See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266144578

Hydraulic Fracturing in Transverse Isotropic

Media - A Theoretical Framework
Conference Paper September 2014
DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.20141885

READS

84

1 author:
Jean-Jacques Royer
University of Lorraine
102 PUBLICATIONS 610 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Jean-Jacques Royer

Retrieved on: 18 May 2016

Hydraulic Fracturing in Transverse Isotropic

Media - A Theoretical Framework
J.J. Royer,

Predicting fractures in rocks is one of the most important issues in reservoir engineering for enhancing oil and gas
production from low permeable reservoirs and unconventional formations. This work discusses a theoretical
framework for predicting fractures through time and space during a stimulation hydraulic fracturing test in
anisotropic medium. Special attention focuses on transverse isotropic medium. It applies the poroelastic theory
coupled to the Mohr-Coulomb and Griffith failure theory for predicting the fractures orientation against distance
from the injection well. A dimensionless failure criterion written in matrix form including principal stresses tensor
and elastic rock properties is proposed. It includes the Mohr-Coulomb, Griffith, fractures reactivation and hydraulic
fracturing. This formulation is used together with a generalized Hubbert - Willis formula to estimate the critical
fracking pressure to be applied at the well head. Analytical expressions are given to predict the propagation of the
fracking front through time and space apart from the stimulation well. This formulation, implemented in the Gocad
geomodeler workflow, is applied on a synthetic reservoir case-study to illustrate the concept and discuss the
advantages and limitations of the suggested approach.
Keywords: Hydro-fracturing, stimulation, failures, geothermal sites, gas shale, unconventional reservoirs.

Introduction
Predicting and characterizing fractures in rocks is one of the most important and difficult
geomechanical problems in reservoir engineering, and more generally in structural geology. However,
mastering fracturing is of paramount importance for enhancing oil and gas production from reservoirs
with low permeability but also for releasing gas in shales gas, tight gas, and coal bed methane
formations. Within the past decades, hydraulic fracturing (HF) (or fracking) combined with horizontal
drilling is a widely used technology to stimulate oil and natural gas production (Hu and Garagash,
2010). Hydraulic fracturing can be defined as the process by which fractures open and propagate in a
continuous medium due to hydraulic loading applied by high overpressurized fluids injected into the
target zones (Adachi et al., 2007). Acid flush is eventually performed before the hydraulic-fracturing
treatment to enhance fluid penetration in the surrounding rock and make hydrofracking more efficient
(Molenaar et al., 2012). Proppants (e.g., usually resin-coated sand, bauxite or high-strength ceramic
beads), are eventually added as part of the frac fluid mixture to hold open the fractures.
Environmental debates regarding pollution of drinking water and the use of large quantity of water
needed when applying hydraulic fracturing for gas recovery, have recently raised suspicion in the
public on this technology used rationally and efficiently in the petroleum industry since the early
fifties. Other applications of hydraulic fracturing include stimulation of geothermal reservoir for better
heat production (Fu et al., 2011), enhancing underground water production in low permeable aquifers
(Brenner and Gudmundsson, 2002), fault reactivation in mining (Adachi et al., 2007), and the
measurement of in situ stresses (Sibson, 2004). Hydraulic fracturing may occur naturally in geological
formations when the confined pore pressure exceeds the minimum principal in-situ stress. Magmadriven dykes, hydrothermal Au-quartz veins (Sibson, 2004), poly-metallic mineralized veins or
Kupferschiefer deposits (Jowett, 1992) can be considered as natural examples. This mechanism is also
evoked to explain migration of oil and gas from mother rock to reservoirs during tectonic inversion
(Cosgrove, 2001).
This work describes a theoretical framework for estimating fracture occurrences and orientations of a
reservoir submitted to induced hydraulic fracturing. It is extended to anisotropic media (more
specifically to transverse isotropic materials). The method is valid at large spatial scale (of the order
of hundreds of meters)
Rock Failure Theory in a Nutshell
Concepts related to failure and hydraulic fracturing are extensively discussed in geomechanics
textbooks and structural papers (Sdov (1973), Cosgrove (2001), Ramsey and Chester (2004)). They
are briefly summarized in the followings. The Mohr Coulomb diagram relates the shear stress, , to
the effective normal stress n; it is the most common failure criterion encountered in civil engineering.
It is well adapted to characterize the four classical modes of brittle failures of an intact isotropic rock
submitted to fluid-pressure including (Figure 1a) (Mavko et al. (1998); Mac et al. (2005)): (i) the
compressive shear fractures (n 0 or r S0c); (ii) the extensional sheared or tensile failures (n < 0
or r < S0c); (iii) the hydraulic fracture ( 0); (iv) the unsealed fractures reactivation (S0 2T = 0)
where S0 is the cohesion and T the shear strength of the rock, and n the normal stress component to
the fault plane F (Figure 1b left). The condition on n can also be expressed using the Mohr circle
center r = (13)/2 as n = r - S0c.
Compressive shear fractures (n > 0)
Compressive shear fractures are produced by a compressive effective stress state. The empirical
linearized Mohr-Coulomb criterion successfully predicts the brittle failure strength and orientation of
shear fractures, at least to first order (Royer, 2012):
= 2T + c n = S0 + c n = C0/2q + c n

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(1)

(a)

(b)

Figure 1 (a) Failure envelope and stable zone for intact rock (blue line) plus reshear condition for a
cohesionless fault (brown line) plotted on a Mohr diagram of shear stress, , against effective normal
stress, n, normalized to rock tensile strength, T. Critical stress circles are shown before (dash line)
and after (bold line) hydraulic injection at a Pf pressure; (b) The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria is
often approximated by a linear envelope (right); during triaxial compression (2 = 3), fault develops
along a plane whose normal forms an angle = /4 + /2 with the maximum compressive stress 1
(or =/4 /2 with the fault plane F) (left), being the internal friction angle of the rock. When 1
is vertical is the fault dip (steepest angle relative to a horizontal plane).
where T is the rock cohesive (or shear) strength (S0 = 2T); because S0 is not a physically measurable
parameter, it is more common to express rock strength in terms of the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS or C0) related to S0 by: C0 = 2S0q with q =[(2c + 1)1/2+ c]= tan(/2+/4)= tan (); c =
tan is the internal friction coefficient and the internal friction angle of the rock. For most rocks,
the internal friction coefficient lays in the range c [0.5, 1]. Figure 1 is built with a representative
value at c = 0.75; =/2+/4 is the angle between the fault normal and the main principal stress 1;
when 1 is vertical it is also the fault dip (angle between the horizontal and the fault plane F); and r
are the effective shear and normal stresses, respectively. Failures occur if the shearing is greater than
the normal stress: C0/2q + c n. The 2D Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion assumes that the
intermediary principal stress has no influence on failure; it may be expressed against the maximum
and minimum principal effective stress 1 and 3 as (Zoback, 2014):
1 = C0 + q2 3

(2)

This last formulation will be used to derive the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. Note that The MohrCoulomb criterion turns into the Tresca criterion if = 0, and to the Rankine model if = /2. Higher
values of are not allowed
Fault orientation: Let be the angle between the vertical and the normal n to the fault plane F (Figure
1b); two cases must be discussed: (i) the least principal stress 3 0 : the fracture is said to be
extensive. The hydraulic fracture will propagate perpendicular to the least principle stress 3 along
the 2 direction. The azimuth orientation of the vertical fracture will depend on the azimuth of the
minimum and maximum horizontal stresses. (ii) the least principal stress 3 > 0 : the fracture is said to
be compressive or shear fracture; faults form along planes F containing the 2 direction at angles
(typically 20 < < 30) with 3 such that:
-

= (/4 - /2 ); = tan 1(c); + = /2

= tan 1(1/c) = cos 1 (sin());

(3)

The angle is also the angle of the plan F with the maximum principal compressive stress direction,
1; the fracture shows displacements parallel to the failure surface. In deep reservoirs (> 1000ft) for
which the principal stress 1 is vertical, the fault plane F forms a dip = /4 + = /2 - with the
horizontal plane. In shallower reservoirs, the least principal stress may be the overburden stress 3 =
V; thus, the hydraulic fracture will be vertical, forming an angle with the maximum horizontal
stress 1 = H.

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

Figure 2 3D Mohr Coulomb criterion with active shear plane failure modes and non fractured zones.
Knowing the maximum principal stresses, it is possible to determine the orientations 1 and 3 of the
fracture planes.
During hydraulic fracturing process, horizontal well must form an angle of with the maximum
principal stress H (or with 2 or aligned along the normal n to F) to initiate fractures
perpendicularly to its trajectory. The sign is randomly determined by the local sub-microscopic
heterogeneity of the formation at early stages when the fracture propagates and defined two fracture
families F+ and F given by the sign + and named conjugate fractures.
Geometric interpretation: from a geometrical point of view in a shear-stress diagram (Figure 1a),
failure occurs when the Mohr circle touches (or cross-cuts) the failure envelop, or equivalently, when
the distance of the Mohr circle center r = (3 +1)/2 to the linear envelop (E) - S0 - c n = 0 is less
than the circle radius = r = (1 - 3)/2. The Mohr Coulomb failure criterion (also referred as the
fracturing index) h can be then rewritten as:
{A failure occurs} 0 h(c,C0 | ) = 1 q2 3 C0

(4)

where is the stress tensor. This 2D Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is independent on the
intermediary stress 2. Introducing the column vector vt = [1, 0, q] ( being the imaginary complex
number), h can be rewritten in a matrix form as following:
h(c,C0 | ) = vt v C0

vt = [1, 0, q]

q = tan ()

= /2 + /4

(5)

where the stress tensor is reduced to its diagonal form, and the vector v is expressed in the local
coordinate system defined by the principal components of the stress tensor . Assuming a non-null
compressive strength C0 0 (non unsealed fracture reactivation case), a dimensionless MohrCoulomb failure criterion can be obtained by dividing all members of Eq.(5) by C0: {A failure occurs}
0 h(c,C0 | ) = 1 q2 3 1 with i = i/C0, i {1, 2, 3}, which also can be expressed in a
matrix form:
h(c,C0 | ) = vt v - 1

vt = [1, 0, q]

q = tan ()

= /2 + /4

(6)

Discussion: For anisotropic medium, rock properties such as the cohesion C, and the internal friction
coefficient c = tan may depend on the orientation of the normal vector n to the facet on which the
effective normal stress n is applied. In practice, an average isotropic value for the direction defined
by the effective normal stress can be used at each location. Thus, the failure theory for anisotropic
media is much trickier than for the isotropic case. A more general approach can be found in Vn and
Vsrhelyi (2001) or Yu (2002). In the following, and for sake of simplification, an average isotropic
value for the cohesive strength is assumed.

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Extension fractures occur when the Mohr circle C is tangent to the Griffith failure envelop
G: (a) extensive fractures form an angle with the principal stress 1 (left); (b) extensive fractures
are quite vertical (right).
One of the advantages of using a dimensionless formulation, is that the failure criterion Eq.(6)
depends now on the rock type only through the vector term v which includes the internal friction angle
(or internal friction coefficient) of the rocks which may vary from one location to another.
Tensile (or Extensional sheared) failures (n < 0 or r < S0c)
Griffith theory of fractures forms the basis of modern linear elastic fracture mechanics and can be
combined with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for compressive stress states. It provides an energy-based
failure criterion for uni-axial tensile failure which forms a composite failure envelope (Figure 1)
(Ramsey and Chester, 2004). Extensional sheared or tensile failures are governed by the Griffith
criterion:
2 = 4 T (n + T) ;

2 = 4 (n + 1) (dimensionless formulation)

(7)

Physically, it corresponds to a balance between the energy required to break the material and the
equivalent elastic energy requires to move virtually the fracture with the same displacement. Tensile
failures occur when the Mohr circle touches the Griffith failure envelop at = 0, 3 = T. The failure
criterion h can be expressed in term of the principal effective stresses 1 and 3 as:
r + T 0 (3 + T) 0 0 h(c, T | ) = vt v - T ;

vt = [0, 0, ]

(8)

To be comparable with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Eq.(8) can be rewritten using the unconfined
compressive strength C0 instead of the shear strength T = C0/4q (in dimensionless form = / C0):
4qr + C0 0, - (4q3 + C0) 0 h(c,C0 |) = vt v - C0 ;
4qr + 1 0, - (4q3 + 1) 0 h(c | ) = vt v - 1

vt = [0, 0, 2 q]
(dimensionless)

(9)

Fault orientation: The extension fracture mode occurs when the Mohr circle C is tangent to the
Griffith failure envelop G. It can occur at the apex of G = 0, 3 = T (Fig. 3b) or when C touches
G (Fig. 3a). Depending on the cohesion of the rock c, we have: (i) r [T, Text] where Text = T is the
tensile strength for cohesive rock (c > 0.5) such that 2Tc > T; for non cohesive rocks c < 0.5 Text =
2Tc. In such situation, rock fails in tensile mode according to (a); (ii) r [Text, 2Tc] this is the case
of cohesive rocks that may fail in tensile mode according to (b).
r [T, Text]: The tensile fractures extend more or less vertically and propagate along 2, their
planes being orthogonal to 3. The greater the differential stress r = (1 3)/2 (r being the
Mohr circle radius), the better tensile stresses align vertically; the smaller r, the greater tensile
failures are ill-oriented converging as a limit to random orientations for r 0. Extensional
sheared failures occur along planes oriented at < to 1 when r < 0. Cracks develop by
stretching along planes normal to the tensile stress direction which is usually the minor
principal stress 3. At failure point, the normal effective stress and shear are n = T, = 0,
respectively.
ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

Table 1 Failure criteria written using a unique formulation.

The massif rock breaks if : h(c,C0 | ) = vt v + C0 0
Or h(c | ) = vt v + 0 (dimensionless formulation)
Conditions
vt
Comments on fractures

Criterion
Mohr-Coulomb

2qr C0c

-1

[1, 0, q]

Griffith

2qr C0c

-1

[0, 0, 2q]

[0, 0, 2q]

C0 0

[1, 0, q]

Hydraulic fracture
Unsealed fractures
Reactivation

Compressive shear faults propagate along 2 F

F forms an angle = (/4 /2) with 1
Displacements along the fault plane F
r [T, Text] (see below)
Tensile fractures more or less vertical propagate along 2
The greater r the better tensile fractures align vertically
2qr [T, 2Tc] (only valid for c > 0.5)
Fractures form an angle = 1/2 arg cos (2/r) with 1
Random orientation of tensile fractures ( = 0)
Reactivated fractures keep their initial orientation
3D Mohr-Circle can be used to identity open fractures.

With q = tan(), =/4+/2; n is the normal stress to the fault plane F; r = (1 + 3)/2 is the center of the
Mohr-Coulomb circle. r = (1 3)/2 is the radius of the Mohr-Coulomb circle; with C0 = 2S0q, S0 = 2T, T =
C0/4q being the rock cohesive strength. is the angle of the induced fractures with the main horizontal stress.
Text = cohesive stress limit: for low cohesive rock c < 0.5, the cohesive stress limit Text = 2Tc otherwise, for
hard rock (c > 0.5) Text = T; v is expressed in the local frame defined by the principal components

2qr [Text, 2Tc]: The tensile fractures propagate along 2, their planes form an angle with 1
where 2 = arg cos (2/r), where r = (1 3)/2 is the effective mean stress (or the center of the
Mohr circle). Note that tensile fracture orientations may take any orientation varying between
/4 /2 and 0 (perpendicular to 1) depending on the main stresses values 1 and 3. At
failure point, the effective normal stress and shearing are n = r - 2T and = 2[T (r - T)]1/2,
respectively.
Hydraulic (or hydrostatic) fracture ( 0)
The Griffith criterion reduces to the hydraulic fracture criterion when the shear stress is null 0,
(Cosgrove, 2001):
4q3 + C0 0 0 h(c,C0 |) = vt v + C0 ;
4q3 + 1 0 0 h(c | ) = vt v + 1

vt = [0, 0, 2 q]
(dimensionless)

(10)

The conditions for the formation of pure extension fractures are described by Eq.(10). They are more
or less vertical but with randomly oriented micro-cracks perpendicular to 3. Long cracks require less
far-field stresses 3 to grow than short cracks, and will propagate first as the tensile strength C0 is
inversely proportional to the crack length c.
Unsealed fractures reactivation (C0 0)
This corresponds to the reactivation of old unsealed fractures, or non consolidated weak sediments
(sands, chalk, etc.), the Griffith failure criterion being reduced to a point at the origin. The internal
friction coefficient for fractures is comprised between c [0.6; 1] or less c 0.5 (medium saturated
with water). The failure envelop reduces to a straight line passing through the origin with a slope of
tan 0.6 ( 30). The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion applies (see Eq.(5)) with a null unconfined
compressive strength C0 = 0:
0 h(c, 0 | ) = vt v ;
vt = [1, 0, q] ;
t
0 h(c, 0 | ) = v v ;

q = tan () ;

= /2 + /4
(dimensionless)

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(11)

It is not possible to normalize the stress by C0 =0, but rather by a stress reference value such as the
minimum 3 (or maximum 1); another strategy would be using the reservoir pressure p as the
normalized parameter.
Discussion
All the above failure criteria can be summarized into a unique general matrix formula in which only
the quantity and v are case dependent:
0 h(c,C0 | ) = vt v + C0
0 h(c | ) = vt v +

(12)
(dimensionless)

Fractures occur if the criterion h(c,C0 | ) is positive or null. The above formulation simplifies the
programming. It also gives some quantitative insights into the mechanical origin of faulting and dip
orientations. However, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is subjects to a number of assumptions
which may not necessarily be valid in natural systems, and may be limited in practical application.
Experimental data show that: (i) the angle between failure planes and the maximum principal stress
increases with increasing confinement (Schopfer et al., 2009). This results from the fact that the
friction angle (3) decreases with the confining pressures. At low confining pressures, failure is due
to the coalescence and propagation of micro-crack initiation, resulting in a high friction angle at low
confining pressure for brittle rock. When the confining pressure is sufficiently high, failure
mechanism shifts from brittle to ductile because micro-crack opening and rock dilation are
suppressed, resulting in a lower friction angle (Peng et al., 2014). (ii) is often typically smaller that
predicted by the failure envelop (Paterson and Wong, 2005) mostly due to the fact the friction angle is
assumed to be independent of the confining pressure; (iii) Griffith criterion does not accurately predict
either the stress state or the failure angle (Ramsey and Chester, 2004).
Fracking Pressure
Hydraulic pore pressure : During the hydraulic fracking process, the pore pressure Pf in the matrix
rock increases diminishing the effective stress tensor by a quantity proportional to the pore pressure
Pf and to the dimensionless Biots poro-elastic coefficient (assuming an isotropic media): f = -
Pf I where f is the resulting stress tensor and I the identity tensor. It is equivalent to translate by Pf
the Mohr circle C to the left against the failure envelop L in the Mohr-Coulomb space, reaching the
conditions of fracturing. Failures occur if the failure criterion h = vt v + C0 - Pf vt v = 0 gets null,
thus if the pressure Pf is large enough, i.e. according to Eq.(12) greater or equal to:

Pf = (vt v + C0 ) / vt v

(13)

the Biot coefficient varies between 0.2 to 1 depending on the porosity and on the rock hardness.
Hydraulic Fracking Pressure: The hydraulic fracking pressure (or breakdown or critical pressure)
PHF is the fluid pressure to be exerted at the well head to initiate hydraulic fracturing of the rock mass.
It is given by the Hubbert and Willis (1957) formula. It is obtained by writing the stress equilibrium
between the imposed pressures at the well head with the forces acting on the well tubes. It includes:
(i) a negative term to compensate the reservoir pressure p (the weight of the mud + fluid column in
the well is included in this term); (ii) a negative term to compensate the differential stresses -(max min) exerted on the pipe wall (it includes the tectonic component); (iii) a pressure term for equaling
the fluid pressure in the well with the minimum stress min exerted on the pipe wall; (iv) the failure
criterion Pf given by Eq.(13):
PHF,upper = Pf + 2 min max p
The hydraulic fractures initiate and extend in the direction of the maximum stress max.
ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(14)

Figure 4 Hydraulically fractured in sub-horizontal wells with (a) transverse

(left) and (b) longitudinal (right) sub-vertical fractures.
Poro-elastic theory: The above approach assumed that the injected fluid does not penetrate into the
surrounding rocks. This is a simplification. When the injected fluid penetrates into the surrounding
rock pores, it creates an additional stress field around the borehole which contributes to decrease the
breakout pressure called the lower boundary for the breakdown pressure. According to the poroelasticity theory, its value is:
PHF,lower = PHF,upper / K - (1/K - 1) p = (Pf + 2 min - max 2 p) / K

(15)

where = (1 2) /2 (1 ) and K = 2 (1 ), is the Biot coefficient, and the Poissons ratio of

the rock. The breakdown pressure which corresponds to the pressure required to initiate a fracture
from the well, is usually greater than the fracture extension pressure because it is influenced by the
presence of the well. The fracture extension pressure reflects the pressure required to propagate the
fracture through the formation.
Fracture types: Fractures, which are typically vertical during hydraulic fracturing, can be either
transverse or longitudinal depending on the comparative magnitude between the normal stress
magnitude n along the pipe and the maximum transverse stress max [Wei and Economides (2005),
Chen (2012)]: (i) if n < max: transverse fractures are perpendicular to the (horizontal) wellbore
(Figure 6-a); (ii) n > max: longitudinal fractures are aligned with the (horizontal) wellbore (Figure 6b). In order to create multiple transverse fractures, the well bore must be aligned along the direction of
the minimum principal horizontal stress because the created fractures follow the direction of the
maximum principal horizontal stress.
Discussion: Six key parameters Pf, C0, , min , max, and p are necessary to estimate practically the
stress components and to apply Eq.(15). The rock tensile strength T = C0 / 4q is difficult to determine
except in laboratory. In some situations, C0 0 can be neglected at great depth (Hubbert and Willis,
1957) because of preexisting fissures traversing the rock. This corresponds to cohesion-less medium
hypothesis. Bredehoeft et al. (1976) suggested using the fracture reopening (or refrac) pressure
defined by Pr = PHF,lower - T instead of PHF to avoid determining T. Kehle (1964) equaled min to the
shut-in pressure Ps, or to the pressure required to keep the fracture open (equal to min) after pumping
has been stopped while the reservoir pressure term p is directly obtained from exploitation data.
Case of anisotropic media
For anisotropic media, it is easier to express the failure criterion directly using strains instead stresses
expressing stresses against strains using the Hooks law for elastic rocks.
ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(a) Transverse isotropy in sedimentary rocks

(b) The gas shales, as most sedimentary
(Grand Canyon Luca Galuzzi, USA).
rocks, are generally transverse isotropic
Figure 5 Physical properties of a transversely isotropic material are symmetric around an axis normal to a
plane of isotropy; they are approximately the same in-plane but different along the normal.

Hooks law
In linear elasticity, the strains and stresses are related by the Hooks law (the - sign results from
the convention used to orient , positive values correspond to compression, negative to extension):
-=C;

- ij = Cij

(16)

where ij are the contravariant components of the second-rank stress tensor ; are the covariant
components of the second-rank strain tensor which are related to their contravariant components by:
= gi gj ij with g = [gij ] being the metric tensor; Cij are the contravariant components of the
fourth rank symmetrical elastic stiffness tensor C whose 81 components characterize the mechanical
behavior of the material (this term is stress and time dependent for plastic viscous materials).
Isotropic materials - For isotropic elastic rocks, properties do not dependent on the direction, and the
stiffness tensor reduces to the Lames coefficients and (two non null independent terms):
- = tr() g + 2 ; - ij = tr() gij + 2ij

(16)

Note that the stress and strain tensors have the same principal axes. Reporting Eq.(16) into Eq.(12)
gives a failure criterion expressed using strains for isotropic rocks:
0 h(c,C0 | ) = C0 - { tr() vtg v + 2 vt v + - Pf vt v}

(17)

For the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Eq.(17) can be simplified into:

h (c,T | ) = tr() sin + {(3 1) + (1 + 3) sin } + Pf sin 2 T cos = 0

(18)

If = 0, this failure criterion is equal to those suggested by Mac et al. (2005) for predicting faults.
When is not null, Eq.(18) gives a more general failure criterion applicable for hydraulic fracturing.
It accounts for the fluid pressure trapped in the mass rock through the term Pf and for the rock
hardness with T, the rock tensile strength.
Transversely isotropic (TI) materials - Transversely isotropic (or perfectly stratified) materials are
anisotropic along an axis of rotational symmetry aligned perpendicular to transverse planes (bedding)
along which the properties are identical (i.e. isotropic) in all directions (see Fig. 5). Geological layers
are often interpreted as being transversely isotropic. Many shales can be described to a good
approximation as being transversely isotropic (TI). The elastic stiffness tensor Cij has four
independent constants (if the stratification is assumed to be perpendicular to the third axis 3):

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

the symmetry transverse in-plane (p, p) and orthogonal (pn, pn) Lame coefficients. In the main axes
coordinate system, and for a horizontal layer cake type of sedimentation, the Hooks law is written as:
- 3 = p tr() + 2p 3 + (pn - p) 1
- 2 = p tr() + 2p 2 + (pn - p) 1
- 1 = pn tr() + 2pn 1

(19)

assuming that the maximum stress 1 lies along the z-axis. For simplifying the notations, we introduce
the following quantities: the mean Lames coefficients m = (pn + p) / 2, the P-wave modulus M = pn
+ 2pn, the Thomson anisotropic parameter defined by p + 2p = M (1 + 2) (values about 0.2),
and the anisotropic parameter = (pn - p) / 2 M. The failure criterion can then be expressed using
strains for transverse isotropic rocks for the four failure cases (Royer, 2013).
Compressive shear fractures in horizontal TI media
Mohr-Coulomb criterion for horizontal TI formations: Reporting Eq.(19) into Eq.(12) gives the MohrCoulomb failure criteria for predicting compressive fractures in transverse isotropic horizontal
formations:
h (c,T | ) = m tr() sin + p [(3 1) + (1 + 3) sin ] + Pf sin 2 T cos . . .
+ M { (1 sin ) 1 + (2 1 tr())} = 0
(anisotropy term)

(20)

The Mohr-Coulomb criterion for transverse isotropic media Eq.(20) is very similar to that of the
isotropic media Eq.(18), except that the Lames coefficients m, p, p depend on directions and that an
additional anisotropy term appears involving the P-waves modulus M, and the Thomsens anisotropy
coefficients and . Note that for isotropic media Eq.(20) is strictly identical to Eq.(18) as = 0, =
0, p = , m = pn = p = , and the additional anisotropy term is null.
Discussion: For most common rocks, the anisotropy terms in Eq.(20) is positive (as usually 1 is
dominant and + 0 with mean value around .15.23 and M around 4223.5GPa), so the failure
criterion is reached more rapidly compared to the isotropic case. The requested failure pressure Pf is
less than that required in the isotropic case. However, in some situations it can be negative (for +
< 0 or the planar strains 2, 3 are such that the whole anisotropy term is negative). Thus, an additional
fracking pressure is required to reach failures.
Tensile failures in TI horizontal formations
Griffith criterion for predicting extensional shear factures in horizontal TI formations: Extensional
shear failures occur if the Griffiths criterions Eq.(8) is verified i.e. 3 + T 0 or 1 + T 0. These
condition can be rewritten in terms of strains substituting Eq.(19) into Eq.(8):
3 + T 0 h (c,T | ) = p tr() + 2p 3 + 2 M 1 + Pf - T = 0
1 + T 0 h (c,T | ) = p tr() + 2p 1 + 2 M { tr() - ( + ) 1} + Pf - T = 0

(21)

Discussion: Compared to the isotropic case, the Griffiths criterion accounts for the anisotropy by the
additional anisotropy terms 2 M1 and 2 M { tr() - ( + ) 1}, so the required fracking pressure Pf
is smaller than in the isotropic case. Anisotropy would favor fracking.
Hydraulic fracture
This happens when the shear stress is null 0, corresponding to the criterion 3+T = 0. Rewritten it
using the strains gives:
h (c,T | ) = p tr() + 2p 3 + 2 M 1 + Pf - T = 0

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

(22)

Figure 6 Fracking a reservoir using a horizontal well. The resulting fractures observed in (f) are
obtained applying the wizard developed by Cosson and Chaumont (2013).
Unsealed fractures reactivation
It occurs when the tensile strength is T 0. The criterion is the same as for the Mohr-Coulomb case
with T = 0. From Eq.(20), it comes:
h (c,T | ) = m tr() sin + p [(3 1) + (1 + 3) sin ] + Pf sin . . .
+ M { (1 sin ) 1 + (2 1 tr())} = 0
(anisotropy term)

(23)

Again an anisotropic term is added to the failure criteria in horizontal transverse isotropic formations.
Case study
Reservoir model: A horizontal reservoir was built using a regular block model. The injector was
assumed to be horizontal. An injection pressure is applied at the well head which induced an over
pressure in the vicinity of the injection well. For simplification, it is assumed a radial flow around the
injection well. The over pressure is modeled using a log-type analytical Dupuit-Forchheimer formula
(Kitterod, 2004).
ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery
Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

Figure 7 Induced fracking assuming an anisotropic variation of mechanical properties (left)

compared to the same stimulation in an isotropic medium (right). In the anisotropic case, fractures
cluster in the vicinity of the well while in the isotropic case they are spread in the reservoir.
Model the injection pressure: Let Pinj(r) the over pressure induced by the injector at a radial distance r
to the well, and Pinj(r0) the injection well pressure with r0 the radius of the pipe; Pinj(r) is given by
the Dupuit-Forchheimer formula, and the pressure in the reservoir P(r) around the well is: P(r) = P0 +
Pinj(r) = P0 + Pinj(r0) ln (r0 / r); P0 being the initial reservoir pressure. The reservoir pressure P(r) is
thus updated in each cell of the grid accounting for the additional pressure due to the injection well.
Two cases are then investigated: (i) isotropic or (iii) anisotropic case.
Model the stresses: For the isotropic case, the effective vertical stress v is assumed to be the main
stress component, the other (horizontal) main stress components being the regional tectonic
component tect plus a horizontal component H = v (1 ) related to the effective vertical stress
through the Poissons ratio . The anisotropic case requests the evaluation of the main strains. Two
cases could happen: (i) the strain tensor is known everywhere; (ii) the main strain is estimated (or
simulated using SGS) in each cell from known values on some locations (i.e. from well deformation).
Thus, it is easy to evaluate the main components 1, 2, 3 of the strain tensor , and thus to evaluate
the failure criteria in each cell. The Thomsens coefficients can be fixed for the all reservoir or vary
from cells to cells. Knowing the three main stress components, the failure criterion is evaluated in
each cell using Table 3. The failure mode is coded according to failure mode: 0 no fractures, 1 MohrCoulomb criterion or Mode I, 2 Griffith criterion or Mode II, 4 hydraulic failures. Results are reported
in Figure 6 and 7.
Rock properties: The rock tensile strength T was simulated in each reservoir cell using a nonconditional SGS assumed an horizontal spatial dependency of about 1km and a Gaussian distribution
centered on 9MPa and ranging within the interval [4.5MPa, 14MPa], the same for the planar Lame
coefficients p, p. The Thomsens parameters were assumed to be constant in the all reservoir. The
resulting tensile map and main stresses are reporting in Fig. 6a-d, together with the fracking pressure
PF requested by the reservoir fluid to frack the cell (Fig. 6e). The fracked cells in the vicinity of the
injection well are mapped on Fig. 6f. For sake of simplification, some assumptions have been made in
this first version. A number of improvements can be suggested:

The main components of the regional stress tect have the same orientations as . There is no
difficulty to account for a different orientation of the regional stress; it simply implies the
diagonalization of is each cell of the grid when evaluating the failure criterion;

The Thomsens anisotropy coefficients are constant and spatially independent over the all
reservoir. These coefficients can be rock type dependent and be deduced from seismic
inversion. If evaluated in each cell of the reservoir, this spatial variability of the Thomsens
parameters can be include in the failure criterion;

When the Mohr-Coulomb or Griffith criteria apply, the fractures orientation can be predicted
in each cell.

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

Conclusions
This work summarizes some important theoretical formulas for predicting propagation of fractures
through an isotropic and transverse isotropic medium during stimulation hydraulic fracturing essays.
The first part suggests a general failure criterion written in a matrix form using the stress tensor and
regrouping all cases including the Mohr-Coulomb, the Griffith, the hydraulic fracture and the
reactivation fracture criterion. This formulation is then extended to anisotropic media but written
using the strain tensor. Detailed formulas are given for the isotropic and transverse isotropic media.
Rock type, drainage conditions, and regional stresses are important factors that govern the failures
types observed in practice. Several cases have been studied in details including:
The compressional shear fractures: for which the empirical Mohr-Coulomb criterion
successfully predicts the brittle failure strength and orientation of shear fractures, at least to first
order. Faults form along planes containing the 2 direction at typical angles of 20 < < 30 to
the maximum principal compressive stress direction, 1, and shows displacement parallel to the
failure surface. A practical criterion involving the horizontal, vertical and tectonic stresses, has
been derived;
The extensional sheared or tensile failures: for which the Griffith criterion is more appropriate
(eventually combined with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion in intermediary zones). Extensional
sheared failures occur along planes oriented at < to the maximum principal stress direction
1 ( being the friction angle of the rock) in the case of an extensive normal stress context. In
this case, failures occur if tect + T v i.e. if the sum of the tectonic stress plus the cohesive
strength of the rock is greater than the vertical effective stress;
The hydraulic fracture: it corresponds to the case where the shearing is null 0. Pure
extension fractures form perpendicular to the minimum principal stress 3. Assuming that the
tensile strength of a rock is inversely proportional to the crack length c, long cracks require less
far-field stresses 3 to grow than short cracks, and will propagate first;
The unsealed fractures reactivation: this corresponds to the reactivation of preexisting fractures
or to cohesion-less rocks such as non-consolidated sediments. The Griffith criterion reduces to a
point at the origin and the internal friction angle of the rock is close to 30. The Mohr-Coulomb
criterion is a line passing through the origin with a slope of 0.6.
It can be noticed that recent field works reported that shear reactivation or shear failure on planes in a
preexisting fracture network seem be the dominant failure mechanism which occurred during a
reservoir stimulation treatment (Williams - Stroud et al., 2012). This improves the connection with the
exposing fracture surface of the area explaining the economic flow observed in the well. This ideal
picture gives some quantitative insights for understanding the mechanical origin of faulting and
predicting dip orientations, but is subjects to a number of assumptions which may not necessarily be
valid in natural systems. For instance, field observations and drilling suggest that:
The linear failure envelope used in the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, is just an approximation
to simplify calculations; in realty, the failure envelop may be stress dependent and will produce
some curvature in the failure envelop (Duncan and Wright, 2005);
Fracture angles between failure planes and the maximum principal stress increase with
increasing confinement, a fact ill-predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb theory;
Fracture angles between failure planes and the maximum principal stress are typically smaller
that predicted by the failure envelop, such deviation is attributed to the fact that rocks are not
isotropic homogeneous materials and contains several preexisting micro fractures that govern
the failure behavior;

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

 Griffith criterion does not accurately predict either the stress state or the failure angle.
However, because the above criteria are based on analytical solutions, it is computationally efficient
to predict fractures in reservoir simulation. They can be also used for simulating hydraulic-fracture
propagation in natural reservoirs and to generate realistic complex fracture networks (Gu et al., 2012).
The above approach can also help in determining in practice the critical or breakdown pressure
required to initiate the hydraulic fracturing of a rock massif. Lower and upper pressure bounds have
been proposed for vertical and horizontal wells assuming a pure elastic behavior for the rock massif.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his thanks to the gOcad consortium, the ASGA and to the Centre
National de Recherche Scientifique CNRS-GeoResources (UMR7359) for their support. The fracking
plug-in was programmed by Camille Cosson, and numerical experiments were carried out by
Annabelle Chaumont, both ENSG geologist Master students.
References
Adachi, J. Siebrits, E. Peirce, A. and Desroches, J. [2007] Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 44, 739-757.
Bredehoeft, J. Wolff, R. Keys, W. and Shuter, E. [1976] Hydraulic Fracturing to Determine the
Regional In-situ Stress Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado. Geol. Soc. America Bull., 87, 250-258.
Brenner, S.L. and Gudmundsson, A. [2002] Permeability development during hydrofracture
propagation in layered reservoirs. NGU-BULL, 439, 71-77.
Chen, Y. [2012] Mechanical Interaction of Multiple Fractures - Exploring Impacts of the Selection of
the Spacing/ Number of Perforation Clusters on Horizontal Shale-Gas Wells. SPE Journal, 9921001.
Cosgrove, J.W. [2001] Hydraulic fracturing during the formation and deformation of a basin: A factor
in the dewatering of low-permeability sediments. AAPG Bulletin, 85(4), 737-748.
Cosson, C. and Chaumont, A. [2013] Shale gas and hydraulic fracturing: Gocad Wizard manual.
ENSG-Nancy, France, master report M1.
Duncan, J. and Wright, S.G. [2005] Soil Strength and Slope Stability. Wiley, New York, 298p.
Fu, P. Johnson, S.M. Hao, Y. and Carrigan, C.R. [2011] Fully coupled geomechanics and discrete
flow network modeling of hydraulic fracturing for geothermal applications. In Proc., 36th
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-191, Stanford University, CA.
Gu, H. Weng, X. Lund, J. Mack, M. Ganguly, U. and Suarez-Rivea, R. [2012] Hydraulic Fracture
Crossing Natural Fracture at Nonorthogonal Angles: A Criterion and its Validation. SPE
Production & Operations, 27(1), 20-26.
Hu, J. and Garagash, M. [2010] Plane-Strain Propagation of a Fluid-Driven Crack in a Permeable
Rock with Fracture Toughness. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 136(9), 1152-1166.
Hubbert, M. K. and Willis, D.G. [1957] Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. Trans. AIME, 210:153166.
Jowett, E. [1992] Role of organics and methane in sulfide ore formation, exemplified by
Kupferschiefer Cu-Ag deposits, Poland. Chemical Geology, 99, 51-63.
Kehle, R. O. [1964] The Determination of Tectonic Stresses Through Analysis of Hydraulic Well
Fracturing. J. Geophys. Res., 69(11), 259-273.
Kitterod, N. [2004] Dupuit-forchheimer solutions for radial flow with linearly varying hydraulic
conductivity or thickness of aquifer. Water Resources Research, 40, 1-5.
Mac, L. Muron, P. and Mallet, J.L. [2005] Integration of Fracture Data into 3D Geomechanical
Modeling to Enhance Fractured Reservoirs Characterization. SPE Annual Conf. Exhib., Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 9p.
Mavko, G. Mukerji, T. and Dvorkin, J. [1998] The rock physics handbook: tools for seismic analysis
in porous media. Cambridge Univ. Press, 330p.

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014

Molenaar, M. Hill, D. Webster, P. Fidan, E. and Birch, B. [2012] First Downhole Application of
Distributed Acoustic Sensing for Hydraulic-Fracturing Monitoring and Diagnostics. SPE Drilling
& Completion, 27(1), 32-38.
Paterson, M.S. and Wong, T. [2005] Experimental Rock Deformation - The Brittle Field. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg New York, 335p.
Peng, J. Rong, G. Cai, M. Wang, X. and Zhou, C. [2014] An Empirical Failure Criterion for Intact
Rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 47, 347-356.
Ramsey, J.M. and Chester, F.M. [2004] Hybrid fracture and the transition from extension fracture to
shear fracture. Nature, 428(4), 63-66.
Royer, J.J. [2012] Hydraulic fracturing in homogeneous media. 32th Gocad Meeting, Nancy, France,
20p.
Royer, J.J. [2013] Hydraulic Fracturing in Transverse Isotropic Media. 33th Gocad Meeting, Nancy,
France, 49p.
Schopfer, M.P.J. Childs, C. and Walsh, J. [2009] Two-Dimensional District Element Method (DEM)
modeling of tectonic faul growth in mechanically layered sequences. In D. Kolymbas and G.
Viggiani, (eds), Mechanics of Natural Solids, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 127-146.
Sdov, L. [1973] Mcanique des Milieux Continus. Tome I. Editions MIR, Moscou, 540p.
Sibson, R.H. [2004] Controls on maximum fluid overpressure defining conditions for mesozonal
mineralisation. Journal of Structural Geology, 26,1127-1136.
Vn, P. and Vsrhelyi, B. [2001] Second law of thermodynamics and the failure of rock materials. In
DC Rocks 2001, 38th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mech. (USRMS), Washington D.C., American Rock
Mech. Ass., 10p.
Wei, Y. and Economides, M. [2005] Transverse Hydraulic Fractures from a Horizontal Well. In SPE
Annual Tech. Conf. and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, SPE paper # 94671.
Williams-Stroud, S.C. Barker, W.B. and Smith, K.L. [2012] Modelling the response of natural
fracture networks to induced hydraulic fractures in stimulation treatments. EAGE First break, 30,
71-75.
Yu, M. [2002] Advances in strength theories for materials under complex stress state in the 20th
century. American Soc. of Mech. Eng., ASME, Appl. Mech. Rev., 55(3), 169-218.
Zoback, M. (2014) Reservoir Geomechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 10th (Ed.),
450p.

ECMOR XIV 14th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

Catania, Sicily, Italy, 8-11 September 2014