SPE 6089

Containment of Massive Hydraulic Fractures

E. R, SIMONSON
MEMBER SIJE.AIME
A. S. ABOU-SAYED
R. J. CLIFTON

ABSTRACT In general, the Iithology of the Rocky Mountain

region is composed of oil- and gas-bearing sandstone
Hydraulic fracture containment is discussed in layers interspaced with shales (Fig. 1). However,
relationship to linear elastic fracture mechanics. some sandstone layers may be water aquifers and
Three cases are analyzed, (1) the ef/ect of dif~erent penetration of the hydraulic fracture into these
maten”al properties for the pay zone and the barn”er aquifer layers is undesirable. Also, the shale
formation, (2) the characteristics of fracture layers can separate producible oil- and gas-bearing
propagation into regions of va~ing in-situ stress, zones from nonproducible ones. Shale layers
and (3J the effect of hydrostatic pressure gradients between the pay zone and other zones can be vital
on fracture propagation into overlying or underlying in increasing su~cessful stimulation. If the shale
bam”er formations. Analysis shows the importance layers act as barrier layers, the hydraulic fracture
of the elastic properties, the in-situ stresses, and can be contained within the pay zone.
the pressure gradients on fracture containment. The in-situ stresses and the stiffness, as
characterized by the shear modulus of the zones,
INTRODUCTION play significant roles in the containment of a
Application of massive hydraulic fracrure (MHF) hydraulic fracture. The in-situ stresses result from
techniques to the Rocky Mountain gas fields has forces in the earth’s crust and constitute the
been uneven, with some successes and some compressive far-field stresses that act to close the
failures. The primary thrust of rock mechanics hydraulic fracture. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
research in this area is to understand those factors representation of in-situ stresses acting on a
that contribute to the success of MHF techniques vertical hydraulic fracture. Horizontal components
and those conditions that lead to failures. There are of in-situ stresses may vary from layer to layer
many possible reasons why MHF techniques fail, (Fig. 2). For example, direct measurements of in-situ
including migration of the fracture into overlying or stresses in shales has shown the minimum horizontal
underlying barrier formations, degradation of principal stress is nearly equal to the overburden
permeability caused by application of hydraulic stress.4 On the other hand, in sandstones, the
fracturing fluid, loss of fracturing fluid into lateral tectonic stresses are generally less than
pre-existing cracks or fissures, or extreme errors in
estimating the quantity of in-place gas. Also, a poor
estimate of the in-situ permeability can result in ~ SHALES OR eARRlfR LAYER

failures that may “appear”’ to be caused by the @ SANOSTONE

hydraulic fracture process. Previous research ~ SANOSTONE WATER AaulfER

showed that in-situ permeabilities can be one order
of magnitude or more lower than permeabilities
-
measured at near atmospheric conditions. 1 Moreover,
studies have investigated the degradation in both FIG, 1 — SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF A GAS-
fracture permeability and formation permeability BEARING FORMATION IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
REGION.
caused by the application of hydraulic fracture
fluids.2’3 Further discussion of this subjec,t is .OVERBUROEN STRESS
beyond the scope of this paper. This study will ( USUALLY
w WI.pqll)
TAKEN TO

deal mainly with the containment of hydraulic

fractures to the pay zone.

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers

office Aug. 23, 1976. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 16,
1977. Revioed mxnuscrlpt received Sept. 12, 1977. Paper (SPE
6089) was presented at the SP E-AIME 5 1st Annual Technical
Conference xnd Exhibition, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
FIG. 2 — SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF
0037-9999 /7 S/0002-60S9$00,2S IN-SITU STRESSES ACTING BENEATH THE
@ Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME EARTH’S SURFACE.

FEBRUARY,197S 27
 ●

the vertical or overburden stress. s With different stress analysis of the problem and deduce what
stresses between shales and sandstones, it becomes applied loading will produce Klc at the crack tip,
important to consider their effect on fracture This loading will cause further cracking in the
containment, material. A detailed discussion on a crack-length
Hydraulic fracture analysis is inherently a independent method of measuring fracture toughness
three-dimensional problem. Mathematical solutions on geologic material is given in Ref. 2. From this
are extremely complicated and sometimes impossible brief review of fracture mechanics concepts, the
in a great many cases. Three-dimensional solutions following three cases of hydraulic fracturing will
to some problems have been derived using the be considered: (1) the effect of different material
finite-element technique. 6 However, these solutions properties for the pay zone and the barrier
are usually very costly and extremely time consum- formation, (2) the characteristics of fracture
ing, Two-dimensional analyses are on firmvr ground propagation into regions of varying in~situ stress,
and many solutions of two-dimensional crack and (3) the effect of hydrostatic pressure gradients
problems have been worked out. Such simplified on fracture propagation into overlying or underlying
analyses provide considerable insight in under- barrier formations.
standing those parameters and conditions that
influence hydraulic fracture propagation. This CASE 1 — EFFECTS OF DIFFERING
study is limited to treating two-dimensional cracks MATERIAL PROPERTIES
in linear elastic media in which the primary fluid
It is well known that there are differences in
is assumed to act over the entire length of the
mechanical properties between the pay zone forma-
fracture. Furthermore, considerations are given
tion and the barrier formations. The question then is
only to symmetrically loaded cracks (Mode 1),
what role do mechanical properties play in the
A two-dimensional representation of a hydraulic
containment of the hydraulic fracture to the pay
fracture embedded in a sand layer bounded by
zones. The effect is best seen by examining how
barrier formations is shown schematically in Fig.
the stress intensity at the crack tip nearest the
3. The fracture is assumed infinite in extent normal interface ( Kf ) varies as the fracture approaches
to the plane of the page. The section under
the interface,% Fig. 5 illustrates the variation in
investigation is assumed far enough from the
the intensity factors for two cases, These cases
wellbore for its effects to be negligible. These
have been derived for the following set of
assumptions are reasonable when we consider that
mechanical properties,
most hydraulic fractures are assumed to have
lengths many times their heights.
In linear elastic fracture mechanics for Mode 1
cracks, the important parameters are the stress-
intensity factor (Kl) at the crack tip and the critical
value (Klc) of this factor at which crack extension
occurs, The former is a mathematical quantity that
uniquely characterizes the load sensed at the crack
tip. It is given by the limit as r+ O of the expression
for the normal stress component in the vicinity of
the crack tip’ (see Fig. 4); that is, FIG, 4 — STRESS COMPONENTS NEAR THE TIP OF A
-.-.—— ----- .
SHAKP CRACK.

K,=/JpFq&r,o). . . . . . . . (1)

On the other hand, Klc is a material property to be

P
measured. The procedure is to measure the fracture 4.

toughness (K,c) for a material and then perform a +*+$J

.:-:-:-:-:-: UPPER L -
DIMENSIWESS
.-:-:-:-:-:-: BARR I E R GISFI STRESS
INTENSITY
FACTOR
PAY ‘32+2
ZONE K, (0) 2.0 $-

u
A m
G ‘ SHEAR MODULUS
~’ POISSON’S RA710
(.0 -

I I 1 1 1
0 0,2 04 06 00 0
OIMENSbNLESS DkTANCE “
FROM -u
‘----------- OARRIER +

FIG. SCHEMATIC DRAWINGOF A HYDRAULIC

3 — FIG. S — VARIATION OF THE STRESS-INTENSITY
FRACTURE EMBEDDEDIN A SAND LAYER BOUNDED FACTOR K,(a) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE (R/@)
BY UPPER AND LOWER BARRIER LAYERS. TO THE INTERFAcE.

2s SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 GI = 7.03 GPa (1.02 x 106 psi) where

p-u~ ~<y<e
G2 = 13.38 GPa (1’.94 x 106 psi) -L<y<L
p(y) = p-aa
p~ = 0.14 . . ...(3)
1 p-u~ -L<y <-t,
Case 1 indicates the stiffness of the barrier
Substituting from Eq. 3 in Eq. 2 and performing the
formation as measured by the shear modulus is less
integration gives the following expression for K]:
than the stiffness of the pay zone. For this case,
the stress-intensity factor (Kl)a + m as r/I’+ O. Thus,
the closer the fracture gets to the interface, the
easier it is to extend ar~d the crack eventually will
pass through the interface. In Case 2, however, the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , (4)
stiffness of the barrier layer is greater than the Let P = L (1 + c), where c is the fractional distance
stiffness of the pay zone. For this case, the that the crack has propagated into the high stress
stress-intensity factor (Kl)a + O as r/f + 0. This region; then by rearranging terms we obtain
situ ~tion provides a “barrier” effect and tends to
art::st the crack at the interface. Therefore, better
hydraulic fracturing results can be expected from
hydrocarbon-bearing zones that have a lower
stiffness than the adjacent barrier formations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
CASE 2 — EFFECT OF IN-SITU
Ii p. is the pressure required for crack extension
STRESS VARIATIONS
when c = O, then
There may be differences in in-situ stress between
shales and sandstones. Consider the problem of a K/c
= (60 -Oa)@. .o. .o. o ., .(6)
crack embedded in a homogeneous isotropic medium
subjected to step variations in in-situ stress. This Subsriturion of Eq. 6 in Eq. 5 gives a relation
problem is one in which a hydraulic fracture, by berween P - PO and f when KI = KIC. The result is
some mechanism or other, has extended into
adjacent layers, where possibly different tectonic f
stresses are acting. Fig, 6 is a schematic repre-
sentation of this.
The stress-intensity factor at each end of the
crack is found by superposition of the two problems
shown in Fig, 7.
The stress-intensity factor, Kf, is the sum of the
contribution from Loadings A and B. The contribution Fig. 8 shows a plot of Eq. 7 in terms of excess
from Loading B is zero, and there is a contribution pressure, p - p. vs (!, the distan le crack has
only from Loading A. The value of KI can be advanced into the high stress : *.. The curves
computed directly from the followin~ equation. g~10 in this figure are for a crack heig t 61 m (2oO ft),
a fracture toughness of Klc, = 1.1 MN/m3f2 (1,000
Pe — lb-in.-s/2 ) and for parametric values of the in-situ
stress difference ab - Oa . Thus, if the stress
difference ~b - Oa = 7.58 MPa (1,100 psi), for
example, an overpressure of 3.45 MPa (500 psi)
would be expected if the fracture were to propagate
WSITU”
STRFSS
— 25 m into the region of higher in-situ stress. T~is
analysis,. although simplified, does indicate an
increase in fracture propagation pressure if the

1
fracture extends into a barrier formation with higher

El
in-situ stress, An accurate measure of the fracture
P 2L 2S
p-ffe

REqEII
Ub

2s r
2L p .ve +
‘a

L p-se
%

(h) (s)
FIG. 6 — VERTICAL HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
LOADED UNDER UNIFORM PRESSURE (p) WITH FIG. 7 — EQUIVALENT LOADINGS A AND B FOR THE
DIFFERING HORIZONTAL IN-SITU STRESS. PROBLEM SHOWN IN FIG. 6,

FEBRUARY,197S 2$
 .

propagation pressure might cell when the fracture
was extending into the barrier zone, provided there
is a significant difference in in-situ stress between
the barrier layer and the pay zone.
If the in-situ stress in the barrier layer (Ub) is
less than the in-situ stress in the pay zone (era), a
situation would exist that required less pressure to
propagate the fracture in the barrier layer than in
the pay zone. Extensive propagation into the barrier
layer would be highly probable if Ob < aa. Unstable
propagation into the barrier layers can be expected
if f’ becomes large enough, even for ~& > Oa. This
effect is shown in Fig. 8, where for ab - Ua = 0.34,
the pressure, p -p., reaches a maximum at f?’= 160
m and then decreases with increasing f’.
related linearly to the lateral stress 03. It seems
plausib~e that the lateral stress increases with
depth and that a linear stress gradient is reaIistic.
The vaIue of the gradient is a topic of debate and
probably will not be resolved, except by direct
measurement. 13 For this problem, however, assume
there is a linear variation in the applied or tectonic
stress of go MPa/m as shown in Fig. 9.
The solution for (Kl)l and (Kl )2 again is found by
the superposition of the two loadings shown in
Fig. 10.
The contribution to K{ from Loading B is zero.
The only contribution comes from Loading A. The
values for (KI)2 and (Kl)l are calculated as before
from Eq. 2 with

CASE 3 — PRESSURE GRADIENT EFFECTS p(y) =(gp-g>y+ +[Pu+@7*-(?gl*. (9)

Consider the problem shown in Fig. 9. In this Integration of Eq. 2, with Eq. 9, substituted for
case, a vertical plane-strain crack in an infinite
p (y), results in the following expression for the
medium is subjected to hydrostatic pressure loading. difference in stress-intensity factors between the
Because of gravitational effects, a linear pressure top and bottom of the crack,
gradient that acts on the faces is developed with a
gradient coefficient of gp MPa/m. The externally (K,)2-(K,)l =(gp -#@, . . . 0 . . (N)
applied Ioads are the tectonic stresses. The
solution to this problem was arrived at independently where
by Terra Tek and Secor and Pollard, 11 and this
1! = one-half crack length.
solution is presented for completeness.
The magnitude of the tectonic stresses is a From Eq. 10 it can be seen that if gp > ~, then
function of depth, and hence uniaxial strain (Q2 > (~1)1, implying that the bottom of the
conditions prevai I. 12 For uniaxiaI strain Ioading, fracture reaches the criticaI value Klc first and
the ratio of crl (overburden stress) to lateral stress
03 (tectonic stress) for a linear, isotropic, homoge.
neous elastic material is given by

4
u,
- = b,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
(?3 P

where
p = Poisson’s ratio.
Eq. 8 shows that the overburden stress al is

.— , I 9? >%, DOWNWARD MIGRATION

mom OW>ep, UPWARD

MIGRATION

FIG. 9 — PLANE-STRAIN IDEALIZATION OF A

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC FRACTURE IN AN INFINITE
MEDIUM SUBJECTED ‘IX) HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE
LOADING WITH TECTONIC STRESS AS FAR-iVELD
LOADING. (Kr), AND (Kz)z ARE THE STRESS-INTENSITY
FACTORS AT THE TOP A’/I) E!YI’TO’: OF THE
FRACTURE, RESPECTIVELY.
3.45

2.05

1,3s

0.69
0.34
oR=- 1

026 W7511YJ 125 [50 175 W

!’ (d
FIG. 8 — PLOT OF EXCESS PRESSURE Q/ - Po) VS
DISTANCE ADVANCED INTO THE REGION OF HIGH
STRESS, THE IN-SITU STRESS DIFFERENCE (ob - Oa) FIG. 10 — EQUIVALENT LOADINGS A AND B FOR
IS A PARAMETER, THE PROBLEM SHOWN IN FIG. 9.

xl SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 ,-
that down ward migration is probable. Conversely,
if pa > gp, then (Kl)l > (K1)2 and upward migration
is most probable. Thus, it is conceivable that
vertical motion of the crack could be controlled by
—
using hydraulic fracture fluids with various densi-
ties, depending on whether upward (g. > gp),
downward (g ~ > ga), or both upward and downward
(equal probability, gp = ~) migration is desired.
Another interesting observation can be made by
further examination of Eq. 10. If the difference in
stress-intensity factors (KI)2 - (Kl)l is equal to
Klc, then crack extension would be certain for
(KI)2 > (Kl)l > 0. The relationship between this
difference and the difference in gp and ga is given
by
t?p -
Klc
‘u=iJz ’””’””’”””’
, (11)
Fig. 11 shows a plot of this equation for various
values of the fracrure roughness Kl=. Consider two
cases, both of which give the same value for ]gp -
~ I = 5.7 kPa/m. Case 1 assumes the pressure
gradient is caused by water pressure on the crack
face, gp ==9.73 kN/m (0.43 psi/ft) and Case 2
assumes a 21.2 -kN/m3 (18 lb/gal) mud is pressur-
izing the crack, gp = 21.2 kPa/m (0.93 psi/ft). For
both cases, the tectonic str~ss variation is 15.5
k Pa/m (0.68 psi/ft), Case 1 corresponds to upward
migration of the crack and Case 2 corresponds to
downward migration. The crack height for which
Igp - %1 = 5.7 kPa/m and K}= = 1.65 MN/m3/2
(1,500 lb-in. ‘3/2) is approximately 54,8 m (180 ft),
For crack heights less than this value, AKI = I(KJ)2
- (Kl) 1 I is less than Klc. For crack heights
exceeding 54.8 m (180 ft), the stress-intensity factor
is equal to Klc at one end of the crack and is
negative at the other end. Negative values for K1
imply the crack is closed and the crack height must
be reduced to the point where KI = 0, Therefore, the
crack reaches a critical height, at which point a
crack of constant height propagates either upward or
downward, depending on the value of gp -~. In the
field, this cannot occur to any great extent near the
wellbore because as the crack closes during upward
40 [ 1
I
K,c. 1.65 MN/ms’a
n’
30 I*I
● layers and the height of the pay zone.
1
09 -tlr +J
!lp- %
(kPo/rn) 20 [\
“CRACK LENGTH (m)
FIG. 11 — PLOT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENTS VS CRACK
LENGTH Wf?H FRACTURE TOUGHNESS (&c) AS A
PARAMETER,
FSBRUARY,191B
or downward migration, the source of pressurization
(perforation holes) would be “covered up, ” and
crack pressurization would not be possible. It is
conceivable that as the crack extends away from
the wellbore, it would propagate upward and
downward at fixed height because near the wellbore
the propping agent might hold the crack open,
allowing fluid to flow out inro the fracture. The
important thing to note is that preferred upward or
downward crack migration is entirely possible. By
adjustment of the hydraulic fracture fluid density,
the probability of producing horizontality propagating
fractures can be maximized. To dc this, the
variation of in-situ stress with depth must be
determined.
CONCLUSIONS
Three cases of hydraulic fra ;ture containment
were discussed in relationship to linear elastic
fracture mechanics. Analyses of fracture contain-
ment as a two-dimensional problem yielded several
fundamental results that can be applied in general
to the design of massive hydraulic fractures. The
following conclusions resulted from these analyses.
1. Hydraulic fractures in a pay zone located
between two adj scent barrier layers tend to be
contained, provided the stiffness of the pay zone
is less than the stiffness of the barrier layers, If
the opposltt condition exists, barrier penetration
is likely.
2. Migration of a hydraulic fracture, either upward
or downward in an isotropic, homogeneous medium
may be controlled by the derisity of hydraulic
fracturing fluid. If the fluid density gradient is
greater (less) than the minimum horizontal in-situ
stress gradient, then downward (upward) migration
is probable.
3. If there is a difference in in-situ stress
between the bounding layers and the pay zone, with
greater in-situ stress in the bounding layers, then
those layers serve as a barrier to vertical extension
of the fracture. It may be possible to detect fracture
propagation into the barrier formation by an increase
in pumping pressure, occurring as the fracture
crosses the interface and extends into the barrier
layer. The pressure increase for a given extension
into the barrier is a‘ funcrion of the difference in
in-situ stress between the barrier and the pay zone
The mechanical properties of the pay zone and
the barrier formation, as well as the minimum
horizontal in-situ stresses for these layers, play
important roles in the prediction of hydraulic
fracture containment.
NOMENCLATURE
g = acceleration of gravity
gp = pressure gradient caused by fluid pressure
go = stress gradient caused by variation in in-situ
stress with depth
G = shear modulus
M
 w

KI = stress-intensity factor 3. Cooke, C, E,, Jr,: $tEffect of Fracturing Fluids on

factor Fracture Conductivity,” ]. Pet. Tech (Oct. 1975)
K[c = critical stress-intensity
1273- 128% Trans., AIME, Vol. 260.
e= crack length (height) 4. Abou-Sayed, A. S., Brechtel, C. E., and Clifton, R. J.:
f’ = distance crack has advanced into barrier .
~41nSitu Streaa Determination by Hydrofracturlng —
layer A Fracture Mechanics Approach, ” republished paper.
L= thickness of pay zone. 5, Haimson, B, C,: ~tEarthquake Relc ted Str@ases at
Rangely, Colorado, ” New Hori.xms in Rock
P= crack pressure Mechanics, ASCE, New York (1973) 689.
P* = crack pressure required to advance crack to 6, Advani, S. H., GangaRoa,
H. V., Shuck, L. Z.,’ and
interface Chang, H, y.: ~~~alytical
and Experimental Inv@ati-
gations on Induced Fracturing of Reservoir Rock, ”
c= fractional distance crack has advanced into paper 76-Pet-8 presented at the ASME lnternat~ona~
high stress region Joint Petroleum and Pressure Vessels and Piping
Poisson’s ratio Conference, Mexico City, Sept. 19-24, 1976.
F=
p =density 7. Irwin, G.: ~~~alYa~s of Stresses and Strains Near
the End of a Crack Transveraing a Plate, ” ,/. Appl.
=a = horizontal stress component in pay zone Medr, (1957) Vol. 24, 361.
~b = horizontal stress component in barrier layers 8. Cooke, T. S. and Erdogan, F.: “Stress in Bonded
o~ = horizontal stress component acting on lower Materials with a Crack Perpendicular to the
Interface, ” frrt, J. Errg. Sci, (1972) Vol. 10, 677.
tip of a vertical crack
9, Rice, J, R,: ~~Mathematlcal Analysia in the Mechanica
= horizontal ?tress component acting on upper of Fracture, ” Treatise on Fracture, Academic Press
‘P
tip of a vertical clack Inc., New York (1962) Ch. 3, Vol. 2, 191.
0?? = polar stress component in r direction 10. Erdogan, F.: ~ton the Stress Distribution Of Platea
U66 = polar stress component in d direction with Collinear Cuts under Arbitrary Loads, ” Proc.,
Fourth U. S. Nat. Cong. of Appl. Mech. (1962) 547.
REFERENCF.S 11. Secor, D. T. J. and Pollard, D. D.: “On the Stability
of Open Hydraulic Fracturea
in the Earth’s Crust,’$
1. Simonson, E. R., Lingle, R. L., and Jones, A. H.: Geopbys. Res. Letters (Nov. 1975) Vol. 2, 510.
~~correlation of Log Data with Laboratory Determined 12, Jaeger, J. C. and Cook, N. G. W,: Fundamentals of
Values of Elastic Moduli, Density, Porosity and Rock Mechanics, Methuen and Co., Ltd., London
Sonic Velocities, ” Report No. TR 76-37, Terra Tek, ( 1969).
Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah (Aug. 1976).
13, Haimaon, B. and Fairhurat, C.: “Initiation and
2, !3monson, E. R., Shipman, F. H., and Jones, A. H.: Extension of Hydraulic Fractures in Rock s,” Sot.
I{Correlation of Deep Geophysical Logs with Labora- Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1967) 310-318; ‘f’runst, AIME,
tory Determined Velocity, Porosity, and Permeability, ” vol. 240,
paper presented at the 17th U.S. Symposium on Rock ,* *,*
Mechanics, Snowbird, Utah, Aug. 25-27, 1976.

32 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL