1

Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard

HydraulicFracturePropagation
and the Interpretation of Pressure-Time
2ecordsfor In-Situ Stress Determinations

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE PROPAœATION A•;D THE I?!TERPRETATION

OF PRESSURE-TIME RECORDS FOR Ir•-SITU STRESS DETERMINATIONS

Mark D. Zoback
David D. Pollard
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, California 94025

IHTRODUCTIOH the rock surrounding the borehole behaves elastically;

it is impermeable: accurate tensile strenoths can be
Followino the stress measurement carried out as determined; the theoretically anticipated fracture is
part of the Rangely earthquake control experiment generated rather than a pre-existing one; and the
(Raleigh etal, 1972; and Faimson, 1973), numerous breakdown pressure represents the pressure at which
investigators began makino in-situ stress measure- fracture initiation occurs.
ments using the hydraulic fracturing technique.
Haimson(1977) and McGarrand Gay (1977) review much
of this work. Because the reliability of these
measurements depends upon understanding the fracture • Pb
initiation and extension process, we consider P
several aspects of hydraulic fracture prooagation
relevant to use of the technique for the determina-
tion of in-situ stress.
s
s
Pumping Pressure
Hubbert and Willis (1957) showedthat the pres- u
sure to hydraulically fracture a wellbore depends on r
•ISIP
*he tensile strength of the rock and tectonic e
stresses. A numberof authors (Scheidegger, 1962;
Kehle, 1964; and Haimson and Fairhurst, 1971) sub-
sequently pointed out that the pressure-time records
of a hydraulic fracturing operation could be used to
compute the tectonic stresses if the tensile strength
of the rock were known. Hubbert and Willis showed Time
that a vertical fracture should form in a vertical
wellbore at the azimuth of the maximumcompressive
horizontal principal stress, SHmax(it was presumed Figure 1. Idealized Pressure-Time Curve.
that one principal stress, Sv, is due only to the The BreakdownPressure, Pb, PumpingPres-
sure, and Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure,
weight of the overburden and is vertical). Briefly
sumamrizine the manner in which in-situ stresses are ISIP, are Indicated.
determined from pressure-time data (such as the
idealized data shown in Figure 1), the fracture Haimsonand Fairhurst (1970) investigated pore
should form whenthe borehole pressure, Pb, reaches fluid permeation into the rock surrounding the bore-
hole prior to breakdown. Whensuch permeation occurs
Pb= T + •Hmin
• - 'Hmax
• - Po (1) a factor can be incorporated into Eqn. (1) to compen-
in an impermeablerock with pore pressure, Po, where sate for the phenomena(see Haimsonand Fairhurst,
SHmin is the maenitude of least orincipal horizontal 1970). In practice, however, the factor is usuall•
stress (compresSion
is taken as positive throughout close to unity and Eqn. (1) is used in the form shown
this work) and T is the tensile strength of the rock.
Pb is presumably indicated by an abrupt drop in bore- Whenpre-existino fractures are present Abou-
hole pressure and is thus termed the breakdown pres- Sayed et al (1977) suggest that it is possible to
sure (see Fieure 1). Because the fracture should estimate SHmax
whenthe length of suchfractures are
propaga;e perpendicular to the direction of least known. However, because there is considerable uncer-
compressionwhenSHmin Sv, SFiminis presumedto be tainty in knowing the length of pre-existing fractures
eeual to the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP, they acknowledgethe limited applicability of such a
see Figure 1). Interpretation of shut-in pressures technique. Rather than use pre-existing fractures,
in cases when-•-im•n
•. - _
Sv is •iscussed at leneth it has been shown that appropriate steps may be taken
below. to overcometheir presence. Haimson(1974) found that
a plaster of paris borehole liner enabled a correctly
EQuation (I) can be solced to yield SHmax oriented fracture to be generated in a highly foliate
cause Pb and SHminare measured from the pressure- shale, and Zoback et al (1977b) found that if viscous
time curvet Po can De measured(or estimated); and T drilling mudwas used as the fracturing fluid a cor-
can be •easured for core samples. The reliability of rectly oriented fracture could be generated in pre-
fractured rock.
this deCermination depends on several key assumptions:
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard
Another observation in the study of Zoback et al.
(1977b) was that fracture initiation could occur sub-
stantially before breakdown when highly viscous dril-
ling mud was present. The authors hypothesized that
•his phenomenawas caused by large pressure drops
occurring in the fracture resulting in initially
stable fracture propagation. The presence of dril-
ling mud and even a mud "cake" in wells is a common
occurrence, and it was speculJted that manypublished
estimates of SHmaxmay be erroneously low since the
breakdown pressure, Pb, may have exceeded the frac-
ture ini•-tion pressure, Pc. Understanding this
phen•me • is clearly quite important and is con-
sider at length below.
Finally, the ultimate usefullness of Eqn. (1)
must be considered in light of the difficulty of
determining accurate values of tensile strength. Un-
less a well were extensively cored, a substantial
number of samples would not be available for testing
and accurate determination of the tensile strength
would not be possible. Bredehoeftet al (1976) and
Zobacket al (1977a) have suggested that Eqn. (1)
can be used with T : 0 and "breakdown" pressures from
pumpingcycles after fracture initiation. Investi-
gating the validity of such an approach is also con-
sidered below.
A MODEL FOR FRACTURE EXTENSION
In attempting to intuitively understand the
fracture initiation and extension process, it is
necessary to consider the coupled problem of the
elastic deformation of a fracture and viscous
flow into it. The necessity of considering this
coupled problem is illustrated by the extreme cases
shown in Figure 2.
2r
CASE I CASE
(./3
Z
I--
Figure 2. Stress Intensity Factor and Fracture OpeningDisplacement
a Two-Dimensional Fracture with Constant Internal
Portion where 2r << • (case 1) or Over the Entire Fracture Length (case 2).
Consider a two-dimensional fracture of variable
length •. In case 1, the fracture is subjected to a
mathematical point load, or in reality a uniform pres-
sure, P, acting over a small segment, 2r, of its
length (r << 4). In case 2 the pressure acts uniform-
ly over the fracture's entire length. The stress in-
tensity factor at the fracture tip, K, and the frac-
ture opening displacement of the fracture wall, D, are
given by
(case 1) K = 2Pr/•-•-•,
D: 2Pr(1-v)[1-(2x/•)2]'2/• (2)
(case 2) K = PC •=,
D = P (1-v)[1-(2x/•)212/2p (3)
where p is the shear modulus and v is Poisson's ratio
of the material. These formulae are readily derived
from the more general expressions presented in
Appendix A. The change in displacement along the
fracture's length illustrates that an elliptically
shaped crack arises in both cases. If we consider
case 1 as a model representing borehole pressuriza-
tion without pressure acting within the fracture (due
to pumping at a high flow rate or using a very viscous
fluid), then the stress intensity is seen to mono-
tonically decrease as the fracture extends. This
represents stable fracture propagation because growth
would stop when the stress intensity factor fell below
the value of the fracture toughness of the material.
Such stable propagation necessitates an increasing
borehole pressure with time to propagate the fracture
and would thus not produce breakdownbehavior. For
fluid case 1, when P and r are constant, the wall displace-
ment at the center of the fracture is unchanged as it
propagates. In case 2, with constant pressure acting
over the entire fracture length, we see that fracture
2
I--
Z
SchematicallyShown
for
Pressure, P, Applied Over a Short Central
15
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard

propagation is extremely unstable since the stress
ntensity rapidly increases as the fracture propagates.
Further, since the wall displacements of the fracture
also increase as the fracture propagates, fluid flow
into the fracture is enhancedby the fracture's in-
creased width. Clearly, a propagating fracture can-
not be represented precisely by either of these ex-
treme models. Fluid pressure may act in the fracture
to somedegree, but not necessarily such that fracture
propagation is unstable at all times.
We consider a very idealized and simplified ver-
sion of the coupled problem of deformation of the
fracture and fluid flow into it. We utilize a two-
dimensional plane strain fracture model in an infinite
continuumof linearly elastic, homogeneous, and iso-
tropic material. We also consider steady, constant
property flow of a Newtonian viscous fluid. While
such an ideal model cannot describe precisely the
complexprocess we are attempting to understand, it
can be of significant use as a tool for gaining in-
sight into the process. Assuminga model with more
complexgeometry(e.g., a three-dimensionalpenny-
shaped fracture) would introduce Quantitative dif-
ferences in the results presented here, but the basic
physics of the problem should not be altered. In
terms of an hydraulic fracture propagating outward
from a vertical well of radius r, the model (Figure
3) approximatesa fracture of height h, and overall
length, •, (where r < • < h) into which fluid is
being pumpedat a particular rate and borehole pres-
sure. We assumethat the fracture propagates per-
pendicular to the least principal compressive stress,
S3, and we ignore stress componentsin the plane of
the fracture. The fracture is subjected to an inter-
nal pressure distribution generated by fluid flow
into the fracture and to a constant pressure over the
portion of the fracture corresponsing to the wellbore.
Shear stresses on the fracture face due to the fluid
flow are ignored.
Three important points about the model should be
made clear. First, while we prescribe a volumetric
flow rate into the fracture, we assume that increases
in the fracture's volume(due to propagation) pre-
vents pressure buildups due to mass accumulation.
Second, we analyze fracture extension by considering
the process quasi-statically. That is, the model acts
as if we have stopped a fracture in time. We have a
fracture with a prescribed length, and the pressure
in the borehole has reached the prescribed value.
The analysis then determines the fracture wldth, the
pressure profile in the fracture, and the stress in-
tensity factor at the fracture's tip. By considering
how the stress intensity factor changes with fracture
length and comparing the stress intensity with a
value for the critical stress intensity or fracture
toughness, we can tell whether this fracture is likely

S$

Figure 3. Two-DimensionalModel used in this Study. Model is Infinite in Vertical Extent

althoughFluid FlowSolutionsRequireFinite Heightto be Specified. A Far-Field Stress, S3,
Acts •lormalto the Fracture Planeand a Variable Internal Pressure,Resultingfrom Fluid Flow
into the Fracture also is Present. The Inset Illustrates the Mannerin Uhicha Varying Pres-
sure Distribution is Approximatedby a Series of ConstantPressuresActinc in Adjacent
Intervals. •

16
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard
to propagate. We recognize that considering a frac-
ture of changing length which is subjected to the
same borehole pressure may not seem.reasonable. Wow-
ever, the largest effect a change in borehole pressure
can have is a proportionate change in the stress in-
tensity factor and displacement (Eqn. 2, 3), and
since we are primarily concerned with what is happen-
ing as the borehole pressure is building up, assuming
a constant pressure in the borehole merely limits the
solution to be valid for borehole pressures close to
the chosen value. Finally, since a simple slit is
used to r' resent the fracture, we are,
ignorin• .ne borehole geometry and the stress concen-
trat• caused by the hole. However, because we in-
corporate the stress normal to the fracture, S3, into
the model by considering the net pressure in all frac-
ture segmentsoutside the borehole to be Pi-S3, this
is not a serious flaw. For a crack extending from a
borehole the stress normal to the fracture
at most 2S3 (since the stress concentration is 3S3-S1
and S1 •S3) at the edgeof the hole and this stress
decays rapidly to S3 in about one borehole radius.
The detailed manner in which the
illustrated in the inset of Figure 3. We approximate
the pressure distribution which results from the
fluid flow into the fracture as a series
uniform pressures applied along adjacent intervals of
the fracture. Using the stress function method of
Muskhelishvelli (1975), the effect of the constant
pressure acting within each fracture interval on the
stress intensity factor at the fracture tip and the
fracture width (for the entire fracture)
The appropriate stress functions are presented in
Appendix A. By sun•ningthe effects of the individual
intervals, the effect of the pressure distributed
within the fracture is taken into account. The pres-
sure within each fracture interval is
first computing a pressure drop for each interval with
a laminar, steady-state, one-dimensional flow law
(see Appendix B). We can use such flow laws because
the Reynolds number if small and because the diffusion
time to reach a steady-state pressure profile in the
fractures is quite small.
The pressure distribution in the fracture and the
fracture width are highly dependent on one another.
To arrive at the pressure distribution in the fracture,
the fracture's width, and the stress intensity factor
at the fracture's tip, we iteratively solve the fluid
flow and elasticity solutions. The basic solution
procedure involves assuming an initial pressure dis-
tribution and then computing the width along the frac-
ture resulting from this pressure. The width distri-
bution is used to compute a new pressure profile
(while the pressure along the portion of the fracture
correspondingto the borehole is kept constant),
which is then used to compute a new width profile, and
so on. Convergence with this procedure was usually
•eached in five to ten iterations.
A number of authors have modelled the process of
hydraulic fracture extension, although without the aim
of rationalizing real pressure-time histories. Per-
kins and Kern (1961) and Nordgren (1972) considered
the coupled problem of fluid flow and elastic rock
deformation with a two-dimensional fracture model, but
their elastic solution assumesa uniform pressure
along the fracture (of infinite length) whereas the
fluid flow solution demandsa pressure drop. Like-
wise, in predicting the length (or radius) of frac-
tures, they assume constant pressure acts throughout
the fracture. Geertsma and de Kleerk (1969) also
considered the coupled elastic deformation-fluid flow
problem with a two-dimensional model, but they as-
sumed a constant pressure acted in the fracture to
arrive at simple formulas for fracture length and
width. Secor and Pollard (1975) and Pollard (1976)
used a two-dimensional fracture model to determine
the form and stability of hydraulic fractures, but in
their work fluid flow into the fractures was ignored
and fluid pressure within the fractures was arbitrarily
in effect, prescribed as either uniform or linearly varying.
Abe et al (1976) considered the dynamics of linearly
propagating, three-dimensional, penny-shaped cracks
and assumed that the fractures were propagating at
constant velocity with a "statistically equivalent"
fluid pressure acting over almost the entire fracture
area. Hsu (1975) evaluates hydraulic fracture pro-
would be pagation with a two-dimensional model without incor-
porating fluid flow, and chooses to use the stress
intensity formulae of Newman(1971) for two cracks
growing from a borehole. While such a model seems
desirable, the stress intensity values for fracture
model works is lengths at several wellbore diameters are nearly the
sameas those used in this work (for the limiting
case of pressure in the borehole only). Moreover,
of different because the stress intensity factors determined by
Newmanwere arrived at numerically, it would be quite
difficult to evaluate the stress intensity and frac-
ture width profiles resulting from non-uniform pres-
sure distributions.
is computed. Model Application
In the laboratory experiments of Zoback et al
(1977b), cubical specimenswere uniaxially loaded and
a central borehole (oriented perpendicular to the
determined after applied stress) was pressurized at a variety of rates
with either water or high-viscosity (~100 cp) bento-
nitic drilling mud. In choosing the model parameters,
the appropriate flow rate and borehole radius were
used(0.0204cm3/secand0.6 mmrespectively), the
fracture "height" was taken to be the length of the
pressurized region of the borehole (5 cm), and the
constant borehole pressure used in the analysis was
taken to be the fracture initiation pressure of a
particular experiment in which the acoustic emission
data indicated that fracturing initiated at 124 bars,
although breakdown did not occur until 380 bars.
Since the fracture formed parallel to the applied
stress, zero compressive stress normal to the fracture
plane was incorporated into the model. The elastic
moduli used were those of the rock in the study, Ruhr
sandstone, which has a Youn•l'S modulus, E, of 4.2 X
10-5 bars and a Poissonsratio, v, of 0.15.
From the analysis of the stress intensity at the
fracture tip as a function of fluid viscosity and
fracture length (Figure 4) it is clear that for a
given fluid viscosity, a critical fracture length
exists. At lengths shorter than the critical length,
stress inteisity decreases with increased length
(along the 1000 cp curve), whereas at greater lengths
the stress intensity rapidly increases with fracture
length. Sincethe latter c•ndition wouldresult in
unstable fracture propagation, it is apparent that
for low-viscosity fluid such as water (1 cp), unstable
fracture propagation is indicated for all lengths.
For the higher viscosity fluids, however, the initial
fracture propagation is stable because of the greater
pressure drop in the fractures. The analysis showed
17
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard
that along the 1 cp curve almost constant pressure
existed everywhere within the fracture (as in case 2),
and along the 1000 cp curve pressure acted only in
that portion of the fracture corresponding to the
borehole (as in case 1).
0 i 2 $ 4 5
FRACTURE HALF LENGTH, cat
Figure 4. Stress Intensity Factor as a
Function of Fracture Half-Length for
Various Fluid Viscosities. Parameters
Chosen are for Laboratory Scale Experi-
ments (see text). For 10 through lO0
cp,the Stress Intensities Decrease Ini-
tially along the Curve Labelled 1000 cp,
then Increase Abruptly. The Position
and Slope of the 10, 30, and 100 cp Curves
are Approximate Since only Selected Points
along the Curves were Analyzed.
In considering the details of the effect seen in
Figure 4, it is helpful to think in terms of how the
width of the fracture depends on fracture length since
the pressure drop at any poing in the fracture is
inversely proportional to the cube of the width
(AppendixB). Figure 5 presents wall displacementat
the center of the fracture as a function of
length. The limiting cases I and 2 are presented as
well as the data corresponding to Figure 4. The
displacements for 1 cp fluid coincide as expected with
case 2 (uniform pressure) and the width proportionate-
ly increases with length, thereby enhancing fluid flow
into the fracture. Conversely, with the lOO0 cp
fluid, since the pressure acted only in the borehole,
the increase in crack displacement with length remain
quite small, demonstrating behavior similar to case 1
rather than case 2. It is important to note, how-
ever, that for a fracture with a finite pressurized
interval, the displacements are considerably larger
than for the point load case, and that even for crack
length to borehole diameter ratios approaching lO,
the wall displacement still increases with increased
length. For the intermediate viscosity (10, 20, 100
cp) fluids, the critical fracture lengths apparent in
Figure 4 (that at which unstable fracture propagation
begins) are seen clearly to represent the length at
which sufficient width resulted to allow flow
the fracture. Once this process began, the increased
width resulting from the distributed pressure caused
the abrupt transition from stable fracture growth
(decreasing stress intensity with length from confined
fluid pressure) to unstable growth (increasing stress
intensity with length from nearly uniform pressure
distribution).
DETERMIr,•TION
OFSHmax
The analysis presented above seems to confirm the
hypothesis that stable hydraulic fracture growth can
precede breakdown when high viscosity fracturing
fluids are used. We thus conclude that the presence
of viscous mud has, at least in some cases, led to
erroneously low determinations of SHmax. Haimsonand
Stahl (1970) refer to an experiment in NewYork in
which breakdown pressures in two out of three wells
clearly were anomalously high because, they suggested,
of the presence of drilling mud. To computeSHmax
with Eqn. (1) in cases such as this, sophisticated
down-hole equipment (such as acoustic emission moni-
tors) wouldhave to be used in order to determinePc-
Considerable benefit could be gained from sub-
stantiating the suggestionthat SHmax
can be deter-
mined from secondary breakdown pressures. If such were
6
the case both the problemsof Pb exceeding Pc and per-
meability lowering Pb would be vitiated and core would
not be needed to determine tensile strength.
Figure 6 shows a pressure-time record in which
five pumping cycles were performed in an attempt to
determine the minimumpressure at which the fracture
would open (after Zoback et al, 1977a). The pressure
drop preceding breakdown was caused by momentarily
shutting off the pump. Breakdownoccurred at 25.2 MPa
and the first cycle ISIP was '11.4 MPa. On cycle 2 the
well was shut-in before breakdown actually occurred
(thus indicating that breakdownwould have been greater
than 13 MPa). Cycles 2 to 5 showa progressive de-
crease in the breakdown pressure which apparently
levels off at 9.3 MPa. The shut-in characteristics of
this record are discussed below.
Breakdown represents the condition when an open
fracture accepts fluid faster than the pumpsupplies
it. Thus, when breakdown occurs the fracture must
be openat the boreholeandfrom (1) Pb>_3SHmin
-
SHmax- Po- From the view of determining SHmax,
fracture
SHmax>3SHmin - Pb - Po (4)
so that at the very least, a lower bound estimate can
be gotten from Pb. Operational procedures like that
illustrated in Figure 6 are intended to determine a
minimumPb, Pbmin, so that the lower boundestimate of
SHmaxdeterminedwith (4) is close to the actual value.
Two cases are important to consider, when Pbmin<
S3 andwhenPbmin•_ S3. In the formercase, consider•
able fluid cannot be pumpedinto the fracture since
for pressures less than S3 the fracture will be closed
away from the borehole. A key operational step in
such a case is to pumpat low flow rates so that the
moderate fluid volume escaping into the fracture
causes a noticeable change in the rate of borehole
pressurization. In Figure 6, note that Pb on cycles
4, 5, and 6 is less than Sp•ni
n and after the fracture
opens at the borehole the pumping pressure builds up
into to about SHmin, as expected. The pumping rate in
these experiments was about 8 liters/min. Had the
pumpingrate been considerably greater (as is usually
the case in hdyrofrac operations) a substantially
lower estimate of SHmax may have resulted since a
18
MarkD. ZobacK,DavidD. Pollara o

2.8 ÷

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

cAsœ2 •

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

iOO0 cp
0.8
(FINITE LOAD

0.6

0.4, CASEI (POINT

LOAD)

0.2
I
/
0 i 1
0 1.0 2.0 :5.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

FRACTURE HALF LENGTH, CM

Figure 5. Displacement at Center of Crack as a Function of Fracture Half-Length for Computa-

tions Presented in Figure 4 and Limiting Cases 1 and 2.

greaterboreholepressure
wouldhavebeengenerated
in
order to open the fracture to accomodate greater
In cases whenPbmin> SHmin,it is still impor-
tant to pumpat restricted flow rates, but the neces-
sity of performing many pressurizing cycles, or sub-
stantially propagating the fracture, takes added sig-
nificance. Figure 5 illustrates that in the presence
of viscous fluids the center wall displacement is con-
siderably restricted for small fracture lengths. The
30 and lO0 cp curves, however, illustrate that beyond
a certain length the wall displacement increases to
its maximumvalue. Roughly speaking, the secondary
breakdown pressure will be inversely proportional to
crack width. In other words, for relatively small
fractures the secondary breakdown pressure will
decrease with fracture length. We nowsee that Pb
decreased as the volume of fluid into
increases in Figure 6 and fracture length increased.
Had not the final pumpingcycles been done and what
appears to be the minimum fracture opening pressure
observed, a lower estimate of SHmaxwould have been
computed.
These observations then, suggest a three-step
flow. procedure for using secondary breakdown pressures;
(1) pumpat low flow rates, (2) repeatedly pressurize
the borehole to progressively extend the fracture and
attempt to detect a decrease in Pb to Pbmin, and
(3) pumpat still lower flow rates to verify that
Pbminhad, in fact, beenobservedin step (2). These
steps should allow Pbminto be observedand success-
ful use of the secondary breakdown pressure method
for determinationof SHmax.
The observation that after a fracture has been
formed the borehole pressure can continue to rise
leads to explanation of a variety of observed pheno-
mena. For example, the observation that in the
presence of existing fractures pressurization with
viscous mud allowed generation of a properly oriented
the fracture hydraulic fracture is also explainable in terms of
the pressure drop in the fractures. Flow of viscous
fluid into the existing fracture resulted in a suf-
ficiently large pressure drop that initiation of the
properly oriented fracture occurred (this is illus-
trated in Figure 6B of Zoback et al, 1977b). Growth

1 9
Mark D. ZObacK, uavia U. Pol lara

BREAKDOWN
250

200

--
ISIP
LEAST
PRINCIPAL
-,,, MINIMUM
SECON
HORIZONTAL

/
STRESS BREAKDOWN PRESSURE-

-P PSI ..... P SI "' P SI

I--i H--I I t I I---I II I I H---I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 I0 20 50 40 50 60 70
TI ME (MINUTES)
Figure 6. Hydrofrac Pressure-TimeRecordsRecordedat a Site near SanArdo, California (after Zoback
et al, 1976a). Arrows Indicate the BreakdownPressure, Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure (ISIP), and
Secondary BreakdownPressures. P Indicates Pumping, SI Indicates the Well was Shut-In.

of the properly oriented fracture occurred because the DETERMINATION

OF SHmin
applied stress acting normal to its plane was less.
Another interesting observation is that breakdown has
been observed in wells subjected to either constant or
Shut-in pressures are usually reliable, and es-
cyclic borehole pressurization. This can be explained timates of the least principal stress are generally
in terms of fluid diffusion away from the wellbore
quite good (see the reviews of Haimson, 1977, and
which increases the interstitial pore pressure and McGarrand Gay, 1977). The pressure measuredimme-
results in breakdown at a pressure lower than that at diately after shut-in is used for determination of
which it would have occurred without penetration. the least principal stress because there is typically
Another explanation, however, follows from the above a pressure decay during shut-in. This decay can be
caused by operational problems like pressure leaks in
analysis. If a hydraulic fracture had been initiated
and was in a condition of stable propagation, break- the tubing or packers, or by processes such as con-
down would occur when a sufficient length of the
tinued fracture propagation during shut-in, or fluid
fracture became pressurized. In other words, unstable permeation into the formation. However, complicated
shut-in behavior occurs when the least principal
propagation would occur at some critical length, stress is vertical and fractures are formed between
analogous to the conditions illustrated in Figures 4
straddle packers. In this case the stress concentra-
and 5. Finally, when fracture proppants such as sand tion leading to generation of horizontal fractures
are deposited in a wellbore rather than a fracture
(Kehle, 1964) is not present and a vertical fracture
during massive hydraulic fracturing operations, will form at the wellbore (see Haimsonand Fairhurst,
screening out is said to have occurred. Conditions
which could lead to such phenomenaare recognizable
1970). As this fracture propagates it will "roll
over" into a horizontal plane and propagate perpen-
in terms of the above analysis. Figure 5 clearly
dicular to the least compressive stress. The pressure-
illustrated the marked effect of viscosity on fracture
time record presented in Figure 6 illustrates such a
wall displacement. If overly viscous fluid were
process.
being injected at too fast a rate for a fracture of
given length, insufficient width could result and not
When a well is shut-in, the rate of immediate
permit passage of the proppant.
pressure drop is the rate at which fluids bleed out
into the fracture. The characteristic fast then slow
It is important to realize that while the effect
shut-in decay apparent on cycles 2-5 of Figure 6 is
of high viscosity fluid is singled out in this analy-
sis and discussion, very high flow rates should lead what would be expected if flow were initially through
an open vertical fracture than through this fracture
to similar phenomena(Equns. B (1,2)), and the magni- after it has "closed" and then into a horizontal one.
tude of the least compressive stress will be quite
Thus, the pumping pressures on cycles 2-4 are about
important in determining the characteristics of
fracture propagation. It seems imperative, therefore, the sameas the ISIP (and the magnitudeof SHmin)and
that in economic applications of hydraulic fracturing the long-term shut-in pressures of cycles 3-5 approach
the lithostat. Records such as this have now been
fluid viscosity and flow rate be carefully matched
recorded many times in wells near the San Andreas
against the formation modulus and the magnitude of
the least principal stress. fault where, at least at The depths <300 m, SHmin>Sv.

2O
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard
The manner in which a fracture "rolls over"
obviously quite complicated. Recent studies by
Pollard (1978) suggest that a single fracture plane
may break up into a set of en echelon fractures to
accomplish this. The shut-in behavior of such a
system would be difficult to understand. The ISIP
values of the 1st and 2rid pressurization cycles shown
in Figure 6 are approximately the same (+ 2 bars)
and comparewell with the pumpingpressuFesof cycles
2-4. This value is clearly that of SHmin. Once the
fracture has propagated, however, the ISIP does not
reflect S•min. This, then, again indicates the bene-
fits of inducting multiple pressurization cycles
(so tP • SHmincan be determinedbefore appreciable
fracture propagation) and pumpingat low rates (so
that the pumping pressure is approximately a measure
of SHmin}. It also emphasizesthe importanceof es-
tablishing a careful test programto insure that '
operational disfunctions do not obscure the nature of
shut-in pressures.
REFERENCES
Abe, H., T. )lura, and L. M. Keer, Growth rate of a
penny-shaped crack in hydraulic fracturing
rocks, J. Geophys.Res., 81 {29), 5335-5343,
1976.
Bredehoeft, J. D., R. G. Wolff, W. S. Keys, and
EugeneShuter, Hydraulic fracturing to determine
the regional in-situ field, Picenace Basin,
Colorado, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 87, 250-258,
1976.
Geertsma, J., and F. deKleerk, A rapid method of pre-
dicting width and extent of hydraulically in-
duced fractures, Soc. Petrol. Eng. Journal,
p. 1571, Dec., 1969.
Haimson, B.C., and C. Fairhurst, In-situ stress
determination at great depth by means of
hydraulic fracturing, in Rock Mech. Theory and
Practice, Proc. of llth Symp. of Rock Mech.,
Univ. of Ca., Berkeley, CA., June 1969, ed. by
W. H. Somerton, Soc. Mining Eng. AIME, New York,
1970.
Haimson, B.C., and E. Stahl, Hydraulic fracturing
and the extraction of minerals through wells, in
3rd Symp. on Salt, Northern Ohio Geol. Soc.,
Cleveland, Ohio, p. 421-432, 1972.
Haimson, B.C., Earthquake related stresses at Rangely,
Colorado, in New Horizons in Rock Mechanics,
Proc. 14th Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Eds. Hardy
and Stefanko, ASCE, New York, 689-708, 1973.
Haimson, B.C., Determination of in-situ stress around
undergroundexcavations by meansof hydraulic
fracturing, Final Tech. Rpt. to ARPA,Contract
H-220080, Monitored by U.S. Bur. Mines, 1974.
Haimson, B.C., Crustal stress in the continental
U.S. as derived from hydraulic fracturing
measurements,in The Earth's Crust, Geophys.
Mono. 20, ed. J. G. Hickock, Amer. Geophys.
Union, Wash., D.C., p. 576-592, 1977.
Hsu, Y. C., Critical borehole pressure for a vertical
hydraulic crack in the presenceof two principal
total stresses, Los Alamos Scientific Lab.
R•, No. LA-6115-MS,1975.
Hubbert, M. K., and D. G. Willis, Mechanicsof hy-
draulic fracturing, Pet. Trans. AIME, v. 210,
pp. 153-168, 1957.
Kehle, R. 0., The determination of tectonic stresses
through analysis of hydraulic well fracturing,
J. Geophys.Res., 69 {2}, 259-273, 1964.
Lachenbruch,A. H., Depth and spacing of tension
cracks, J. Geophys.Res., 66, 4273-4292, 1961.
is Muskhelishvili, N. I., Somebasic problems of the
mathematical theory of elasticity, 334-361,
Noodhoff, Leyden, Netherl ands, 1975.
Newman,J. C., An improved method of collacation for
the stress analysis of cracked plates with
various shaped boundaries, NASATN D-6373, 1971.
Nordgren, R. P., Propagation of a vertical hydraulic
fracture, Soc. Petrol. Eng. Jour., 306-314,
August, 1972.
Paris, P. C., and G. C. Sih, Stress analysis of cracks,
in Fracture ToughnessTesting and Its Applica-
tions, pp. 30-81, STP No. 381, ASTM, Philadelphia,
Perkins, T. K., and L. R. Kern, Widths of Hydraulic
Fractures, J. Pet. Tech., 937-949, September, 1961.
Pollard, D. D., On the form and stability of open
hydraulic fractures in the earth's crust, Geophys.
Res. Letters, 3, 513-516, 1976.
Pollard, D. D., The form of hydraulic fractures as
deduced from magmatic fractures, 19th Symposium
on Rock Mechanics {this volume), 1978.
Raleigh, C. B., J. H. Healy, and J. D. Bredehoeft,
Faulting and crustal stress at Rangely, Colorado,
in Flow and Fracture of Rocks, ed. H. C. Heard,
of I. Y. Borg, N. C. Carter, and C. B. Raleigh,
Amer. Geophys. Union, Washington, D.C., 1972.
Rummel, F., and R. Jung, Hydraulic fracturing stress
measurements near the Hohenzollern-gaben struc-
ture, SWGermany,Pure and App1. Geoph., v. ll3,
no. 1/2 321-330, 1975.
Secor, D. T., and D. D. Pollard, On the stability of
open hydraulic fractures in the earth's crust,
Geophys.Res. Letters, 2, 510-513, 1975.
Scheidegger,A. E., stresses in the earth's crust as
determined from hydraulic fracturing data,
Geologie und Bauwesen,27, H,2, 45-53, 1962.
Sokolnikoff, I. S., Mathematical Theory of Elasticity,
McGraw Hill, New York, 476 pp., 1956.
Zoback, M.D., J. Healy, and J. Roller, Preliminary
stress measurements in central California using
the hydraulic fracturing technique, Pure and
Applied Geophysics,in press, 1977a.
Zoback, M.D., F. Run•nel. R. Jung, H. J. Alheid, and
C. B. Raleigh, Rate controlled hydraulic frac-
turing experiments in intact and pre-fractured ß
rock, Int'l. Jour. RockMech., MininO Sci., in
press, 1977b.
APPENDIX A
The complex stress function method involves find-
ing two analytic functions, •(z} and9_(z), which taken
in the formU -- Re[•_(.z)+ 9_(•z)]solve the fundamental
biharmonic equation, v•U : O, of two-dimensional elas-
ticity theory and also give the appropriate boundary
conditions (see e.g. Muskhelishvelli, 1975; Sokolni-
koff, 1956). For the fracture problem it is convenient
to map the region outside a slit of length • = 4R in
the z : x + iy plane.to the region outside a unit
circle in the c + pe•e plane. The slit lies on the
real axis, centered at the origin. The transformation
equations are
z : u(C) : R(C+ C-1) (A-l)
• : 1/2{(z/R)+ [(z/R)2 - 4]1/2} (A-2)
We consider a uniform pressure, P, acting on the slit
wall from x1 to x2 and on the opposite wall from x4 to
x3. Onthe unit circle, wherep : l, these points are
c1 to c4- The analytic functions which solve this
problem are
21
Mark D. Zoback, David D. Pollard -'

+(c) : (PR/2•i) {2c-11n(c2/•1)

+ (c+c-1-c1-c1-1)
ln[(cl-c)/(cl-l-c)]
- (•+•-1-C2-•2-1)ln[(c2-c)/(c2-1-c)]}(A-3)
•(C) = (PR/2•i) {[4C/(C2-1]ln(c2/C1)
- (c1-C1-1-c2+c2-1) [(1+c2)/(c2-1)]
- (el+el-I) ln[(cl-C)/(c2-1-c)]
+ (C2+C2-1)ln[(c2-c)/(c2-1-C)]} (A-4)
(Muskhelishvelli, 1975, p. 354-358).
Here•(z) : d•/dz : •[m(C)] : u(c). From+(c) and
m(c), the normal displacement of the slit wall, D, is
calculated using
D = (1/2p) Im [(3-4v) +(c)-m(c)+-•[•l/m-"-C•')
-
-•--('•-] (A-5)
(Muskhelishvelli, 1975, p. 192-194)
where p : shear modulus; v : Poisson's ratio; prime
denotes differentiation with respect to C; a bar de-
notes the complex conjugate. The stress intensity
factor, K, for the ends of the slit is calculated
using
K: (2/R)1/2 •'(c), c : + 1 (A-6)
(Paris and Sih, 1961, p. 37). Uponsubstitution of
(A-3) we find
K(•) : [P(2R)l/2/(2•i)][-21n(c2/c1)
• (el-el-1-c2+•2
-1) (A-7)
where the plus and minus signs refer to the slit ends
at x : +2R and x : -2R.

The special case 1 referred to in the text is

found by letting C1 = +l; C2 = -1. The special case
2 is foundby consideringthe limit Ix2 - xll + 0
while specifying that the force F = P(mx2- xll)
remainfinite. In the,c - plane Ix2 - xll :
RIC2+ C2-1 - C1- •1-•1ß Tofind the caseof a
center loaded slit we let c2 + +i; Cl + +i.
APPENDIX B

The pressure within each fracture interval is

determined after computing a pressure drop for each
interval, aPi, with a steady state flow law and as-
sumingthat the width of each fracture interval, wi,
is equal to the width of the interval's midpoint.
Whenwe consider the fracturing process under field
conditions, we use the parallel plate type of flow
law (after Happel and Brenner (1965))

Ap
i : 6•4
HW_•__•p.
aX (B-l)
where Q is the volumetric flow rate into the fracture,
p is the fluid viscosity, ax is the size of the in-
terval, and H is the fracture height.

Whenthe fracturing process under laboratory con-

ditions is considered (and the ratio of the fracture
height to width is very much smaller) we assumethe
fracture has elliptical shape in vertical cross-
section. We then use a flow law like that derived
by Perkins and Kern (1961),

Ap
i - 10.2
HWiQ]•
• Jx (B-2
Comparisonof Eqns. (B-2) and (B-3) showsthem to be
identical except for the multiplicative constant.
 (U!U,J/IDõ)

i!

$T•/
--4m i

--; _z.J .

$T-• I/•LL BOR•

ø8 8 •o
•042 m

(.•1)

Maximum Flow

W.ler LIQvi.9 • •jL..-$1)i..er Idoving

!I \ .•_•-•m-•...•o,.

g • o

Zero
FIow•-•
Geometry of Spinner Survey
 6540 6550 6560 6570 6580

ß COMPOSITE OF 8 SPINNER RUNS

WNILE PUMPING
ß SiNGlE BACKGROUNDRUN WITH PUI• :• OFF

rp$

ß m
mmmmm ß

me
ß
me
ß
ß ß

• 14' -..-.-.i

OEPTH (m)

(!sd) 3•INSS3•IdI-:•

o
o

(•1•1) 3BI'ISS3Eid 1-33

 10.91KPo/$
(9•9
I•i/min}
I•'lø/Po
(.'.'.'.9.?
xIO'e/psi)

o
o

TIME (rain)

EXPERIMENT 50 b (I)
PRIMACORDEXPT IN EE-I 8/28/75
(!sd) 3•JI35531•11-33
i
I ] I I [ I I
I •
N3dO-
ß •

{3.

Id.I --

\
• • X

0.574liter/s(9.1gpm)
- •00

(0diN) 3•JI9SS3t•11-33
0 I ] I i I i i l ,0
o 50
TIME (rain)
 EXPERIMENT 51 (3(I)
INDUCED POTENTIAL 8/28/75

EE- I PRESSURE ( M Pa )
o c• o
o

cm

-m :]>__.
.FLOW
RATE

0.5•4
liter/•500
õ0
TIME (rain)
I (.n I

EE - I PRESSURE( psi)
 (.md)

GT-2 9450 FEET

I I I I
AUG 6, 1975

'•25- FLOW
RATE
O.41
liter/s(6.5cjpm)

• iOi- / _
TIME (rain)

ti/'r) • m (S,lm:l)
3Hns•3Hd 3o•ns

t 1 I I I I

Gt - 2 9550 FEET
AUG 6, 1975

•25 - FLOW RATE(•41 liter/s (6.5 gpm)

--

--

o
o I 2 3 4 5 6
TIME (rain)