 0'12
the zone of influenceof the borehole)in a plane
perpendicularto the boreholeaxis;
fl orientationof the fractureplane with respectto
the 0'xx direction (which, for convenience,is
taken to be the north);
Pw boreholepressurebeforefractureopens,and P0
is the pore pressure.
If, in addition, the borehole is parallel to one of the prin-
cipal stressdirections,(7) impliesthat
(0'n+ 0'n)
+ 2(0'n
- 0'n)
cos2(tp
- 6)= Pr+ P0 (8)
where
tp azimuth of the normal to the fractureplane (with respect
to the north if the boreholeis vertical);
6 orientation of 0'nwith respectto the north;
Pr reopeningpressure.
The reopening pressureis determined by comparison of
pressure-timerecordsobtained during the fracturing operation
and the reopening tests; the flow rate must be the same in
both instances. The pressure for which the pressure-time
record obtained during the reopeningtest departs from that
obtainedduringthe fracturingphaseis the reopeningpressure 2.3.
[Hickman and Zoback, 1983]. Hickman and Zoback proposed
that two successivereopening tests be conducted and that
only the secondof these pressure-timerecordsbe used in
tain amountof liquidhasbeenpumped
large enoughflow rate to insurefractureopening,injectionis
order to avoid difficultieswith asymmetricalfracture devel-
stoppedand the fracturecloses.The fluid pressurePswhenthe
opment.Equation(8) is valid if the far-fieldstressstateis such
that the fracture closes at the borehole wall when the borehole fracture closesprovides a direct measurementof the normal
stressexerted on the fracture plane, whether a pore pressure
pressureis equal to the hydrostaticpressureand the fracture exists or not:
doesnot extendinto the zone where the packersare in direct
contact with the rock. If it does,then it is necessaryto verify
that the packer pressuredoes not prevent the fracture from
closingwhen the boreholepressurereturns to its hydrostatic
value.
If the fracture is assumedto be parallel to the 0'n direction
11,529
[tp = 6 + (n/2)], (8) is equivalentto (6) exceptthat, now,0'r =
0.
For low enough flow rates the fracture can be assumedto
be filled by a fluid under uniform pressureas long as the
fracture is closed,i.e., before fracture propagation resumes.
For planar cracksthe stressintensityfactor at the tip of the
fracture is proportional to the square root of the fracture
length. Once the fracture is long enough (usually, 1 or 2 m),
the critical pressurefor which propagation resumesis nearly
equal to the value of the normal stresssupportedby the frac-
ture tip. Thus for planar cracks and impervious rocks, slow
flow rate reopening tests may provide measurementsof the
normal stresssupportedby the fracture.
A slightlydifferentmethodfor measuringthis normal stress
is given by the "constantpressuresteps"test. The pressureis
raisedin a seriesof steps,and the flow rate necessaryto main-
tain constant the borehole pressureat each step (which lasts
4-5 min) is measured.As soon as the fracture opens,the flow
rate necessaryfor maintaining the borehole pressureconstant
increasesdrastically.Plots of pressurelevel versuscorrespond-
ing flow rate yield an accuratedetermination of the pressure
requiredto insurefractureopening.
It has been shown [Cornet, 1982] that preexistingfractures
may influencethe crack propagationconfiguration'the lower
the flow rate, the more likely the influence.
This effect is illustratedby resultsshown in Figure 2' hy-
draulic fracturing tests were conductedon 20 x 20 x 20 cm
granite cubessubmittedto a uniaxial stressfield. Prior to the
tests a small limited hydraulic fracture (with length varying
from 4 to 5 cm for a drill hole radiusequal to 0.5 cm) had
beencreated
andplaced
Perpendicular
to theuniaxial
stress
direction. It was found that when a hydraulic fracturing test
was conductedon theseprefracturedcubes,the final fracture
configurationdependedon the injection flow rate (seeFigure
2). This showsthat the low flow rate reopeningtestlendsitself
to significant influence of preexisting fracture planes and
therefore•o nonplanarcrackgrowth.
If, becauseof naturalfissures,
the fracturedeviatesfrom its
originaldirection(i.e.,that obSerOed
at the wellbore),the step
bystepreopening
testprovides
measurements
ofeither(1)the
normal stresssupportedby the fracture at the front of fluid
percolationif the natural fissureis lessfavorably orientedwith
respect to the minimum principal stressdirection than the
fracture plane observedat the well bore, or (2) the normal
stresssupportedby the fracture generatedat the well bore if
the natural fissureis more favorably oriented.
Thus interpretation of low flow rates reopeningtestsmust
always be comparedwith resultsobtainedwith shut-in pres-
sure tests.
The Shut-in Pressure Tests
In the classicalhydraulic fracturing procedure,after a cer-
intothefracture, at a
an. n = Ps (9)
where a is the local stress tensor and n the normal to the
fracture plane. Two shut-in pressurescan be defined' (1) the
11,530 CORNETAND VALETTE'STRESS
DETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULICTESTING

1. Consider the pressureversustime data obtained after

•-- •' Pw FRACTURE
MODE
MPa 10-3c
m3/s MPa shut-in and find the value of Pt for which log (P• - Pt) versus
time is bestrepresentedby a straightline.
2. Disregard thosevaluesof P• observedat the beginning
3.555,5
12.7• of the pressure-timerecord which do not satisfy the ex-
ponential decay; they pertain to the transientflow conditions.
3. Define a new bestfit value of Pt from this new pressure-
5.54.713.1 time record and return to step 2 if the first pressurevalue of
the new pressure-timerecord is more than one standard devi-
ation off the straight line.
The first pressurevalue in the final pressure-timerecord is
taken as the ISIP.
As more reopening and shut-in tests are conducted on the
5.528.4
17.1 same fracture, it is often observed that the successiveISIP
determinationsdo not yield the same result. They tend, how-
ever, to stabilize after three or four tests.As mentioned before,
as fracture propagatesaway from the well bore, it may change
of orientation. Thus it is consideredthat the proper ISIP value
is that which correspondsto a fracture extensionequal to 3-4
7.61.612.9 times the borehole diameter.Indeed such an extensionis large
enough to avoid difficultieswith stressconcentrationscaused
by the boreholebut smallenoughto insurea planar geometry.
7.653,5
8.6 ••]
t½
3. Tile NEW STRESS DETERMINATION METHOD

3.1. Method Based on Normal Stress Measurements

The above discussionhas outlined the fact that it is possible

Fig. 2. Influenceof flow rate on fractureorientation;Pw is the
to develop hydraulic fracturesin various directions by taking
boreholepressurefor whichthe fracturepropagates'a is the uniaxial
stress
field' I2istherateoffluidinjection. advantage of natural weaknessplanes and that the normal
stresssupportedby thesefracturescan be evaluatedwith some
accuracyby combination of the instantaneousshut-in pressure
longwaitingtime shut-inpressurePt and (2) the instantaneous measurementsand step by step quasi-staticreopeningtests.A
shut-in pressure(ISIP). stressdeterminationmethodbasedonly on thesenormal stress
For saturated fractured rock mass, after the hydraulically determinationswill be presentednow.
stimulated fracture has extended for a certain distance it is Let a. (i)bethenormalstress
supported
by theith fracture'
connectedto the rock mass interconnectedpore volume so 6(X(i))n
(i). n(i)= an(i) (10)
that the long waitingtime shut-inpressurecorresponds
to the
original pore pressure.However,in dry, imperviousforma- wheren(ø is the unit normal to the ith fractureplaneas ob-
tions the long waiting time shut-in pressurePt can be con- servedat the well bore and •(X (ø)is the local stresstensor
sidered as a lower bound to the least principal stressmag- which acts on the ith fracture.The size of the fracture plane is
nitude[Cornet,1982].In thiscase,comparisonof Pt with both assumedto be small enough that the local stress tensor is
the instantaneousshut-inpressureand the quasi-staticreopen- uniform over the volume affected by the ith fracture. This
may yieldinformationon the fractureorientation volumeis centered
ing pressure on pointX (ø(withcomponents
x•, y•,zi)-
away from the well bore. The problem is to determinethe six componentsof •(X) at
The ISIP refersto the pressurereachedby the fluid in the all pointsX in the rock volumewhichcontainsall the X (ø,
borehole when the fracture just closes.It is supposedto be wherean(i)hasbeenmeasured.
independent
of the fracturegeometryawayfrom the borehole; The simplestcaseis that often encounteredin mines' many
this is the value which must be used in (9). Various means boreholescan be drilled from an undergroundcavity allowing
have been proposedto determinethe ISIP [Aamodtand Ku- measurements to be made on planes located roughly at the
riyagawa, 1982; Gronseth and Kry, 1982; Hickman and same depth. If, in addition, the boreholesare not too distant
Zoback, 1983; McLennanand Roegiers,1982]. The procedure from each other, the lateral variationsof •(X) can be neglected
proposed here is somewhat similar to that describedby so that (10) reducesto a linear equation with six unknowns.If
Aamodt and Kuriyagawa.It is basedon the observationthat six, or more, fracture planeswith various dips and strikescan
flow conditionsin the fracture depend on its aperture as well be tested,thesesix unknownscan be determinedusinga least
as on the roughnessof its surfaces[Louis, 1974]. When the squaresprocedure.
fracture is closed,i.e., when the asperitiesof the two fracture Anotherfrequentcaseis thatwhenall theX (i)arenot at the
lips touch eachother in many places,it can be shownthat the same depth but have horizontal projections close enough to
boreholepressurePwdropsasymptoticallyto the valuePt, the each other that lateral stressvariations can be neglected(the
long waiting time shut-inpressure(whichis equal to the orig- valuesfor xi and y• are nearly the samefor all i), then (10) can
be rewritten
inal pore pressureP0 if the rock mass is saturated)in an
exponentialfashion,i.e., log (Pw- Pt) is a linear function of akt(zi)nt
(0ßnk(0= a. (ø (11)
time. Before fracture closure,transient flow conditionsprevail,
and the logarithmiclaw is not satisfied.Accordingly,our pro- where o'ta(zi)refers to the kl componentof a(z) at depth zi
cedure for the ISIP determination is as follows: wherethe ith fractureplane is encountered.Since,in the most
 CORNETAND VALETTE.'STRESSDETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULIC TESTING 11,531

generalcase,(11) involvessix different functionsof z, the solu- X', Z, Y, T, U, and V are not independent,and the problem
tion of the inverseproblemdefinedas the estimationof tr•t(z) becomesnonlinear.For this reasonwe preferto adopt the
fromm measurements
of an(i)requiresa fairlylargenumberof method of solution proposed by Tarantola and Valette
tests.However, very often, some simplifyingassumptionscan [1982].
be made: (1) one of the principal stressesis vertical and equal Let Xo be a point the componentsof which are the mea-
to the weight of overburden,(2) the componentsof a(z) are suredparameters
andtheunknowns
(..., z•, q•, 0i, a,(i),..., V,
linearfunctionsof depth,and (3) both of the abovehypotheses 2, r/, sx, s2, 0tx,0t2).It exhibits4m + 7 = 1 componentsfor m
are met simultaneously. tests.We assumethat the measurementsobey a Gaussianlaw
We will refer to solutionof the stressdeterminationprob- so that each measurementcan be describedby an expected
lem correspondingto case 2 and case 3 as the discreteap- value, a variance and covariances with other measurements.
proachwhile solutionof the generalproblem as expressedby We will also supposethat some a priori knowledge of the
(10) or (11) will be referredto as the functionalapproach.Both unknownsexistsand can be formulatedin terms of expected
approachesare applicationsof methods for solving gener- value, variance,and covariances:large enougherror bars are
alized nonlinearinverseproblemsusingthe least squarescri- placedon assumedcentral values.Let Co be the correspond-
terion [Tarantola and Valette, 1982]. We concentratehere on ing a priori covariancematrix. Of all the points X which
case 3. belongto the /-dimensionalspaceunder consideration,there
existsa set S of pointsx which satisfythe condition
3.2. Solutionby the DiscreteApproach
f(x) = 0 (14)
In this approachit is assumedthat one of the principal
stresscomponentsis vertical and that the regional stressfield wheref(x) is a vectorialfunction(m components)of x defined
varieslinearly with depth (no lateral heterogeneities
are con- by (13). The problem is to find :• suchthat
sidered).
The problemis to determinethe stressfield components,at f(•) = 0 (15a)
any depth, from m reliable normal stressmeasurements(see (•- xo)rCo- •(•- Xo) minimumoverS (15b)
equation (11)).
The frame of reference is chosen so that the vertical axis is i.e., we are looking for the point :• of S which is the closestto
positivedownward (north (x), east (y), depth (z)). The linear Xoaccordingto the leastsquarescriterion(equation(15b)).
dependenceof the stressfield with depth is written Sinceall the parametersand all the unknownsare supposed
to be independent,the covariancematrix Co is diagonal.
•(z) = S + zat (12) Now, if a point :• satisfiesthe set of equations(15a) and
where
(15b),then it satisfies(15a) and
(•- xo)rCo-X(i- Xo) stationary
overS (16)
(S)=
0Sxx
Sxy
O)
Sxy S,
0
0
0
The set of equations(15a) and (16) containsin addition to
the solution of (15a) and (15b) local minima, saddlepoints,
maxima,etc.This point is discussed later.
(a)=
(•xx
•x•
0)
•x• %• 0
0 0
Tarantola and Valette haveshownthat the system(15a) and
(16) is equivalentto

whereV is the weightof the overburdenper unit length. • = Xo+ CoFT(FCoFT)-•{F(R-Xo)--f(R)} (17)
Let S•, S2 be the eigenvaluesof S and 2 the orientation of
where F is the matrix of partial derivativesof f(x) taken at
the S• eigenvector(with respectto north). Let 0t•and 0t2be the
point •'
two eigenvaluesof • whichcorrespondto horizontal eigenvec-
tors and r/the orientationof the 0t•eigenvectorwith respectto
the S• eigenvector.Then (11) becomes
F•j =f•,j i= 1, m j = 1, I (18)
x=•

O'n
(i)-- 7ZiCOS20i-« sin20i[Si+ S2-[-((•1-[-Ot2)Zi Expressions
for F•j aregivenin Appendix2.
Equation (17) can be solvedby an iterative algorithm using
+ (S• - S2) cos 2(q9
i - 2)
the fixed point method:
q- (0t1 -- Ot2)Z
i COS2(tPi- (2 + r/)] -- 0 (13)
Xk+1 = )C
O'•-CoFitT(FitCoFitT)-
I {Fit(xk
- )Co)--f(x•,)} (19)
where
wherethe derivativeF•, is taken at x•.
an(i) normalstress
supported
by theith fractureplane; This iterative processmust be started at an arbitrary x
0i anglebetweenthe normaln") to the ith fractureplane which is taken to be Xo. The iterative procedureis stopped
and the vertical axis; whenf(x•) is sufficientlycloseto zero.
tpi orientationof the horizontalprojectionof n(ø with re- It can be shown [Valette, 1982] that the stationary point y
spectto the north; obtained by using the iterative process(19) correspondsto a
zi depthat whichthe testis conducted. strictlocalminimum
off if andonlyif Co-•LyQy
isnonnega-
tive,whereQyis thelinearprojectordefinedby
In the generalcasewhere r/:/: 0, equation (13) can be lin-
earizedby a suitablechangeof variables[X' = S• + S2, Y =
Q•= I - CoF•r(F•CoFyr)
- •Fy (20)
• + •2, Z = (S• - S2) cos 22, T = (S• - S2) sin 22, U = (•
-%) cos 2(2 + r/), V =(0t•- 0t2)sin 2(2 + r/)] and then andL• istheoperatordefinedby
solvedby a standardleastsquaresmethod.However,in many
instances,r/is found to be very closeto zero so that variables L•(V)= V - Q•Co[K•(V)]r(FyCoF•r)
- •A•(•-- Xo) (21)
11,532 CORNETAND VALETTE:STRESS
DETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULIC TElSTING

in whichV is any vectorand Ky is the second-order

partial versusdepth providesa graphicaldeterminationof S• + S2
derivative(bilinear operator)off(x) taken at point y. and • + •2- Thesevaluescan be usedthen for determining
Once the stressfield has been computed, the error associ- (• - •2) and (2 + r/) from (13): subtractingthe expressionob-
ated with this determination can be evaluated [Valette, 1982]; tainedfor (13) at depth z(ø from that obtainedat all other
only the resultsare presentedhere. depths where fractures in the same direction have been ob-
The covarianceCs is servedyields a set of linear equationswith (•- •2)cos 2(2
+ •) and (• - •2) sin 2(2 + r/) as unknowns.
Cs= Le- 1QeCoQeT(LeT
)- 1 = Le- 1QeCo(LeT
)- 1 (22)
When all the fracturesare parallel, one may assumethat
where Cs is dependenton the value of •. r/= 0. Therefore(S• - S2)can be computed,and the complete
Whenboth(•- x0)Tc0- 1(œ- X0)and IIK•ll are small,L• stress field can be found. When at least two directions have
is nearly equal to I so that (22) reducesto been observed,this assumption(r/- 0) is not neededfor the
completestressdetermination.
C = QCo (23) It is worth pointing out that nowhere in section 2.1 or
which correspondsto Tarantola and Valette's result. section2.3 has it beenassumedthat hydraulicfracturesdevel-
op in a direction normal to the minimum principal stress
3.3. Method Based on Normal Stress Measurements direction.Furthermore,(24) and (25) can easilybe extendedto
and Fast Flow Rate ReopeningTests the more generalcasewherenone of the principalstressdirec-
In the following it will be assumedthat one of the principal tions is vertical. Therefore this method can be used to deter-
stressesis vertical and that the stress varies linearly with mine the completestresstensorprovidedthe stressfield varies
depth. When some of the fractures develop parallel to the linearly with depth and the fracturesremain planar in the
boreholeaxis, reopeningpressuresat fast flow rates may be neighborhoodof the borehole(3-4 timesits radius).
used to provide additional information for determining the In the generalcasewhere none of the principal stressdirec-
stress field. tions is vertical, equation (12) (•--S + za) involves 12 un-
Let the normal to the ith vertical fracture plane make the knownsso that at leastsixhydraulicfracturingtestsproviding
angle •i with respectto the north and let 0.• (i),0'22(i),0'12(i)be both fast flow rates reopening pressuresand normal stress
the componentsof stressin the geographicalframe of refer- determination are necessaryfor the stress determination.
enceat point x(øwherethe testis conducted.If the boreholeis When only normal stressescan be measured,a minimum of 12
vertical,the fastflow rate reopeningpressurep,(o is (seeAp- hydraulic testsmust be used.
pendix 1)
4. APPLICATION TO FIELD RESULTS
Pr(i)= 0'11 0'22
(i)._{_ (i)+ 2(0'1
1(i)-- 0'22
(0)COS
2(Pi
4.1. ResultsFrom Le Mayer de Montagne Test Site
+ 40'•2(i)sin2•oi-- Po(ø (24)
Results obtained in three 200-m-deep 165-mm-diameter
wherePo(øis theoriginalporepressure
at x(ø. boreholesdrilled in granite have been used to investigatethe
The average normal stresssupportedby this fracture plane applicability of this new stressdeterminationtechnique.At Le
is (seeAppendix 1) Mayet de Montagne, a site located 25 km southeastfrom
20'n (i)_}_
(i)= 0'11 (i)_}_
0'22 (0'11(i)w 0-22
(i))COS
2•i Vichy in central France, the graniteis coveredby a soil layer
less than 5 m thick. Natural fractures were mapped on 12
+ 20'•2 sin 2•o• (25) large outcropping areas nearby [Drogue et al., 1979]. Four
Accordingly,
if 0'n(i)
= ISIP(ø,by combining(24) and (25),we major orientations have been identified' N30øE + 10ø,
get
N60øE _+ 10ø, N100øE _+ 10ø, and N155 ø _+5ø. All these frac-
tures are subvertical(dip lies between70ø and 85ø).
4, ISIP(ø_ Pr(i)-- 0'11
(i)+ 0'22
(0+ po(0 (26) Thermal, electrical,and video loggingwere usedto identify
Plot of the quantity(4, ISIP(i)- P,")) versuszi (the depth naturally fractured zonesas well as quartz veins in the bore-
holes. Their orientations, as determined with a borehole TV
where measurementsare made) provides a simple test on the
camera, were found to be similar to thoseidentified by surface
validity of the hypothesisthat al• + 0'22is a linear functionof
depth. For this test to be valid, no assumptionconcerningthe mapping.Eight testswereperformedin the first borehole,four
in the second, and two in the third. Some of these tests led to
relative orientation of the fracture planes with respectto the
andirectionis necessary. multiple fractures, others did not provide shut-in pressure
The stressfield • = S + zatcan be obtained by inverting the measurementsbecauseof leakage problems,and others were
following
se•ofequations' associatedwith fractureswhich could not be properly identi-
fied with the TV camera. Results from all the tests for which
{l(zi)n
(i). n(i)= 0'n
(i) both instantaneousshut-in pressureand fracture orientation
(27) could be determined are listed in Table 1. Note that all orien-
(S• + S2)+ z(•z•+ •z2)= 40',o)- Pro)- Pot/)
tations fit with one of the directionsidentified by surfacemap-
where i = 1, m for m hydraulic fracturing testsand j = 1, m' for ping.
m' fast flow rate reopeningtests.Equation (27) yields a system Sincethe TV camera permittedradial vision only, at a given
of m + m' equations which can be inverted by the same depth only a portion of the fracturewas visible,namely,two
method as that describedin section 3.2 except that, now, the traces at the well bore wall. These two traces define a horizon-
function f(x) defined by (14) is a vectorial function with tal line which can be used to determine the direction of the
m + m' components. normal to the fracture plane. Repeatingthesemeasurementsat
various depths providesa meansto determineboth dip and
A first approximation of the stressfield can be obtained by
strike. The uncertaintyassociatedwith thesedeterminationsis
hand calculation when at least three fractures are parallel to
the samedirection.Indeed,a plot of (40'n
c/)-- p,C/)_pot/)) definedby the respectivestandardderivations.
 CORNETAND VALETTE.'
STRESS
DETERMINATION
BY HYDRAULICTESTING 11,533

TABLE 1. ResultsFrom Injection Testsat le Mayet de Montagne satisfiedto within a specifiedaccuracy,i.e., when the sum of
Instantaneous
the absolutevaluesof the components f•(•) was smallerthan
Fracture Shut-In
10- ? MPa. This was obtained after seven iterations.
Strike Fracture Pressure In order to verifythat the solutionvectorcorresponded
to
Depthz•, Pi = •0•- n/2, Dip 0i, P,•, at leasta local minimumof the leastsquarescriterion(equa-
m deg deg MPa tion (15b)),the eigenvalues of Co-•L• Q• werecomputed.All
the nonzerovalueswerefoundto be strictlypositive.
i z• •: fit • 0i % Ps• es,
The followingresultswere obtained:
1 56 0.5 58 5 85 3 4.0 0.2
,• = N16øE
2 90 0.5 155 5 83 3 4.4 0.3
3 113 0.5 25 10 75 5 2.7 0.1
4 143 0.5 29 5 84 3 3.5 0.1
S• = 7.4 MPa S2 -- -0.08 MPa (28)
5 163 0.5 155 5 84 3 5.3 0.2 • = - 0.0024 MPa/m •2 = 0.024 MPa/m
6 174 0.5 69 5 84 3 5.65 0.1
7 186 0.5 55 5 85 3 5.45 0.1
An initial approximation to the covariancematrix associ-
The • is the standard deviation. atedwith i hasbeendeterminedby settingL = I in (22).The
exact computation was then carried out. In order to discuss
this covariance matrix we introduce the matrix M:
Influenceof the boreholedip was not taken into accountfor
it was always larger than 87ø. Correctionshave been made for
the fact that the camera was not centered in the borehole but
layed along one generatrix (this correction which may reach
20ø in some instanceswas not done on previously published
M= es• Psis2Ps• Pst•2 (29)
results[Cornet, 1982]).
Uncertaintyin the normal stressdeterminationa, (ø was
•2
more difficult to appraise.As discussedbefore,when the frac-
ture remainsplanar away from the well bore, quasi-staticre- where the e are the standard deviations on the unknowns and
opening pressuresand instantantaneousshut-in pressures the p are the correlationcoefficients.
The valuesof e and p for
(ISIP) shouldyield identicalresults. pg are not included since this value is not well constrained
For the tests discussedhere, only in two instancesdid we becauseof the lack of significantlyinclinedfractureplanes;in
conduct both quasi-staticreopeningand ISIP measurements this case,pg was taken as a datum.
(tests5 and 6). The resultswere very closeto each other, and The approximation L = I in (22) leadsto
the uncertainty on the normal stressdetermination was de-
fined by the standard deviation obtained by consideringboth 5.72 0.87 0.25 0.17 -0.28 -0.16

quasistatic reopening and ISIP measurements.For all the 5.50 0.40 0.06 -0.46 -0.08

other testsonly ISIP measurementswere made, and the uncer- M•= 1.810.53 -0.97 0.51
tainty on a,(ø was characterized
by the standarddeviation 1.06 0.59 -0.99

obtainedfrom thesemeasurements (3 or 4 for eachdepth). 0.012 -0.58

In order to initiate the iterative processdescribedby (19), all 0.008

the componentsof Xo must be known. This requiresan a while the exactcomputationyields

priori guessfor the unknowns7, s•, s2, •, •2, ,•, and r/. The
correspondinga priori variancesare taken large enough that 6.47 0.90 0.63 -0.47 -0.63 +0.48
the initial estimateonly slightlyconstrainsthe solution. 7.09 0.76 -0.60 -0.78 0.60
The verticalgradientof the verticalstresscomponent7ohas
been taken equal to 0.0265 MPa/m (with a standard deviation
M2= 3.36-0.87
1.99
-0.99
0.90
0.87
-0.99
equal to 0.002 MPa/m). This value was suggestedby results 0.026 --0.90
obtained with two horizontal fractures, at 66 m in borehole 2 0.016
and 197 m in borehole 3.
In either case,a strong correlation is noted, and it can be
The orientation ,•oof the major principal stressdirectionfor
seenthat the exact computationprocedureleadsto significant
S has been taken to be parallel to the average strike of the
differencesfor the valuesof the covarianceas comparedto the
fractureplanes,i.e., N28øE. Sincetheremust existan eigenv½c-
tor of S within 45ø of this direction, the a priori standard
deviationfor ,•o has beentaken as 120ø,i.e., much larger than TABLE 2. StressDetermination and CorrespondingStandard
45 ø. Deviation for Various Depths
For the other unknowns the following choiceshave been
made: Depth, an, •,,, aa, •, •, •,
m MPa MPa MPa MPa deg deg
No rotation of principal stressdirections with depth is as-
50 7.3 2.1 1.1 1.2 17 5
sumed
75 7.2 1.5 1.7 0.8 17 4
100 7.2 0.9 2.2 0.4 17 3
r/o= 0ø %0= 120ø 125 7.1 0.4 2.9 0.1 17 3
150 7.1 0.7 3.5 0.4 17 3
S•=S2=0 es=30MPa
175 7.0 1.3 4.1 0.8 18 4
0.013 MPa/m e• = 0.025 MPa/m 200 7.0 1.9 4.7 1.2 19 8

The iterative processwas stoppedwhen equation(15a) was Thee• = 0.025MPa/m.

11,534 CORNETAND VALETTE:STRESSDETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULIC TESTING

TABLE 3. StressDeterminationand CorrespondingStandard priori guesson thesetwo unknownsmay constrainthe solu-

Deviation for Various Depths tion if the a priori varianceis too small.In orderto verifythis
proposition,a new determinationhas beenconductedusinga
Depth, an, es,,, ah, %h, /•, e•,
m MPa MPa MPa MPa deg deg smallera priori varianceon the •: • = 0.02 MPa/m. Results
are as follows:
50 7.1 1.5 1.2 0.8 16 5
75 7.1 1.0 1.8 0.5 16 4 2=16 ø r/= 1.5
100 7.1 0.7 2.3 0.2 17 3
125 7.1 0.4 2.9 0.1 17 3 S• = 7.1 MPa S2 = 0.1 MPa (30)
150 7.1 0.6 3.5 0.4 17 3
175 7.1 1.01 4.1 0.7 18 4 0.0002 MPa/m •2 = 0.023 MPa/m
200 7.1 1.4 4.6 0.9 19 7
with the followingM matrices'
The e: - 0.020A/m. If L= I

casewhere L = I. Clearly, the linear approximationfor com- 5.94 0.88

6.82
0.28
0.44
0.16
0.39
-0.30
-0.50
-0.16]
puting the covariancematrix is not satisfactory.Theseresults -0.06 l
1.64 -0.48 -0.97
have been used to compute at various depths the horizontal M1 --- 0.45l
0.97 0.55
principalstresscomponentsan and an,the orientation• of an --0.99!
0.011
with respectto the north and the respectivestandard devi- --0.53!
ations. Results are shown in Table 2. The values obtained for 0.0073
S• and S2 are noticeablyinfluencedby • and •2. Thus the a Exact computation
.09 0.89 0.55 -0.33 -0.56 0,34
7.67 0.70 -0.46 -0.73 0.46

M2= 2.37-0.75
1.34
-0.98
0.81
0.75
-0.99
0.018 -0.81
0.01

whichyieldsfor an, an,and • the resultsindicatedin Table 3.

Thus, even thougha small influenceof e• is indeednoticed
MASSIF
CENTRAL (compareTables2 and 3), for all practicalpurposes the results
remain unchanged.
The fact that a solution was found for the systemof seven
equationswith six unknowns suggeststhat this new stress
determination method is based on sound physical premises.
The maximumdifferencebetweenexpectedshut-inpressureas
computedfor the variousfractureplanesand either solution
(28) or solution(30), and the measuredshut-in pressureis
smallerthan 0.2 MPa. The standarddeviationson an, an,and
//appear to be quitesmall,especially
for//. However,thismay
resultonly from the smallnumberof testsusedfor the deter-
mination.

o
o
o
o
o The result that an remainsnearly constantfor the 150-m
o o O. km.5
o o o depthintervalwheretestswereconductedis fairly unusual.It
o o
LAPALISSE o o o N
o o TABLE 4. RecordedHydrofracturing Pressuresand Directions in
o o o
A o the Waterloo Quartzite
o
o o o
MAYET DE MONTAGNE o o o
o o o o Instantaneous
o o o o
Vertical Shut-In
o o
o o
o o o Depth, Hydrofracture Pressure,
o
o o m Direction MPa
o o o

o o o o o o o o øoO 2 N55øW 1.4

o o o o 7 N08øW 1.0
o o o
o o 17 N20øW 1.5
eo o 32 N45øE 3.3
35 N64øE 5.2
48 N52øE 5.7
51 N71øE 6.2
57 N50øE 5.7
65 N68øE 7.1
67 N52øE 5.5
74 N79øE 6.2
Fig. 3. Geologicalenvironmentof Le Mayet de Montagne test 163 N64øE 6.2
site.The granitemassifof Le Mayet de Montagneconstitutes a pla- 238 N26øE 7.9
teautypestructure. A, Quartenaryformation,7, porphyricgranite,g,
Oligocene,#7, microgranite,and h, Stephanian. After Haimson [1980].
 CORNETAND VALETTE:STRESS
DETERMINATION
BY HYDRAULICTESTING 11,535

TABLE 5. ComparisonBetweenStressDetermination Obtained These values have been used to evaluate the stress field at
With the ProposedMethodand With the ClassicalHydraulic variousdepths(seeTable 5) and have been comparedwith
Fracturing Theory
Haimson'sinterpretation(an= 5.4 + 0.01z, an = 9.4 + 0.01z,
ClassicalHydraulic Fracturing orientationof anN57øE4-_15ø).Table 6 showsa comparison
Proposed Method Theory* betweenmeasuredshut-inpressures, computedshut-inpres-
suresaccordingto our solution for the stressfield, and com-
Depth, on, oh, on, oh,
m MPa MPa •. MPa MPa •. putedshut-inpressuresaccordingto Haimson'sstressdetermi-
nation. The standard deviation of the difference between ob-
40 9.05 5.4 N47ø5E 9.8 5.8 N57øE servedand computedshut-in pressureis 0.36 MPa with our
60 9.45 5.6 N48øE 10.0 6.0 N57øE stress determination and 0.54 MPa with Haimson's determi-
100 10.2 5.9 N48ø5E 10.4 6.4 N57øE
150 11.2 6.3 N49øE 10.9 6.9 N57øE nation. Thus our stressdetermination is in slightly better
200 12.2 6.7 N49ø5E 11.4 7.4 N57øE agreement with measured values than is the stressdetermi-
250 13.1 7.1 N50øE 11.9 7.9 N57øE nation obtained with the classical method.
However, the standard deviations associatedwith our stress
The on is the amplitudeof the maximumprincipalhorizontalstress determination,as computedaccordingto equation (22), are
and •. its orientation;oh is the amplitudeof the leasthorizontalprin-
cipal stress. found to be 1.0 MPa for an, 9.5 MPa for an, and 25ø for the
*Haimson [1980]. orientationof an. Thus, for this set of fractureplanesand for
this uncertainty on the data, the stressdetermination based
only on shut-in pressure measurementsconstrains satisfac-
maybe possiblyattributedto a combined effectof topograph- torily the valueof an,poorly that for the orientationof an, and
ical influenceand "residual"stresses
on this granitemassif. very badly that for an. This is typically a casewhere it would
Testswereconducted drilledon a plateauabout have been necessaryto use the method basedon both shut-in
in boreholes
30 km wideand 120km longin the north-south direction(see pressureand fast flow rate reopeningpressuremeasurements,
Figure3). The difference
of altitudebetweenthe surrounding as discussed in section 3.2. It has not been done here because
plains and the top of the plateau is of the order of 300 m, the uncertaintyon fast flow rate reopeningpressuremeasure-
whilethe deepestmeasurement wasmadeat only 190 m, i.e., mentswas not known. (The pressureusedto inflate the pack-
in a domainstronglyaffectedby fractures causedby the stress erswasalwayslargerthan the measuredreopeningpressures.)
reliefinducedby the topography.
5. CONCLUSION
4.2. ResultsFromthe WaterlooTest Site(Wisconsin)
As a furthertestof thisnewstress determination technique, The stressdeterminationmethoddescribedin thispaperhas
themethodhasbeentestedwith dataalreadypublished in the been developedafter observingthat, in many instances,hy-
literature. Results from the Waterloo test site in Wisconsin
draulic fracturesinducedat a given site are not all exactly
[Haimson,1980]werechosenfor thispurpose,because (1) the parallel but exhibit a range of dips and strikes.The largest
local stressfield is well known,and (2) data from a large differencein strikeis equal to 80ø at Le Mayet de Montagne
number of tests are available so that the solution will be well
granitictest site and reaches53ø for the Waterloo quartzite
constrained (seeTable4). Haimson's hydraulicfracturingtests (Wisconsin).
were run in borehole zones where no natural fissure was Two stress determination methods have been described. The
thought to existbeforethe tests. first method is based on measurements of the normal stress
Haimsonobserved that the stressvariationwith depth,at supportedby fracture planes with various dips and strikes.
thissite,becomeslinearonlybelowthe35m depth.Thusonly The second method is based on measurements of both normal
the data from testsconductedbelow this depth have been stressand fastflow rate reopeningpressurefor fracturesparal-
considered.
Further our stressdeterminationis basedonly on the shut-
in pressuremeasurements for the resultsfromreopening pres-
TABLE 6. ComparisonBetweenMeasuredShut-In Pressureand
suretestsshowtoo largea scatter.Our a priori estimatesare
ComputedNormal StressAccordingto the New Stress
for the vertical gradient of the vertical stresscomponent DeterminationMethod and the ClassicalHydraulic
7 = 0.026MPa/m 4-_0.002,directionof a• is N57øE +_120ø, FracturingTechnique

S1 = S2 = 0 +_30 MPa Computed Normal-Stress,

MPa
0•l = 0•2= 0.02 MPa/m + 0.025
Shut-In Stress
errors on shut-in pressuredata are 0.75 MPa, and errors on Depth, Pressure, Determination Classical
m MPa Method Method*
dip and strikemeasurements
of fractureplanesare 10ø.
As mentioned in sections3.2 and 4.1, the variance on the a 35 5.2 5.6 5.75
priori estimatefor the unknownsis takenlargeenoughsothat 48 5.7 5.5 5.9
theinfluence of thisa prioriestimateon thesolutionis negligi- 51 6.2 6.1 5.9
ble. 57 5.7 5.5 6.0
65 7.1 6.3 6.05
With thesea priori assumptions
the followingresultswere 67 5.5 5.6 6.1
obtained' 74 6.2 6.6 6.1
163 6.2 6.6 7.0
S• = 8.3 MPa S2 = 5.1 MPa 2 = N47øE 238 7.9 7.9 7.8

0.019MPa/m o•2 = 0.008MPa/m r/= + 6ø *Haimson [1980].

11,536 CORNETAND VALETTE:STRESS
DETERMINATION
BY HYDRAULICTESTING

lel to the borehole axis. The only assumptionmade with these
new methodsis that the stressfield varies linearly with depth
and that the fractures are planar in the borehole neighbor-
hood. They have been describedin detail for casesin which
one of the principal stressis vertical although not necessarily
parallel to the borehole axis. The extensionof thesemethods
to situationsin which none of the principal stressesis vertical
is straightforward.It requires at least six hydraulic tests if
both normal stressand fast flow rate reopening pressurecan
be measuredfor eachtest and a minimum of 12 hydraulictests
and three different fracture orientations if only normal stress
can be measured.
The more generalsituation in which the stressfield is not a
linear function of the spatial coordinatescan also be handled
with these methods.This technique,known as the functional
approach,has beendescribedby Valette [1982].
In fact, this new stress determination method is an exten-
sion of the now classicalhydraulic fracturing technique.Its
principal advantage is that it does not require most of the
restrictivehypothesesof the classicaltechniquespeciallythose
on fracture orientation with respectto that of the least prin-
cipal stressas well as that on the relative orientation of the
borehole with respect to the principal stressdirections. In
principle,it is quite similarto the flat jack stressdetermination
techniqueexcept that it is applicable for any depth of bore-
hole. Its main drawback is the relatively large number of tests
necessaryfor determiningthe completestresstensor.
where
p, 0, z cylindrical coordinates;
r borehole radius;
v Poisson'sratio;
ao© regionalstresscomponents
awayfrom the well bore.
The boreholeaxis is parallel to the X3 direction,and the 0 - 0
direction is parallel to the Xl direction.
When the boreholeis filled by a liquid in equilibrium with
the interstitial fluid in the rock mass,the tangential stressa00
at the well bore wall is
0.oo
= Po + [(0.11- Po) + (0.22- Po)] - 2[(0.11- Po)
--(0'22- Po)] cos20- 4o'12sin 20 (A1)
where P0 is the interstitial fluid pressure;thus
0.00-- (0.11q- 0'22)-- 2(0'11- 0'22)cos20
- 40'12sin 20 - P0 (A2)
which is equation(7) of section2.2ßIn equation (24) of section
3.3, 0 is replacedby •0(= 0 + n/2) which is the angle between
the normal to the verticalfractureplane and the x l direction.
Equation (25) is obtained by computingan. n, where n is
the normal to the vertical fracture plane and a the local stress
tensor(see,e.g.,Jaegerand Cook [1979]).

APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 1: INTERPRETATION OF FAST FLOW RATES
Let F(x) be the matrix of partial derivativesoff(x) at x.
REOPENING PRESSURES In matricial form:

The stressstate around a borehole inclined with respectto Fo(x) = O•/Oxj

the principal stressdirectionsat infinity is given by (see,e.g.,
Hiramatsu and Oka [1968]) From the expression(13) given for f, the following nonzero
partial derivativesare computed:

%V= 1--( r•22)

0'11
mq-
2 0'22
+ 1- 4• +3 af/i "---(7)
•Z sin
20i
C0S20i-
'••
•Yll • 0'22 c•
'( 2 20+ 0'12sin20)
cos ß{(•t1 + •t2)+ (•tl + •t2)COS
2[(Pi- QI+ r/)]}

-- sin20i{ot
1 -- •2)zisin2((pi- (J.+ r/))
= 1+ /.20'11q-
aoo 2 0'22_ 1+ 3
q-(S1 -- S2)sin
0'11 w 0'22 c•
' ( 2 cos
20+ 0'12sin20 ) af, sin 20i
2 {z,[27
- (•, + •) - (•1- •)
O'zz
"-0'33
c•__
4v
• ,0'11
--
2 0'22
cos
20 ßCOS
2((pi-- (S[+ q))] -- (Sl + s2)-- (Sl -- s2)COS
2(q•i-
afi
+0'• 2o•
sin
20) •Pi
-1

afi
aoz=
(r2) 1 q- (0'23© COS0- 0'31© sin O) _ •2 i COS
2 0i

(r/2)(0'31© COS0 + 0'23© sinO)

a:• = 1 -- Of•_ sin
t•sl.2
20i[1q-cos
2
2((,0i-
S[)]
afi sin2 0i
0'or,=
1+2•- 3 •(Z1,2- -z, 2 {1q-cos
2[(p,-(X+ r/)]}
0'22 -- 0'11 af,
sin
20
+a12
©COS
20) - -(•1 -- •2)zisin20isin2[(Pi-- (2 + r/)]
ß

2
 CORNETAND VALETTE'STRESS
DETERMINATIONBY HYDRAULICTESTING 11,537

NOTATION Cornet, F. H., Analysis of injection tests for in-situ stress determi-
nation, Proceedingsof Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress
Co covariancematrix associatedwith pressureand orien- Measurements,U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 82-1075, 414-443,
tation measurementsas well as the a priori guessfor 1982.
the stress determination. Daneshy,A. A., A studyof inclinedhydraulicfractures,Soc.Pet. Eng.
f(x) vectorialfunctionthe m componentsof which are the J., 13, 61-68, 1973.
Drogue, C., J. C. Grillot, and M. Razack, Site du Mayer de Mon-
appropriaterelationshipsbetweenmeasuredpressures tagne:Etude de la fracturation,internal report, Inst. Natl. d'Astron,
and the unknown stresscomponentsat the corre- et de Geophys.,Paris, 1979.
spondingdepth. Fairhurst, C., Measurementof in-situ rock stresseswith particular
Fij partialderivative
withrespect
to xj of theith compo- referenceto hydraulic fracturing,Rock Mech. Eng. Geol.,2, 129-
147, 1964.
nent off(x).
Griffith, A. A., The phenomenonof rupture and flow in solids,Philos.
ds virtual surfaceincrementof the hydraulicfracture. Trans. R. Soc. London Set. A, 221, 163-198, 1921.
da area of the virtual surface increment. Gronseth,J. M., and P. R. Kry, Instantaneousshut-inpressureand its
ISIP instantaneousshut-in pressure. relationshipto the minimum in-situ stress,Proceedingsof Work-
n normal to virtual surfaceincrementor to the hy- shop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements,U.S. Geol.
Surv.OpenFile Rep.,82-1075, 147-166, 1982.
draulicfractureplane.
Haimson,B.C., Hydraulicfracturingin porousand non poro.us rock
nk") kthcomponent
of thenormalto theith fractureplane. and its potential for determiningin-situ stressat great depth, Tech.
Pb breakdownpressure. Rep.4-68, U.S. Corps of Eng.,Omaha, Neb., 1968.
Pt long waiting time shut-in pressure. Haimson,B.C., The hydrofracturing
stressmeasuring
methodand
recent field results,lnt. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 15, 167-178, 1978.
Po original pore pressure.
Haimson, B.C., Near surface and deep hydro-fracturing stress
Pr fast flow rate reopeningpressure. measurementsin Waterloo quartzite, !nt. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
Pw boreholefluid pressure. 17, 81-88, 1980.
S stressstateat groundsurfacewith nonzerocompo- Haimson,B.C., and C. Fairhurst, Insitu stressdeterminationat great
depth bY meansof hydraulicfracturing,Proc. U.S. Syrup.Rock
nentS,,,,,Syy,S,,yandprincipalcomponents
S•, S2, Mech., 11th, 559-584, 1969.
and 0.
Hickman, S. H., and M.D. Zoback, The interpretationof hydraulic
z depth. fracturing pressure-timedata for in-situ stressdetermination, in
•t gradient ofstress
withdepthwithcomponents Proceedings
of the Workshopon HydraulicFracturin•tStress
•zz,•,,•, •z,,z,
%•,andprincipalcomponent
•z•,•z2, Measurements, pp. 44-54, U.S. National Committee on Rock Me-
chanics,National AcademyPress,Washington,D.C., 1983.
/• angularcoordinatein cylindricalcoordinate;also axi-
Hiramatsu, Y., and Y. Oka, Determination of the stressin rock unaf-
muth of the fractureplane. fectedby boreholes or drifts,from measuredstrainsor defor-
•, freesurfaceenergy. mations,
lnt. $. RockMech.Min.Sci.,5, 337-354,1968.
5 orientationof an with respectto the north. Hudson, J. A., M.P. Hardy, and C. Fairhurst, The failure of rocks
•/ orientationof • with respectto the S• direction. beams,II, lnt. $. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 10, 53-67, 1973.
Jaeger,J. C., and N. G. W. Cook, Fundamentalof Rock Mechanics,
0 dip of unit normal n. 3rd ed.,p. 14, Chapmanand Hall, London, 1979.
2 orientationof S• with respectto the north. Kehle, R. D., Determination of tectonic stressesthrough analysisof
Po volumicmassof rock. hydraulicwell fracturing,$. Geophys. Res.,69, 250-273, 1964.
Pxs• correlationcoefficient
between2 andS• for theco- Louis, C. L., Introduction fi l'hydrauliquedes roches,Bull. Bur. Rech.
variance matrix. Geol. Min. Sect. 3, 4, 283-356, 1974.
McLennan,J. D., and J. S. Roegiers,Do instantaneous
shut-inpres-
• regionalstresstensorwithcomponents
a• andprin- sures accurately represent the minimum principal stress?,Pro-
cipal componenta•, a2, ceedingsof Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing StressMeasure-
an, an major and minor horizontalprincipalstress. ments,.U.S. Geol.Sur•, OpenFile Rep., 82-1075, 181-207, 1982.
an(i) normalstress
to theith fractureplane. Rice, J. R., and M.P. Cleary, Some basicstressdiffusionsolutionsfor
fluidsaturated
elastic
porous
mediawidth
compressible
constituents,
ar rocktensilestrength. Re•. Geophys.SpacePhys.,1•4,227-241, 1976.
•p• azimuth of the normal to the ith fractureplane. Scheidegger,A. E., Stress in earth's crust as determined from hy-
ea standarddeviation on parameter,L draulic fracturingdata, Geol.Bauwes.,27, 45, 1962.
Tarantola, A., and B. Valette, Generalizednon linear inverseproblem
Acknowledgments.We wish to thank A. Cisternas and J. Curran solvedusingthe least squarescriterion, Re•. Geophys.SpacePhys.,
for very fruitful discussionas well as unknown reviewerswho helped 20, 219-232, 1982.
to improveprogressively of the paper.The experi- Valette, B., The inverse problem of stressdetermination from hy-
the presentation
mentalresultson the granitecubeswereobtainedwhenF. H. Cornet draulicinjectiontestsdata, report,Lab. d'EtudeG6oPhys. des
was at the departmentof Rock Mechanicsof the University of Min- Struct.Profondes,Inst. de Phys.du Globe Univ. Paris V!, Paris,
1982.
nesota.
TheLe Mayettestsweresupported•'•y
Institut
National
d'Astronomieet de Geophysique
and by the Di,reCtorate
Generalfor Zoback, M.D., and D. D. Pollard, Hydraulic fracturepropagation
Researchof the EuropeanEconomicCommUfiity,This work was and the interpretation of pressuretime recordsfor in-situ s.tress
supported
by ActionTh6matique
Programm6e
•:!G6othermie"
from determination,Proc. U.S. Syrup.Rock Mech., 19th, 14-22, 1978.
the Centre National de la RechercheScientifique•This is Institut de Zoback, M.D., F. Rummel, R. Jung, and C. B. Raleigh, Laboratory
Physiquedu Globe contribution676. hydraulic experimentin intact and prefracturedrock, lnt. $. Rock
Me•h. Min. Sci.,14,49-58, 1977.
REFERENCES Fi H. Cornet
andB.Valette,
Laboratoire
d'Etude
G6ophy,sique
de
Aamodt, R. L., and M. Kuriyagawa, Measurementsof instantaneous StructuresProfondes,Institut de Physiquedu Globe, Universit6 Paris
shut-inpressurein crystallinerock, Proceedings
of Workshopon VI, 4 placeJussieu,75230 Paris Cedex 05, France.
Hydraulic Fracturing StressMeasurements,U,S. Geol. Surv. Open
File Rep.,82-1075, 394-403, 1982.
Bredehoeft,
J.D.,R.G. Wolff,W.S.Keys,
andE.Schutier,
Hydraulic (ReceivedAugust 12, 1982;
fracturing to determine the regional in-situ stressfield: Piceance revisedAugust 16, 1984'
Basin, Colorado, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 87, 250-258, 1976. acceptedAugust 17, 1984.)

View publication stats