MAY 25 iS83

UNSOLICITED
/;2

THE EFFECTS OF IN-SITU STRESSES

AND LAYER PROPERTIES ON THE CONTAINMENT OF
A HYDRAULIC FRACTURE

BY

C. H.

YE~'J

PROFESSOR
and

Y.J. CHIOU

GRADUATE STUDENT

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712

33 ~

ABSTRACT
~..-

~he

the

effect of

propagation

numerically
stress

in

intensity

sho\v that,

of

st~esses

in-situ

hydraulically

this

By

paper.

factor

at

for a same ratio,

the

layer properties \.I=.e-/

and

induced

fracture

comparing

fracture

studied

maa~itude

the

tips,

is

our

calculations

the in-situ stress difference has a

.

greater effect

to

the movement of a

rna ter ia 1 difference.

In

of

adcition,

our

fracture

than. '::.'the
~;

analysis

.'.

layer

indicates

that

the in-situ stress containment effect on a hydraulic fracture

depends

(1)

upon:

fracture he ight;
among

(2)

the

and

(3)

the

zone

the rela ti ve magni tude of

the reservoir zone,

above it;

of

ratio

thickness

to

the

i n-s i tu stresses

the high stress zone,

and the zone

the relative distance between the fracture tip

and the zone interface.

/2332-

INTRODUCTION
Warpinski,

Schmidt

<:1nd

Northrop

[1]

published

interesting paper regarding the predominant factors

the containment of a
. obtained
mine

from

tunnel

hydraul ic

hydraulic
complex,

fracture.

fracturing
these

influencing

By examining the data

experiments

authors

an

conducted

concluded

material property difference between the reservoir

that:

in

(1)

rock and the

bounding formation is not sufficient to contain the fracture; and

(2) the magnitude and the
stress

is

the

hydraulically

dominant

gradient of the
factor

affecting

minimum
the

in-situ

movement

of

induced fracture.

In fracture mechanics, the stress intensity factor at the

fracture tip is often used as an
the fracture.

indicator of

the

stabi 1 i ty of

The fracture tends to move towards the direction

that has a maximum stress intensity

factor.

Thus, by' comparing

the relative magnitudes of stress intensity factors along the

periphery of a crack,

the up or downward motion of

layered rock medium can be determined.

Using this idea,

propagation of a hydraulically induced fracture

medium
Yew

[3].

fracture

was

studied

in

to

the

the stress intensi ty

frac-fluid

taking the layer material differences

the

relative

tips to study

magnitude of stress
the

in layered

the
rock

detail by Yew and Lodde [2], and Lu and

In these studies,
tips due

fracture in

stability

factor at the

pressure was calculated by

into consideration.

Using

intensity factor at the crack

of a crack in layer

materials

is

.,

* Numbers in the bracket designate reference at the end of paper.

1

)2..-33'2-

LIST OF SYMBOLS
E:

Elastic Modulus of Rock

H:

Zone or Layer Thickness

K:

Normalized Stress Intensity Factor

L:

Half of Crack Length

P:

Frac-fluid Pressure

V:

Poisson's Ratio

0-:

In-situ Stress

i i

) 233.;l

not new.
al

The problem has been extensively studied by Erdogan et

[4,5,6],

Ashbaugh [7]

and Goldstein and Vainshebaum

in

[8]

their investigations of cracks in layer composite materials.

their

studies,

factor

the major

at crack tips

material properties,
relati ve posi ton
the problems,

contributors

were:
and

to

(2)

the

uniform by these

stress

intensi ty

difference between the layer

the

size of the

interface.

stress was

authors.

the

(1)

layer

the applied

to

In

fracture

and

its

Due to the nature of

usually assumed

to

be

The effect of rock layer property

differences on a hydraulically induced fracture was noted by many'

author s. Papers wr i tten by Daneshy [9,10],
Abe

et

al [13], Simonson

out

the

importance of this

importance

of

in-situ

Hanson et al

et al [14], and

rock

effect.
stress

Cleary [15]

At
to

the

the

[1-1,12]

pointed

same time,

propagation

the
of

hydraulically induced fracture was also recognized and studied by

many

authors.

Secor
Yew

and

For this

study, we cite

Pollar [16], Pollard

and

works by Simonson [14],

Muller [17],

and

Lu

and

singled

out,

[3].
warpinski's

experimental

results

[1]

have

however, the in-situ rock stress as the predominant factor on

hydraulic fracture containment.

Can this conclusion be taken as

a general statement in hydraulic fracturing?

effect

due

to the

in layer properties

in-situ rock stress or due to the difference

influenced by

and by the ratio of stresses

addresses these questions.

o~

tips.

the

inherent

zone

moduli between zones?

thickness
This paper

The finite element method was used to

perform the needed calculations for

at the fracture

Is this containment

the stress intensi ty factor

As will be enumerated
2

in

later

sections,

/2332-

our

results partially support Warpinski's finding.

our

results

indicate that the in-situ stress containment effect

on a hydraulic fracture depends upon:

thickness
of

and

the

fracture

in-si tu stresses among

zone,

and

In addition,

the

zone

height;

the

above

(1) the ratio

(2)

and

(3)

zone

the rela ti ve magni tude

reservoir zone,

it;

of the

the

the high stress

relative

distance

between the fracture tip and the zone interface.

COMPUTATIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND PROCEDURE
Due to the geometrical complexity

of the problem, an

analytical approach using complex potential

proved

to

be

inconvenient.

The

finite

functions

element

therefore, chosen for analyzing this problem.

[3,4]

method

is,

In the forthcoming

analysis of the problem, the plane of the fracture was assumed to

be in a condition of plane strain.
magnitude
and

the

differences
width

of a

assumption appears

between the

In view of the order of

fracture length, the height,

hydraulically

induced

fracture,

to be an acceptable one except,

this

perhaps,

at

the very early stage of fracturing.

A

finite

element

code

TEXGAP

linearly elastic plane analysis,

intensity factor

with built-in

I/ff

the

fracture

singularity.

nature of singularity near

the

which

The code handles the

using a

singular

fracture in this

element

It is also well known that the

fr2ct'1re

tip changes as

approaches to the interface of layers or zones [4,5].

reason, the

performs

was used to evaluate the stress

at the fracture tips.

stress distribution near

[18),

analysis

the tip

For

this

was placed in a position

with its upper tip at a position a quarter of the total fracture

3

/2332--

length

(0.5L)

from

the

and our own analysis

stress

layer
[3]

Based on Erdogan

interface.

[4,5]

for a fracture at this position,

the

intensity factor at the fracture tip is significantly

affected

by

interface,
variation

the
but

of

approaches

material
it

keeps

stress

the

properties
its

both

square-root

intensity

interface

on

was

factor

stud ied

sides

of

singularity.

as

the

fracture

the
The
tip

in detai 1 by Erdogan [4].

It can be concluded that, based on his analysis, as the fracture

tip approaches

the

interface,

the

trend of stress

intenisty

factor variation remains essentially the same in spite of the

fact that the degree of singularity at the tip is no longer a
square-root singulari ty.

For

this

results should provide a clear

reason,

we believe that our

indication of how the stress

intensity factor at the fracture

tips

are affected by the

layers or the stressed zones above it.

A typical finite element grid used in the computation is
shown in Fig.1.
zone where

computation.
started

with

The zone shown inside the dotted lines was the

repea ted

re-zoning

Typically
a

size

the
of

process

element

near

0.25L x 0.25L ,

result was obtained when the element

0.03l25L x 0.03l25L.
must

be

procedure
various
forward.
medium,

kept

In the

stress

was adopted.
in-situ
This
the

free.

For

this

zones, the

shown

situation

TEXGAP code,

applied during

the

crack

and

tip

satisfactory

reduced to a
the

was

fracture

size

of

surface

reason, a superposition

In the case of a homogeneous medium with

stress
is

was

was

in
is

superposition

Fig.2A.
more

In

is

straight

the case of a layered

complicated.

In

order

to

/23sL

maintain

continuity at the layer interface, the condition:

I -

z),2

I - zJ.Z ~

E,
must be observed.

P2

z:

-2,

( I )

A case of multi-layer superposition is shown

in Fig.2B.

We further note here that, based on our numerical

experiment,

the effect of

finite

factor becomes very small

edges on the stress

intensity

10.5%) when the size of domain is

larger than llOL where 2L is the fracture length.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We

first

compute

the

stress

intensity

factors

of

fracture located near the interface of a two bonded half planes

as shown in Fig.2B.
factor

at

tips

Comparing with
KA

1.10495,
The

The
A

computed

and

normalized

are

KA

stress

1.10773;

that obtained \lith the analytical

KB =1.10101010,

the discrepancy is 2.65%.

variations

of

the

stress

intensity

intensity

method

[3, 4]

factor

of

fracture located in a homogeneous medium under the action of

three representative cases of in-situ stress conditions are shown
in Fig.3,

4,

and 5.

Figure 3 shows

stress

above

stress

intensity factor at

one unit.

the

tip A.

zone of high compressive

We first observe that the normalized

tip

has a value of approximately

The existence of a high stress zone above the fracture

decreases the stress intensity factor at tip Ai

te~d3

to migrate

at tip B is
case, is
above it.

downwards

larger than

contained from

that

because
at tip

the fracture thus

the stresS intensity factor

A. The

fracture,

in this

the upward motion by a high stress zone

The containing effect of

this

high stress

zone

to

/2332-

the

upward

movement of fracture, however, decreases as the zone

thickness decreases. As expected, when the zone thickness reduces

to zero,

the normalized stress intensity factor at tip A

becomes

in this

equal to that at tip B,

case,
of
A

tends

high

to

expand

stress

depends

not

i.e.,

KA

as

KB

circular

zone on the

stress

only upon its zone

magnitude, but

also

upon

The fracture,

1.

fracture.

intensity factor at tip

thickness

portrayed

in

Figure 4.

in-situ stress in the

units.

The

half

stress

above

intensity

In

high

function

fracture

its

stress

zone.

this figure,

stress zone is

This

the

effect

magnitude

taken to

be

of

three

variation of the stress intensity factor at tip A is

plotted as a
the

and

the relative magnitude of the in-situ

rock stress below and above this high stress

is

The effect

of

the ratio

height

of the

H/L, and the

zone thickness and

magnitude

of

in-situ

the zone. Figure 4 clearly shows that the stress

factor at tip A

stress,

and

stress

intensity

the

U-

small in comparison with the reservoir

the thickness

is thin in comparison with

of

above

zone

This implies that (when the in-situ rock stress above

in-si tu

stress

the

decreases.

zone is

rock

and

of

stress

in-situ

ratio H/L

magnitude

the high

the

increases as the

the

of this

fracture

factor at

tip

high

stress zone

height) the magnitude

A can

become

larger than

that at tip B;

and the fracture can thus move upward in spite of

a high stress

zone directly above it.

Figure 5 shows an extreme case of low in-situ stress zone

sandwiched between the reservoir zone and a moderate high stress
zone.
stress

It

is

interesting

intensity

factor

to
at

observe

that

tip A is again
6

the

magnitude

of

dependent upon the

ratio of the zone thickness

When

this

relative to the fracture height.

ratio is small, the

A is less than one;

stress

intensity

and the fracture can

factor at tip

not move upward in

spite of a low stress zone above it.

The
layers
Fig.6.

effect

of

relative moduli

to the magnitude of stress

It clearly shows that the

and

thickness between

intensity factor

the relative moduli between the

H/L

soft layer

directly

above

the

(i.e.,

shown

in

stress intensity factor at tip

A depends upon
ratio.

is

layers and the

layer with a lower

modulus)

fracture tends to make the stress intensity

factor at tip A higher than one unit; and- the fracture thus tends
to

move

by

upward.

gradual

This

upward

strength increases as

indicated

magnitude of stress

intensity

increasing of the

factor when the layer thickness increases.

can,
shows
hard
factor

however, be
that
zone

This upward

strength

suppressed by a hard zone above i t .

Figure 6

when the
above

at A less

the

H/L ratio
soft

is

small,

the existence

of

a.

layer can make the stress intensity

than one unit; and

thus

prevents the

upward

Figure 6 further shows that the stress intensity

factor

motion of the fracture.

at tip A decreases as the thickness of the above hard

increases.

A hard layer above the

fracture has,

containing

effect

motion of the fracture.

on the

upward

in

layer

general,

This

containing effect is, however, affected by a soft layer above it.

When the layer thickness is not large,

the

existence of a soft

layer above it can make the stress intensity factor at tip A

larger than one unit which nullifies the containing effect of the
hard layer.

This effect is clearly shown in Fig.6.

7

CONCLUSION
Our computational results indicate that the in-situ
stresses

are

hydraulically
situ

stresses

indeed

an

induced

fracture.

to

important

factor in

The

fracture,

containment

according

dependent upon the following four

the

to

factors:

rock

design of a

effect

of

analysis,

our

(1) the

inis

distribution

of in-situ stresses in the neighborhood of fracture ranging from

three to four

fracture height;

height to the

thickness

fracture;

(3)

of

(2)

the

the ratio of the fracture

stress

zone

adjacent

to

the

the relative magnitude of in-situ stresses between

the reservoir zone and in zones

adjacent to it ;

rela ti ve distance between the fracture

tip and

and

(4)

the

the boundary of

stress discontinuity.
The difference

in

layer

properties appears

to have

the

same containing effect on a fracture as the in-situ stresses.

However,

by comparing the magnitudes of stress intensity factors

resul ting from the difference in

in-si tu stresses

and

from

the

difference in layer properties, our results indicate that the insitu

stress

intensity

has a

factor

words, for a same

based on the
those

than

on

suggested

qualitative

on the magnitude of

stress

material properties. In other

ratio, the stress intensity factors calculated

in-situ stress differences have a larger value than

stresses,

influence

effect

the layer

calculated based on the

in-situ

as

greater

the

layer material

therefore, appear
movement of a

to

have

differences.
a

more dominant

hydraulically induced fracture

by Warpinski et al [1]. However, the

because

The

agreement is

the question of how the in-stresses and the

/233'2-

layer properties are relatec. remains unanswered.

a

simplified model that the in-situ

tectonic plate movement and the so

by the
the

layered

medium,

interfacial

then,

If one accepts

stress is caused by the

proc.ucec stress is supported

under a

plane strain condition,

displacement continuity

equation,

Eq.

(1),'

clearly shows that a harder layer will carry a higher in-situ

stress
More

depending
studies

relationship

are

upon

the

needed in

betweeen

the

moduli

ratio between the layers.

this area to
layer

stresses.

unravel the precise

properties

and

the in-situ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was conducted pursuant to an agreement between
the University of Texas at Austin and Exxon Production Research
Company.

The

guidance

given

by

Dr.

D.E.

Nierode

of

Exxon

Production Research Company is gratefully acknowledged.

10

)2332

REFERENCES

[1]

N.R.

Warpinski, R.A. Schmidt, and D.A. Northrop, "In Si-tu

Stresses:
The Predominant Influence on Hydraulic
F r act u r e
Con t a i n men t II ~ P E / DOE '"2.l~ ~ 0 E1:. e !y 0 !
Petroleum Engineers, 1982, pp.83-94.

[2]

C.H.

Yew
and P.
Loddle, "Propagation of a Hydraulically
Induced Fracture in Layered Medium." submi tted to SPE
for publication.

[3]

C.K.

Lu and C.H. Yew, "On Bonded Ha 1 f-planes Conta i n i ng Two

Arbitrarily Oriented Cracks: A Study of Containment of
the Hydraulically Induced
Fractures. 1I submitted to SPE
for publication.

[4]

F.Erodogan and v.Biricikoglu, IITwo Bonded Half Planes with a

Crack Going through the Interface. 1I International
Journal of Engineering Science, Vol.ll, 1973, pp.745766.

(5]

F. Erodogan and o. Aksogan,"Bonded Half Planes Containing An

Arbitrarily Oriented Crack.1I International Journal of
Solids and Structures, Vol.10, 1974, pp.569-585.

(6]

T.S. Cook and F. Erdogan, liS tresses in Bonded Materials with

a Crack Perpendicular to the Interface." International
Journal of Engineering Science, VOl.10, 1972, pp-677697.

[7]

N.

[8]

R. V.

Goldste in and V.M. Va inshelbaum, "Ax i symmetr ic Problem

of a Crack at the Interface of Layers in a Multi-layered
Medium." International Journal of Engineering Science,
Vol.14, No.4, 1976, pp.335-342.

[9]

A.A.

Daneshy, "Hydraul ic
Fracture Propag a t i on in Layered
Formation." Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
February 1978, pp.33-41.

[10]

A.A.

Daneshy, "Three-Dimensional Propagation of Hydraulic

Fractures Extending from Open Holes." Application of
Rock Mechanics, Proceedings of ASCE 15 th Symposi urn on
Rock Mechanics, ed. by Haskin, pp.157-179.

[11]

M.E, Hanson, G.D. Anderson, R.J. Shaffer, D.O. Emerson,

H. C. Heard, and B.C. Haimson, "Theoretical and
Experimental Research on Hydraulic Fracturing. 1I
Proceedings, Fourth Annual DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil
and Gas Recovery and Improved Drilling Method, Aug.
1978, Tulsa, OK.

Ashbaugh, "Stress
Solution for a Crack at an Arbitrary
Angle to an Interface." International Journal of
Fracture, Vol.ll, No.2, Apri1.-T97S;-p.205.- - - - - - -

11

[ 12 ] M.E. Hanson, R.L. Shaffer, amd G.D. Anderson, "Effects of

Var ious Parameters on Hydraul ic Fractur ing Geometry."
Society I of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Aug. 1981,
pp.435-443.
[13] H. Abe, T. Mura, and L.M. Keer, "Growth Rate of a PenneyShaped Crack in Hydraul ic Fractur i ng of Rocks." Journal
of Geophysical Research, Vol.81, No.29, Oct. 1976,
pp.5335-5340.
[14] E.R.

Simonson,
A.S. Shou-Sayes and
R.J. Clifton,
"Containment of Massive Hydraulic Fractures. " Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Feb. 1978, pp.27-32.

[15]

M.P.

Cleary, "Primary Factors Governing Hydraulic Fractures

in Heterogeneous Stratified Porous Formation." ASME
paper no. 78-Pet-4 7, Paper
presented
at
the
Energy
Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
1978.

[16]

D.T. Secor, Jr., and D.O. Pollard, "On the Stability of Open
Hydraulic Fractures in the Earth's Crust." Geophysical
Research Letters, Vol.2, No.ll, Nov. 1975, pp.510-5l3.

[17]

0 .0.

Poll ard, and O.H. Muller, "The Effect of Grad ients in

Regional Stress and Magma Pressure on the Form of Sheet
Intrusions in Cross-section." Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol.81, No.5, Feb. 1976, pp.975-984.

[18]

R.S.

Dunham, and E.B. Becker, "The Texas Grain Analysis

Program." TICOM Report 73-1, The University of Texas at
Austin, August 1973.

12

/'b332-

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Finite Element Grid
Figure 2. An Illustration of Superposition of Fluid Pressure and
In-situ Stress
Figure 3. The Effect of a High In-situ Stress Zone Above the
Fracture
Figure 4. The Effect of Relative In-situ Stresses Below and Above
the High Stress Zone
Figure 5. The Effect
Fracture

of

a Low In-situ Stress Zone Above the

Figure 6. The Effect of Layers

13

J 2332-

OL

,.

T
1

'- 2L

crack ~
eleme

"/"

rezone
region

Fi g.

Fini fe Element Grid.

40"

4cr -p

T
H

3cr

...L

3cr - p

O.5L
A

cr

2L

p-O"

(A) Superposition of pressure

with in - situ stress.
10--_

E'3 I - 71,2

......---

O.5L E

-r

2 P

E, I-V:;

E2 I_V,2

E2

<t
A

))

1---

EI

I-Vt

I
2L

(B)

Superposition of pressure
In layer medium.

Fig. 2

An illustration of superposition of
and in - situ stress.

fluid

pressure

} 2352....

C\I

p
0--0-

=6 p

A-(j

=4 P

x--(j

= 3p

*
H

(j

O.5L

2P~t

.. co

cr'

00

tU

L&..
>-~

1
-'
_0

en

LLJ

tZ

-q-

C\I

0.4

Fig.3

O.S

1.2

The effect of a high

the fracture.

1.6
H/L
in-situ

2.0

stress zone

2.4

above

/2 332--

2.8

v
N

C--(j

= .25p
= .5 p
= I p

X --Ci

0--0"'
b,--(j

0
N

,
H

1.5p

2p

2L

1
B

a:::
0 <D
le...>

3p

LL.

)0-

l- N .

en

rz
00

q-

o+-------~------~------~-------,-------,~----~

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.6

2.4

2.8

H/L

Fig.4

The effect of relative in- situ stresses below and

stress lone.
above the high

}2'3sZ

1.5p

A~

2p

!~L
8

-- .
(j

=0

a::

t-

o-

~o

LL....:

>-

ten
Z

1JJ(1)

~O

ex)

0.4
Fig. 5.

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

H/L
The effect of a low in- situ stress
the fracture.

2.4
zone

above

233'2..

2.8

E 3 t tT
t

-0

A lO.5 L

o --E 3 = EI
(t)

E ,1J

' E 2 =E,/20
6,-- E ::
E 1/ 2.0, E2 :: 2E,
'3
c--E = 2E,
' E 2= E,/20
3

~lL

Elt V'

a:;

t-

<tv

I.t..O

-)om

t-

en

Z
WC\I

""'0
z...;

(t)

m+-______~__----~------~------~----__~----__
0

0.4

0.8

1.2
H/L

Fig.6

The effect

of layers.

1.6

2.0

2.4