ARMA 08-321

Observations of Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and

Propagation in a Brittle Polymer
Wu, H., Golovin, E., Shulkin, Yu. and Chudnovsky, A.
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Dudley, J.W.
Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., Rijswijk, The Netherlands

Wong, G.K.
Shell Exploration and Production Company, Houston, Texas, USA
Copyright 2008, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at San Francisco 2008, the 42
July 2, 2008.

nd

US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2

nd

U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in San Francisco, June 29-

This paper was selected for presentation by an ARMA Technical Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers,
or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

ABSTRACT: This paper summarizes a series of hydraulic fracture tests done to observe fracture initiation and growth in a variety
of multiple-perforation and well orientations. A transparent brittle-elastic polymeric material is used to allow visual monitoring of
the entire initiation and fracture growth process using a variety of fluids and injection rates. Several general observations from the
roughly 40 constant injection rate tests can be made: Breakdown Pressure: only weakly increases with injection rate (~doubles for
rate increase by factor 30-90); Perforation Initiation Sites: fractures tend to initiate from few perforations at low rate with water,
while fractures initiate and grow from almost all perforations at high rate and with high viscosity fluids; Initial Fracture
Orientation: far-field stresses have little influence on the of the initial fractures at the perforations; Final Fracture Orientation:
primarily determined by the far-field minimum in-situ stress; Transition to the Final Orientation: alignment to preferred final
orientation occurs quicker at high injection rate. More significantly, the general pressure behavior of these tests is different from
the breakdown and monotonic pressure decay with growth typically assumed and modeled. The generic behavior observed in these
tests shows a sharp pressure peak with rapid decay following fracture initiation and initial growth, then a roughly steady pressure
plateau with further fracture growth. Such pressure plateau behavior has also been observed in other hydraulic fracture tests on
rocks and some field data as well, and is incompatible with typical Griffith-type fracture growth assuming zero or constant fracture
toughness, but can be characterized by an increasing fracture toughness with size. Such increasing fracture toughness with fracture
size is typically observed in many engineering materials (so called R-curve behavior), and is associated with the growth of a
process zone (damaged or plastic deformation zone) with fracture propagation. Such increasing fracture toughness with fracture
size has also been observed by the authors in concrete.

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes a series of hydraulic fracture
tests done to observe fracture initiation and growth in a
variety of simple geometries representative of possible
field conditions. The objective of these tests is to directly
examine the initiation and growth of fractures from a
variety of perforation geometries and injection rates, and
also containment at stress or stiffness contrasts. The
work was motivated following an unpublished literature
review of available information on fracture initiation. In
particular, while there is available experimental data on
fracture initiation in a variety of materials (e.g. see [1],
[2], [3], [4]), almost none of the data are on transparent
material allowing direct detailed visualization of the
initiation and early growth (a notable exception is ref
[5]). By using a transparent brittle elastic polymer, the
tests presented here can provide such observations.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DESCRIPTION

This equipment is designed to provide true-triaxial
stress control on a sample, controlled fluid injection
rate, and continuous visual monitoring of hydraulic
fracture growth from a vertical or inclined wellbore.
Figure 1 is a labeled photograph of the entire
experimental setup. Figure 2 is a close up of the cell
showing the pressure application directions pX, pY and
pZ, and the corresponding viewing directions for the
video cameras (seen in Figure 1) used to visually
record the growth of the hydraulic fractures. Internal
dimensions of the cell are 196 mm wide (X-direction)
by 95-mm deep (Y-direction) by 190-mm tall (Zdirection). Confining pressure is applied to the
specimen through rubber bladders inflated with
compressed air. During a test the air pressure in the
bladders is monitored with digital pressure sensors.

Fig. 1. Photograph of experimental setup for the hydraulic

fracture tests.

the gel concentration, specified as a weight percent.

Using larger amounts of gelatin creates stiffer
specimens. The homogeneous specimens are prepared in
the cell with the wellbore in place. The liquid gelatin
(8% by weight) is dissolved in 80 C water and then
poured into the cell, with the front face down (V1 face in
Figure 2) and the back (face with pY bladder) off. The
entire cell is then placed in a refrigerator and the
specimen is cured at about 0 C overnight, or about 16
hours. The layered specimens are prepared in a mold that
also holds the wellbore. The first layer is prepared and
cured in the refrigerator at least three hours, then the
second layer is added and cured for an additional three
hours. After the final layer is added the full specimen is
then cured overnight at 0 C.

2.2. Wellbore Perforation Geometry and

Preparation
The wellbore itself is an aluminum tube, 13 mm (0.5
inch) diameter OD, and 1.6 mm (1/16th inch) wall
thickness. The pY layered stress or vertical stiffness
layered tests use a vertical wellbore with only two
perforations, one each in the +/- X-direction at the
middle of the specimen. For the extended perforation
tests two different wellbore orientations and two
different perforation geometries are investigated. The
wellbore is either vertical (along the Z-direction) or at a
45-degree deviation (in XZ-plane). A thin layer of fabric
is glued to the outside of the tubing to provide a strong
adhesion surface for the gelatin. Perforations are made
through 1.6 mm holes drilled in the tubing. Extended
perforation geometries tested are:

Fig. 2. Photograph of the 3D confinement cell containing a

specimen with an imbedded vertical wellbore. Confining
pressures applied by rubber bladders in directions pX, pY and
pZ as indicated. Video camera recording directions V1, V2 and
V3 also indicated.

Normally the bladder pressure remains stable to within a

few percent during the injection cycle (up to the point
when the fracture reaches the outer boundary of the
specimen). The fracturing fluid injection is controlled
by a precision dual-syringe pump at rates from 1 to 90
cc/min. Tests reported here are done with two fracturing
fluids (water and glycerin) injected into a perforated
aluminum tubing wellbore. Further details of the
specimen preparation, wellbore geometry, fracturing
fluids and test protocol are given in the following
sections.

2.1. Specimen Preparation

The material used in these tests is edible-grade gelatin,
type A. It is an elastic, impermeable, brittle, polymeric
material that can be made with a specific stiffness value
in the range ~10-100 psi. The stiffness is determined by

Linear:
Diameter: 1.6 mm (1/16th inch)
Depth (length of lab-made dental-type pick tool): 3
mm (0.12 in.)
Density: 0.34 perforations/mm (18 perforations in 50
mm segment, which is a scaled equivalent to 8
shots/foot in 6-inch diameter casing)
Orientation: For most tests the perforations face in
the +X direction (i.e., pointing toward the V2
recording direction). A few tests were done with the
perforations at angles of 45, 90, 135 and 180 degrees
to the +X direction.
Spiral:
Diameter, depth and density same as those for the
linear perforations.
Phasing angle: 45 degrees
Orientation: Bottom perforation facing in the X
direction (i.e., to the right side of test chamber).
Following the curing of the sample a dental-type pick is
used to create the perforations through the tape into the
specimen. Figure 3 shows the perforation patterns
approximately at fracture initiation for two of the tests

one with a linear perforation pattern, and one with a

spiral perforation pattern.

V1

V2

V1

V2

4. Close the air outlet valve.

5. Start video recording equipment.
6. Start injection at the specified rate and continue until
fracture reaches specimen boundary.
7. Stop injection and release confining pressures.
8. Stop video and digital recording equipment.
9. Disassemble the test chamber.

11150501

Linear

11290501

Spiral

Fig. 3. Photograph of the perforation patterns on vertical

wellbores. V1 and V2 indicate the viewing direction, and the
number corresponds to the test ID.

10. Photograph any key fracture features of the post-test

specimen.
A summary of the reported tests and their operating
parameters is given in the following section that
discusses the test results.

3. TEST RESULTS

The typical stress configuration is arranged so that the

preferred fracture growth plane is the X-Z plane:
Maximum principal stress: Z-direction, ~7 psi
Intermediate principal stress: X-direction, ~6 psi
Minimum principal stress: Y-direction, ~5 psi
These pressures are relatively large (>10%) compared to
the stiffness of the polymeric material, which has
Youngs modulus in the range 30-60 psi, and provide
sufficient stress contrast to provide roughly vertical
fracture growth in the X-Z plane.
Tests were done with two fracturing fluids of varying
viscosity (at 5 C): dyed water (~1.5 cP), dyed glycerin
(~7,000 cP). Tests were done at four different injection
rates: 1, 10, ~30, and 87.5 cc/min. The high viscosity
glycerin could not be delivered any faster than ~30
cc/min due to insufficient power in the injection pump.
The typical test protocol is as follows:
1. Synchronize digital data acquisition system and video
recording equipment clocks, and begin pressure/rate data
acquisition.

3.1. General Observations

These tests show complex fracture systems growing
from the extended perforation sections, but the most
interesting observation is that the majority (>80%)
showed a generic pressure behavior illustrated in Figure
4. Pressure increases rapidly until fracture initiation
(Point A), then decreases rapidly to Point B, and then
roughly stabilizes for the remainder of the injection
cycle (Points B-C-D). This pressure plateau is roughly
constant, but can have a slight decline (shown here),
increase, or combination thereof.
5

10

Water - 10cc/min
Inclined Spiral
Test ID: 01240601

6
B

2
Pinj

2. Apply uniformly initial pressures pX, pY and pZ to the

specimen.

Inj.Rate

0
250

Inj. Rate (cc/min) .

An initial set of ~18 tests was done under pressure

control to verify test feasibility and optimize the
specimen preparation and test protocols. These tests are
not documented here. This paper contains the results of
the subsequent optimized tests done under constant
injection rate conditions.

A summary of the tests with extended perforation

patterns is given in Table 1. This table identifies the test
ID and parameters, and also the observed stresses and
net pressure (Pnet= Pinj Pmin) at breakdown. Some
general observations about the tests are presented first,
then the behavior with respect to rate and perforation
pattern are presented. This is followed by the
observations in stress and stiffness layered systems.

Net Pressure (psi)

2.3. Stress Conditions, Fracture Fluids and Test

Protocol

0
300

350

400

450

Elapsed tim e (sec)

3. Inject the chosen fracturing fluid at very slow rate to

completely fill the wellbore through the air outlet valve
on the top of the cell.

Fig. 4. Generic pressure behavior observed during tests. A, B,

C, D mark points discussed in text.

Table 1. Extended perforation tests summary. Tests of similar shading have similar injection rate and well/perforation geometry.
Well
Orientation

Perf
Pattern

10200501
10310501
11030501
11090501
11110501
11150501
11170501
11220501
11290501
12010501
12060501
01060601
01100601
01120601
01130601
01180601
01190601
01200601
01240601
02020601
02070601
02090601
02140601

Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Inclined 45
Vertical
Inclined 45
Vertical
Inclined 45
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical

linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
linear
spiral
spiral
spiral
linear
linear
linear
linear
spiral
linear
spiral
linear
spiral
spiral
spiral
spiral
spiral

Fracturing Fluid
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed water
Dyed glycerin
Dyed glycerin
Dyed glycerin
Dyed glycerin

This pressure behavior is different from that predicted

using classical hydraulic fracture theory [6] under
constant injection rate in a zero or constant fracture
toughness material in a homogeneous medium. In that
case a monotonically decreasing pressure is expected,
with the net pressure proportional to the inverse cube
root of time (i.e., Pnet t-1/3). To explicitly check for this
behavior, fits to the log(Pnet) versus log(tinj) between
Points A and B (example given in Figure 5) were done.
The results are given in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure
6. Although two tests (ID 11170501 and 02070601)
have the predicted inverse cube root for the initial
propagation exponent, it is clear that the propagation
exponent observed widely varies, and does not appear to
be related to the rate, fluid or perforation geometry, and
is always less than or equal to 1/3 in magnitude.

Pz
9.0
9.5
11.0
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
6.7
7.0
0.0
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.0
6.7
7.1
7.2
0.0
6.8
6.8
7.1

Stresses (psi) @ Breakdown

Stress
Stress
Px
Py
Contrast Contrast
X-Y
Z-Y
8.0
7.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.5
6.5
-1.0
10.4
9.0
1.4
2.0
6.3
5.0
1.3
2.4
6.0
5.5
0.5
2.0
6.1
5.0
1.1
2.3
6.1
4.8
1.3
2.5
6.1
5.1
1.0
2.0
5.7
4.3
1.4
2.4
6.1
4.8
1.3
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
4.8
1.6
2.8
6.5
5.3
1.2
2.2
6.2
4.6
1.6
2.7
6.4
4.9
1.5
2.5
6.0
4.8
1.2
2.2
5.6
4.9
0.7
1.8
5.9
3.6
2.3
3.5
6.3
4.9
1.4
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
5.0
0.9
1.8
6.1
4.7
1.4
2.1
6.2
4.6
1.6
2.5

Pnet
2.7
4.4
5.2
4.8
2.8
5.2
3.5
3.7
3.1
3.6
3.2
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.2
7.4
3.0
6.2
4.7
4.9
6.9
2.5
6.1

Initial Post-Breakdown Pressure Decline Exponent

Perf. Configuration: s = spiral; si = spiral inclined; others linear

water
ss

gly.
si

si

si s

-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3

1 cc/min
10-11 cc/min
30 cc/min
87.5 cc/min

-1/3

-0.35
Test Sequence #

Fig. 6. Initial net pressure propagation exponents for the

extended perforation tests. No clear relationship exists
between the decline exponent and rate, fluid type or geometry.

3.2. Breakdown Net Pressure Variations

10
Water - 10cc/min
Inclined Spiral
Test ID: 01240601

Net Pressure (psi)

Initial
Propagation
Exponent
-0.241
-0.170
--0.032
-0.212
-0.206
-0.330
-0.066
-0.187
-0.167
-0.132
-0.239
-0.265
-0.047
-0.070
-0.014
-0.129
-0.235
-0.146
-0.197
-0.332
--0.161

Initial Pressure Prop. Exponent

Test ID

Injection
Lowest Perf
Rate
Orientation
(cc/min)
0
1
0
1
0
87.5
0
87.5
0
1
0
87.5
0
10
0
87.5
0
1
0
10
180
87.5
0
87.5
45
87.5
90
87.5
0
87.5
135
87.5
0
1
180
87.5
0
10
0
11
0
30
0
1
0
10

Decline Fit: y = 3.80x

-0.146

Data

1
1.00

10.00

100.00

Time After Breakdown (sec)

Fig. 5. Example plot illustrating the initial pressure decline
exponent determination.

Overall there is only a weak dependence of the

breakdown pressure on injection rate, with the
breakdown pressure increasing roughly a factor of 2-3
for an increase in injection rate of a factor 30-90. Figure
7 is a summary plot of the net pressure at breakdown
versus injection rate for all the tests. The spiral-glycerin
tests show a clear increasing trend (but without duplicate
tests to assess scatter). The linear perforation/water fluid
tests show there is significant scatter in these data, even
excluding tests at zero confining stresses. The scatter
may be related to non-uniform and/or repeatable stresses
near the wellbore. These may be associated with residual
stresses from the curing process, variable adhesion
properties between the wellbore fabric and polymer, or
some other cause.

3.4. Fracture Containment in Layered Systems

Pnet at Breakdown (psi)

8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
Vert-spiral-gly.
Vert.-spiral-water

1.0

Vert.-linear-water
Incl.-spiral-water

Test at Zero Pxyz

0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Injection Rate (cc/min)

Fig. 7. Summary plot of breakdown pressure versus injection
rate. Tests are grouped by wellbore inclination-perforation
geometry-fluid

Within this scatter, no further conclusions are warranted

with respect to net breakdown pressure dependence on
wellbore deviation, perforation geometry or injection
fluid.

3.3. Fracture Initiation and Growth Behavior

Figure 8 is an example of bi-wing fracture growth from
two perforations. The growth rate of the equivalent area
circle fracture is plotted with the pressure and injection
rate data. This test is explicitly simulated in a companion
paper [7]. In the extended perforation tests the injection
rate does have an impact on the number of perforations
from which fractures initiate. At low water injection rate
only a few perforations tend to initiate fractures, while at
high rates virtually all the perforations initiate with a
fracture. For spiral perforation geometry extended
growth is generally limited to those initial fractures
favorably oriented relative to the minimum in-situ stress.
For the linear geometry most of the initiated fractures
continue to grow throughout the injection. Figures 9 to
11 show the fracture growth patterns for spiral
perforation geometry, dyed-water injection tests at rates
of 1, 10 and 87.5 cc/min, respectively. Figures 12 to 14
show the same but for the linear perforation geometry.
For the higher viscosity glycerin, however, most
perforations tended to grow fractures even at low rates.
The initial fracture orientations are not generally in the
preferred direction perpendicular to the far-field
minimum in-situ stress. This is evident in the above
figures, and can be seen best in the deviated wellbore
tests, such as the one shown in Figure 15. The initial
fracture orientation is probably dictated by details of the
perforation geometry, and differences between the local
near-wellbore stresses and those in the far-field.

Several tests were done to observe fracture growth

containment behavior at contrasts in stiffness or stress
between layers. For stiffness contrast, specimens with a
soft central layer bounded by two stiffer layers are
tested. The central layer is made from a 7% gelatin
solution, with stiffer bounding layers made from 10%,
12% or 14% gelatin solution. For stress contrast, two
spacer plates of 6 mm thick foam-core poster board are
inserted next to the top and bottom third of a
homogeneous specimen. A 1 mm thick aluminum plate
is placed between the bladder and foam boards to
confine the bladder and enable the desired stress contrast
of several psi between the center and top and bottom
zones of the specimen. This plate is also used in the
stiffness-contrast specimens for similar reasons.

3.4.1. Containment at a Stiffness Contrast

The tests on stiffness-layered specimens showed full
containment for bounding layers of 14% gelatin. The
contained fracture usually halted within a millimeter or
two of the interface, but in several cases curved to
almost parallel to interface before halting. This crack
kinking behavior has been reported previously by the
authors [8]. For bounding layers made with less than
14% gelatin some part of the fracture propagated into
the bounding layer, either directly or with a small kink.
Figure 16 shows the progress of fracture growth in a
specimen made with top, middle, bottom gelatin
concentrations of 12%, 7%, 14%, respectively. The
fracture remains contained through most of the
propagation, only penetrating the right-hand side of the
upper 12% layer near the end of the injection.
Similar to the observations from the extended
perforation zone tests, we generally see fracture growth
from both perforations at higher water injection rates
(10 cc/min or greater), but usually only growth from one
perforation at low rates (1 cc/min).

3.4.2. Containment at a Stress Contrast

The stress-layered tests (in a homogeneous medium)
showed very limited growth into the upper layer, but
more extensive into the lower layer. The stress analysis
for this situation is derived in Appendix 5. Figure 17
shows the progress of fracture growth for a
homogeneous specimen and 2 cc/min water injection
rate. The estimated 3.2 psi stress barrier effectively
prevents the fracture from extending upward, but it does
grow down partially into the bottom higher-stress zone
on the right side. This could be due to a lower stress
contrast or more gradual stress transition between the
middle and bottom stress zones than that between the
middle and upper zones. This may arise from frictional
effects since this position is furthest from the X and Z
pressure bladders located on the right and top,
respectively.

Experimental Data
Simulation, increasing toughness
Simulation, constant toughness

Equivalent
area
fracture
radius

Experimental Data
Simulation, increasing toughness
Simulation, constant toughness

Fracture half
length

HF Growth in polymeric material

Fig. 8. Bi-wing fracture growth from two perforations, test ID 06060601 (note ID not in Table 1). Injection pressure and rate
versus time shown in lower left graph, and radius of circle with equivalent area to fracture is shown in upper left graph. Simulation
curves from companion paper show consistent fit with an increasing toughness model, but not with a constant toughness model
[7].

c: v 1 ,v 2

d : v 1 ,v 2

b : v 1 ,v 2

e: v 1

a: v 1 ,v 2

pnet (psig)

1112950501
1290501

a
2

0
13:50:53

e: v 2
c
d

13:58:05
14:05:17
14:12:29
T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

14:19:41

Fig. 9. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 11290501, dyed water injection at 1 cc/min.
Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

c: v 1 ,v2

d: v1 ,v 2

b : v 1 ,v 2

e: v1

a: v1 ,v 2

pnet (psig)

12010501

a
b

0
14:28:36

14:29:37

e: v 2

14:30:37 14:31:38 14:32:38

T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

14:33:39

Fig. 10. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 12010501, dyed water injection at 10
cc/min. Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

c: v 1 ,v 2

d : v 1 ,v 2

b : v 1 ,v 2

e: v 1

a: v 1 ,v 2

pnet (psig)

11220501

ab

e: v 2
c

0
14:29:20

14:29:37
14:29:54
14:30:12
T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

14:30:29

Fig. 11. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 11220501, dyed water injection at 87.5
cc/min. Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

c: v 1,v 2

d: v 1 ,v 2
e: v1

b : v 1,v 2

pnet (psig)

a: v1 ,v 2

11110501

e: v 2
a
b

0
13:03:22

13:10:34

13:17:46 13:24:58 13:32:10

T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

13:39:22

Fig. 12. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 11110501, dyed water injection at 1 cc/min.
Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

b : v 1 ,v 2

c: v 1 ,v 2

11170501

d : v 1 ,v 2
pnet (psig)

a: v 1 ,v 2
4

a
b
d

0
13:18:29

13:20:30
13:22:31
13:24:32
T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

13:26:33

Fig. 13. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 11170501, dyed water injection at 10
cc/min. Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

c: v1 ,v2

d : v 1 ,v 2

b : v 1,v2

e: v1

11150501

pnet (psig)

a
b

a: v 1 ,v 2

e: v 2

c
d

0
14:20:53 14:21:11 14:21:28 14:21:45 14:22:02 14:22:20
T es t tim e (hh:m m :s s )

Fig. 14. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 11150501, dyed water injection at 87.5
cc/min. Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

a: v1

v2

b: v1

Net pressure (psig)

c: v1

v2

Water
87.5cc/min
Inclined
Spiral
01130601

pnet(= pf - sc,3)
b

v2

d: v1

v2

0
0

15

30
45
Time (s )

60

Fig. 15. Net pressure versus time and fracture initiation and growth pattern for test ID 01130601, dyed water injection at 87.5
cc/min. Views v1 and v2 are along the minimum and intermediate stress directions, respectively.

Net Pressure (psi)

6
4
Water - 10cc/min
Stiffness layered:
t:m:b - 12%:7%:14%
Test ID: 021408_2

0
50

100

150
200
Elapsed Time (sec)

250

300

Fig. 16. Net pressure versus time and fracture growth pattern for stiffness-layered specimen, test ID 021408_2, dyed water
injection at 10 cc/min. View is along V1 (minimum stress) direction. Note limited breakthrough (on right only) into top layer
between photos C and D. Note, test ID is not in Table 1.

yt=5.8 psi

ym=2.6 psi
b

yb=5.8 psi

C
Net Pressure (psi)

D
Water - 2 cc/min
Y-stress layered
Test ID: 020808

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Elapsed Time (sec)

Fig. 17. Estimated net pressure versus time and fracture growth pattern for Y-stress layered test (ID 020808), dyed water injection
at 2 cc/min. View is along V1 (minimum stress) direction. Note visible penetration (furthest on right side) into bottom layer in
photos C and D. Note, test ID is not in Table 1, and y stress derivation given in appendix.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The fractures observed in the extended perforations are
significantly more complex than would typically be
modeled. More over, these fractures and even the simple
bi-wing fractures show a general pressure behavior
different from the breakdown and monotonic pressure
decay with growth that is typically assumed and
modeled. The generic behavior observed in these tests
shows a sharp pressure peak with rapid decay following
fracture initiation and initial growth, then a roughly
steady pressure plateau with further fracture growth.
This plateau behavior has also been observed in other
hydraulic fracture tests ([3], [4]) and field data as well
[9]. It is incompatible with typical Griffith-type fracture
growth assuming zero or constant fracture toughness, but
can be characterized by increasing fracture toughness
with size. Such increasing fracture toughness with
fracture size is typically observed in many engineering
materials (so called R-curve behavior), and can be
associated with the growth of a process zone (damaged
or plastic deformation zone) with fracture propagation.
Such increasing fracture toughness with fracture size has
also been observed in concrete [10].
It may well be possible to model these fractures with a
constant toughness by using different assumptions, such
as multiple propagating fractures and/or non-Poiseuille
flow conditions. The former is generally not done in
practice as we usually have no data to determine the
appropriate number and size and geometry of the
multiple fractures. The latter requires altering the basic
hydraulic fracture governing equations to account for
frictional flow, which is also a complexity with typically
unknown properties. By modeling these fractures with a
variable toughness (a physical effect well known in
many materials), we can retain the simplicity of a single
fracture and lubrication theory and successfully match
the observed pressure behavior. This theoretical model
for predicting hydraulic fracture pressure behavior such
as that observed in these tests is presented in a
companion paper [7].
Specific observations from the tests results can be
summarized as follows:
Breakdown Pressure: only weakly increases with
injection rate (pressure ~doubles for rate increase by
factor 30-90);
Perforation Initiation: higher injection rates and higher
fluid viscosity lead to fracture growth at almost all
perforations;
Initial Fracture Orientation: far-field stresses have little
influence on the orientation of the initial fractures at the
perforations;

Final Fracture Orientation: primarily determined by the

far-field minimum in-situ stress;
Transition to the Final Orientation: alignment to
preferred final orientation occurs faster at high injection
rate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Shell companies for
permission to publish, and Rob Jeffrey and Alexei
Savitski for constructive review of the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Hubbert, M.K., and D.G. Willis (1957) Mechanics of
hydraulic fracturing, Transactions of AIME, 210, 153166.
[2] Haimson, B., and C. Fairhurst, (1969) Hydraulic
fracturing in porous-permeable materials, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 811-817.
[3] Dudley, J.W., J. Shlyapobersky, A. Chudnovsky and S.
Glaser (1997) Laboratory Investigation of Fracture
Processes in Hydraulic Fracturing, Annual Report, Gas
Research Institute Report GRI-97/0300, Shell E&P
Technology Co., Houston, November.
[4] C.J. de Pater, B. Bohloli, J. Pruiksma and A. Bezuijen
(2003) Experimental study of hydraulic fracturing in
sand, In Proceedings of 39th US Rock Mechanics
Symposium, Cambridge, MA, 22-26 June.
[5] Bunger, A.P., E. Detournay and R.G. Jeffrey (2005)
Crack tip behavior in near-surface fluid-driven fracture,
C.R. Mecanique, 333, pp.299-301.
[6] See, for example, M. Economides, "Unified Fracture
Design," 2002 ORSA Press, page 55, Table 4-4, which
shows the well bore pressure for a radial fracture is
proportional to the pump time raised to a power of
minus one-third.
[7] Chudnovsky, A., F. Fan, Yu. Shulkin, H. Zhang, J.W.
Dudley and G.K. Wong (2008), Hydraulic Fracturing
Revisited, In Proceedings of the 42nd US Rock
Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 29 June
2 July.
[8] Wu, H., A. Chudnovsky, J.W. Dudley and G.K. Wong
(2004), A Map of Fracture Behavior in the Vicinity of
an Interface, In Proceedings of the 6th North American
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Houston, TX, 5-9 June.
[9] Shlyapobersky, J., W.W. Walhaug,, R.E. Sheffield and
P.T. Huckabee (1988) Field Determination of
Fracturing Parameters for Overpressure Calibrated
Design of Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE 18195, 63rd SPE
Annual Technical Conference, Houston, 2-5 October.

[10] Shlyapobersky, J., M.A. Issa, M.A. Issa, M.S. Islam,

J.W. Dudley, Y. Shulkin and A. Chudnovsky (1998),
Scale Effects on Fracture Growth Resistance in
Poroelastic Materials, SPE 48929, Proceedings of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, LA, 27-30 September.

APPENDIX - STRESS ANALYSIS FOR STRESSLAYERED LOADING

This appendix provides an analysis of the stress in a
uniform sample that is loaded non-uniformly by
inserting relatively thin spacers between the specimen
and the loading plate, behind which is the pressurized
bladder. Fig. A.1 shows the loading arrangement. Note
that for the analysis below x is the non-uniform
loading direction, y is the direction perpendicular to this
and parallel to the layering, and z is the direction
perpendicular to the layering (thus the x and y directions
are swapped relative to the definitions in the test
described in section 2).
For the displacements conditions where there is
sufficient pressure p to fully contact the central specimen
layer with the loading plate we have the compatibility
equations:
h2

From (A.2) and (A.3) it follows

x(1) =

(A.4b)

x( 2) =

E
( x + y + ) ,
1 2

(A.5a)

y( 2) =

E
( y + x + )
1 2

(A.5b)

According to (A.4) and (A.5),

x( 2) = x(1) +

1 2

(A.6a)

y( 2) = y(1) +

1 2

(A.6b)

The force equilibrium condition requires

h1 x(1) + 2h2 x( 2) = (h1 + 2h2 ) p x

(A.7)

h1 y(1) + 2h2 y( 2 ) = (h1 + 2h2 ) p y

(A.8)

x(1) = p x

h2

Fig. A1. Schematic geometry in the non-uniform loading

direction. For this analysis x is the horizontal direction, y is
out of the page and z is the vertical direction.

x(1) = x( 2) = x , y(1) = y( 2) = y

= d / l

1
y = ( y( 2 ) x( 2) )
E

From (A.9) we can determine the condition on px to

insure contact and a positive compressive stress in the
loading direction in the central layer (i.e., x(1) > 0 ):

px >

2h2
E

2
1 v h1 + 2h2

y(1) = p y

1 (1)
1
( x y(1) ), y = ( y(1) x(1) ) (A.2)
E
E
1 ( 2)
( x y( 2 ) )
E

(A.9)

(A.10)

With (A.6.2) equation (A.8) yields

is given.

x + =

2h2
E

,
2
1 v h1 + 2h2

h1
E
= px +

2
1 v h1 + 2h2

( 2)
x

(A.1)

For this homogeneous material Hooks law is written as:

x =

E
( y + x )
1 2

y(1) =

(A.4a)

Combining (A.6a) and (A.7) yields

h1

where

E
( x + y ) ,
1 2

( 2)
y

E
2h2

2
1 v h1 + 2h2

E
h1
= py +

2
1 v h1 + 2h2

(A.11)

From (A.11) we can determine the condition on py to

insure positive compression in the y direction, y(1) > 0 :

(A.3a)

py >
(A.3b)

E
2h2

2
1 v h1 + 2h2

(A.12)

Finally, since this is a homogeneous material:

z(1) = z(2) = p z

(A.13)

In the stress contrast experiment described in section

3.4.2 we have the following parameters (in the
coordinate system used in this appendix):

h1 = 40 mm, h2 = 65 mm,
= d / l = 0.071, E /(1 2 ) = 45 psi,
p x = 5 psi, p y = 6 psi, p z = 7 psi
where the plane-strain modulus of 45 psi is the value
required to simulate the fracture growth shown in Figure
8. Substituting these data into (A.9) and (A.11), we
obtain

x(1) = 5

45 2 65 0.071
= 5 2.44 = 2.56 psi
4 + 2 65

x( 2) = 5 +

45 40 0.071
= 5 + 0.75 = 5.75 psi
4 + 2 65

y(1) = 6 0.5 2.44 = 4.78 psi

y( 2) = 6 + 0.5 0.75 = 6.38 psi
We also verify the px and py values of 5 and 6 psi,
respectively, satisfy the compression condition equations
A.10 and A.12:

p x > 45

2 65
0.071 = 2.44 psi
4 + 2 65

p y > 45 0.5

2 65
0.071 = 1.22 psi
4 + 2 65