SPE

SPE 9064

Society of PetroIeu"n EngIneers of AIME

FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTURING

by Gene Daniel and Jerry White, Dowell

Copyright 1980, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was presented at the SPE Cotton Valley Symposium, held in Tyler, Texas, May 21,1980. The material is subject to
correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central
Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT

PRINCIPLES

The basic theory of massive hydraulic fracturing as

it relates to rock mechanics and rock properties will
be reviewed with particular emphasis on the Cotton
Valley Formation. The assumptions and basic concepts
in frac geometry and orientation will be discussed.
The parameters required for design will be identified
and their effect delineated.
Although this paper
will be geared for a general understanding of
fracturing, recent findings in rock mechanics and key
areas
requiring further
definition will
be
presented.

Increased emphasis has been put on the study of rock

mechanics in recent years.
This study has great
importance, especially in tight gas sands. It is assumed that formation rock is isotropic, homogeneous
and e1ast i c, and is generally defi ned by two constants, Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio.
Although these assumptions are never completely true,
their simplification is necessary to handle the
complexities that arise.

I NTRODUCTI ON
The hydraulic fracturing of reservoirs to stimulate
oil and gas production revolutionized the petroleum
industry.
The fracturing of reservoirs greatly
increases the economic lives of some wells. This is
particulary true for tight. gas sands, or in cases
where portions of the reservoir may be depleted and
will not flow adequately without stimulation.
The hydraulic fracturing of wells has developed into
a highly sophisticated technique over the past thirty
years.
The initial treatments have evolved from
sma 11 jobs usi ng a few thousand pounds of sand to
highly technical .computer designed treatments that
sometimes incorporate one million pounds of sand.
While fracturing was growing in popularity, so was
the need for more efficient frac fluids, different
types of sand, special additives, sophisticated pumping equipment and the use of technically engineered
treatments. Whil e techn; ques and equi pment are constantly changing and being upgraded, there are still
questions to be answered and significant improvements
to be made. There is often a gap between theory and
practical field application. These theories must be
applied and tested in a usable form at the operations
1evel.
It is the intent of this paper to review the basics
of fr acturi ng and to provi de a better understandi ng
of day to day operations.

Formation rock is under three principle stresses.

The bas i c premi se of rock fa il ure is that it occurs
perpendicular to the least principle stress. In relaxed areas with normal faulting, the principle
stress is vertical with a value of approximately 1
psi/ft.
In this instance, the fracture will be
vertical with the intermediate and least principle
stresses in horizontal directions, as shown in figure
1.
Th i sis normally the case in the Gu 1f Coast,
Mi d-Cont i nent and West Texas areas, as supported by
frac gradients less than one.
The relationship between the vertical maximum matrix
stress (cr v) and the horizontal matrix stresses,
where the horizontal stresses are equal is given by:

OJ

(-H-)Ov
1-lJ

where 1.1
is Poisson's Ratio.
For petroleum
reservoirs,Poisson's Ratio ranges from 0.15 to 0.35.
This gives a horizontal matrix stress of 18 to 55% of
the vertical matrix stress.
Hydraulic fracturing is basically a process of rupturing the formation rock. In order to rupture the
rock, the matrix stress, pore pressure and tensile
strength of the rock must be overcome. The total
stress(S) is composed of matrix stress plus pore
pressure. Since the tensile strength of rock is low
and highly variable, it is frequently ignored. In
this instance, the least horizontal total stress or
frac gradient (FG) would be:

FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTURING
SPE 9064
vert i ca 1 stress), from dens ity logs, was found to be
approximately 1.07 psi/ft. (2.26 x 1Q4Pa/M). The
average of Poisson's Ratio from acoustic logs were,
For example let:
0.16 for sands and 0.29 for shales. The least stress
measurements taken from instant shut-in pressures
Smax = 1 psi/ft. (2.11 x 104PaLM)
Po = 0.46 psi/ft. (0.97 x 10~Pa/M)
compared favorably with the calculated values. Using
breakdown pressures and equat i on 3, Rosepil er found
= 0.2
then,
SL = FG = 0.6 psi/ft. (1.26 x 104Pa/M)
that the. intermediate horizontal stress' was usually
This
greater than the least horizontal stress.
Based on the frac gradient from this equation, an
implies additional tectonic forces are present. The
increase in either Poi sson' s Ratio or pore pressure
least stress, represented by instant shut-in
will cause a subsequent increase in the frac gradipressures, ranged from 5594 psi to 7190 psi for
ent. When the frac gradient is known, equation 1 can
The intermediate stress was generally 1.2
sands.
times the least stress, although they were very near
be used to estimate pore (reservoir) pressures or relative variations in rock properties. Although equaequal in 5 cases. The intermediate stress ranged
tion 1 can be used to estimate the frac gradient,
form 5618 psi to 9191 psi in sands.
normally it is available from acid and fracturing
treatments. It is achieved by dividing the sum of,
One use of stress data is to predict the probability
of secondary fractures. Nolte 4 presented the folinstant shut-in pressure (Pisi) and hydrostatic
pressure (Ph), by depth.
lowing relationship to predict the opening of secondary fractures.
(2) FG = fisi~
Depth
= ~Id2

The three principle stresses are generally unequal.

The magnitude of the differences in the intermediate
and least stresses will determine the preferred compass direction (azimuth) of the fracture. They will
also determine the potential for secondary fractures,
perpendicular to the matn fracture, which might occur
during a fracturing treatment. If there is a large
difference between the intermediate and least stresses, a preferred azimuth will be more likely, while
the chances of secondary fractures wi 11 be 1ess probable. The converse is true when there is small differences between the i ntermedi ate and 1east stresses.
In practical
given by:

terms 2, the intermediate stress

is

(3) 1 = 3L - Pb - Po + to
where

Pb = breakdown pressure
Po = pore pressure
to = tensile strength

The value for the breakdown pressure has the greatest

uncertainty because the number and orientation' of
perforations may greatly affect it. 3
However,
larger breakdown pressures, due to perforations, will
lead to conservative or low values for the
intermediate stress.
The least horizontal stress is assumed to be approximately equal to the instant shut-in pressure:
(4) L = Pisi
The instant shut-in pressure can be higher than the
least stress by about 200 psi (1.4 x 106Pa). However, it should be sufficient for practical comparisons.

1-j,I

Pis the pressure that must be exceeded to create

secondary fractures. Rosepil er2 has provi ded data
which suggests the pressure needed to open secondary
fractures in the Cotton Valley would range from 500
psi to 2000 psi. Pressures in this range can be
reached, particularly in long fractures. Nolte 4 has
presented a basis for interpreting fracturing
pressure, which includes the effects of secondary
fractures. His method could become a,valuable aid in
understanding fracturing, since it combines theory
and practical applications that can be tested and
analyzed in the field.
The effect of fracture azimuth on optimum field development of stimulated low permeability reservoirs
can be very pronounced, as shown by Smith. 5 Using
a reservoir simulator, he found a variation in
azimuth of approximately 45 could decrease 30 year
product i on by as much as 18%. I n East Texas and
North Louisiana, limited data suggests a northeast by
southwest direction for fracture azimuth, but the
azimuth will tend to parallel faults in the area. In
a relative manner, consistency from well to well of a
high ratio of least and intermediate horizontal
stresses may i ndi cate the probabil ity of the same
fracture azimuth.
Although several aspects of rock mechanics are unclear, industry is making a concentrated effort in
this area. The greatest clarification may come from
refinements in field results.
APPLICABILITY TO FRACTURING

Equations 3 and 4 provide a powerful tool to reflect

downhole stresses, which can provide insight into the
day to day fracturing process. However, these values
for the most part are not being used.

The key to successful hydraulic fracturing is based

on hori zonta 1 format i on permeabil ity, fracture conductivity and fracture penetration (length), as a
function of the effective drainage area. This assumes that there is an economical quantity of
hydrocarbons in the reservoir and enough poros ity,
saturation, productive interval and reservoir continuity and pressure exists.

Rosepiler recently performed a comprehensive study of

the Rri nci p1e stresses in the Cotton Valley Formation. 2
The 1ithostatic gradient, (total maximum

Permeability is often poorly defined and commonly

overstated.
In tight gas sands, this can lead to
poorly designed frac jobs. The most rel iable per-

3
G. F. DANIELS AND J. L. WHITE
meability values are obtained through pressure buildsection in the Cotton Valley failed to contain a
up or decline analysis and matching of production
fracture. The uncertainties of barrier containment
histories. Using permeability values that are based
are not only a function of poorly defined stresses
on core analyses can result in values that are too
and the effect of zone thickness, but the effect of
high. 6 Permeabil ity measured under confining prespump rate, fluid viscosity and frac length in exsures provide more realistic numbers. 6 7 Routine
ceedi ng thi s pressure or stress 1imit must also be
perms on clean Cotton Valley sands should be reduced
considered.
The latter effects Gould explain the
widely varying opinions.
Nolte's4 method of anaby a factor of about 16. For shale.Y CV sands, the
factor would be close to 60. Jones o gives a method
lyzing fracturing pressures could be a valuable tool
to estimate actual CV perms based on perms from
to establish the effects of rate, viscosity and fracroutine core-analysis.
ture length on frac height.
SPE 9064

The production curve (PI) shown in figure 2, has been

used for years to relate the effect of formation permeabil i ty, fr acture conduct i vity, spaci ng and penetration to fracturing effectiveness. Several assumptions exist that limit a quantitative analysis using
the PI, but relative comparisons are useful. A reservoir simulator is the best way to obtain quantitative and economic analysis, particularly for low
permeability reservoirs (O.Olmd and less). The optimum frac length will be discussed later in the
paper.
FRACTURING DESIGN

Frac barriers may be time dependent i.e., as the Pw

increases with time, barrier penetration may occur
and this rate of penetration may be slower than the
rate in the pay zone. With time, the barrier will be
completely penetrated. Nolte points out that rate is
only one factor in frac height and that treating
volume or time can result in pressure great enough to
penetrate barriers.
Hufft ll has proposed that rate can be used to control frac height growth in the Cotton Valley Formation. His relationship was establ ished for a pump
rate range of 8 BPM to 15 BPM as H = 24eO 164Q.

The basic assumption in fracturing design is the creation of vertical fractures and that there are two
rectangular, opposing in-line wings.
These wings
have dimensions
of height, length (one wing) and
width as shown in figure 3. How these dimensions are
achieved is a more complex matter.

This translates to 11 feet of height/BPM at 8 BPM and

18 feet of height/BPM at 15 BPM Although many East
Texas CV operators use somewhere between 8 feet/BPM
to 15 feet/BPM as a rule of thumb for fracture
height, several operators feel rates from 15 to 25
BPM have little effect on height.

Presently, there is no ~ethod available to accurately

predict gross fracture height, and this value must be
defined for computer design.
The uncertainty in
fracture height is generally considered the greatest
limitation in frac design. In de~ign, the net height
determines the area over which fluid loss will occur
and normally exceeds the pay interval.

Some operators design the frac job based on what they

would like the height to be (e.g., net height) rather
than reality.
In any event, use of correct fr ac
height and containment of height to the pay interval
can have a dramatic effect on economic optimization.

Although there is no quantitative method to determine

gross fracture height, lithological barriers are generally agreed to contain frac height. 8 These barriers occur as a result of in situ stress differences which are qualitatively related to elastic propertries of the formation (e.g., Young's Modulus and
Poi sson' s Ratio). Shale and low permeabil ity zones
are generally considered potential barriers due to
their high Poisson's Ratio which allows for higher
horizontal stresses (EQ. 1). The barriers are determi ned based on logs and are 1ater confi rmed, after
the frac job, by: 1) temperature surveys; 2) gamma
ray analysis using radioactive sand, radial differential temperature logs and noise 10gs.9, 10 Temperature surveys and gamma ray logs have proven effective. The gamma ray logs are most effective when
radioactive sand is run throughout all the propping
agent. These methods wi 11 i dent i fy the fr ac hei ght
near the we1lbore. The question still remains as to
the frac height away from the wel1bore.
The thickness required to constitute a barrier has
long been a topic of lively discussions.
A shale
zone of only 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 3.5m) has been reported as an effective barrier for frac containment.1 0
Many Cotton Valley operators feel the
minimum shale thickness should be from 10 (3.0m) to
30 feet (9.8m) to contain fracture height. Usually
the greater the thickness of the barrier. the more
effectively it functions in frac containment.
HufftIl reported that an 80 foot (26.2m) shale

Fracture width is computed by one of two basic models. One model developed originally by Perkins and
Kern,12 is where the fracture cross section, parallel to its height is elliptical. The example at the
right of figure 4 illustrates this fracture shape.
The elliptical width is more realistic than the second model. The equation for model 1 has the
form,
W = 4(1- /.1 2 ) liPH
E

where

= friction pressure loss in the fracture.

In order for the width to increase. the friction

pressure in the fracture must increase as the job
proceeds. If this model is val id, bottom-hole pressure shOUld increase with time. Indeed, a pressure
rise during treatment has been observed in some tight
reservoirs by Nolte. 4 However. one limitation for
the Perkin and Kern model is the difficulty in computing sand transport without assuming consistent
fracture width along its height.
The second model for frac width was orl~inallY developed by Khristianovich and Zheltov.
It has a
constant width along the height, as shown to the left
of figure 4. The equation for model 2 is similar to
the one in mode 1 I, except fr acture 1ength of one
wing replaces the height.
w = 4(1- /.1 2 ) APL
E

SPE 9064
FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTURING
From an optimum, economical fracture length
In model 2, the width can increase without an in4.
standpoint, there is trend to underdes i gn
crease in fracture friction pressure. Computation
fracturing treatments.
of pressure with model 2 shows the pressure to decrease during early stages of the treatment and then
reaching a constant value that is still higher than
the minimum horizontal stress. Model 2 will generally give wider fractures and shorter lengths than modell. Model 2 simplifies computing prop transport.
4

Fracture width will tend to increase with greater

pump rates, higher fluid viscosity and lower Young's
Modulus. In model 2, the width will increase with
length. The fracture width only needs to be wide enough to accept the desired size and quantity of
proppants wh~n effective transport is maintained.
Any width beyond this amount is wasted and reduces
the fracture length.

REFERENCES
1.

Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. R.:

Hydraulic
Fracturing, Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, New York (1970).

2.

Rosepiler, M. J.: "Determination of Principle

Stresses and Confinement of Hydraulic Fractures
in Cotton Valley", paper SPE 8405 presented at
SPE 54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas,
September 23-26, 1979.

3.

Daneshy, A. A.: "Experimental Investigation of

Hydraulic Fracturing Thru Perforations", J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct., 1973).

4.

Nolte, K. G.:
"Interpretation of Fracturing
Pressures", paper SPE 8297 presented at SPE 54th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26,
1979.

5.

Smith, M. B.: "Effect of Fracture Azimuth on

Product i on wi th app 1i cat i on to the Wattenber g
Gas Field", paper SPE 8,298 presented at SPE 54th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26,
1979.

6.

If a critical fracturing pressure exists, as suggested by Nolte,4 there may be a practical operational
limit on fracture length.

Jones, F. O. and Owens, W. W.: "A Laboratory

Study of Low Permeabil ity Gas Sands", paper SPE
7551 presented at SPE-AIME Symposium on Low
Permeabil ity Reservoi rs, Denver, May 20-22,
1979.

7.

There is a general trend among operators to underdesign fracture length. This becomes even more critical when the actual lengths from reservoir simulator studies are significantly less than the designed
For example, Holditch found that on the
length.
average the actual length from history matching was
70 percent of the designed length.

Strict1and,
F.
G.
and Feves, M. L.:
"Microstructural Damage in Cotton Valley
Format i on Cores", paper SPE 8303 presented at
SPE 54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.
23-26, 1979.

8.

Simpson, T. A. and Abou-Sayed, A. S.:

"Containment of Massive Hydraulic Fractures",
Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (Feb. 78) 27-32.

9.

Dobk ins, T. A.: "Methods to Better Determi ne

Hydrau1 ic Fracture Height", paper SOE 8403
presented at SPE 54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las
Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

10.

The fracturing breakdown pressure and instant

shut-in pressure reflect down-hole stress values
which are generally not used.
These values
coupled with down-hole fracturing pressures
should be used to gain a better understanding of
the day to day fracturing operations.

"Evaluation of Fracture
Pearce, R. M.:
Using Tracer and Temperature
Treatments
Surveys", paper SPE 7910 presented at SPE-AIME
Symposium
on Low-Permeability Reservoirs,
Denver, May 20-22, 1979.

11.

Gross and net fracture heights remain the greatest uncertainties in fracturing design.

Hufft, H. F.: "The Evolution of a Fracturing

Technique for the Cotton Valley", paper SPE
6868 presented at SPE 52nd Annual Fall Meeting,
Denvei, Oct. 9-12, 1977.

12.

Perkins, T. K. and Kern, L. R.:

"Widths of
Hydraul ic Fractures", J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.,
1961).

The des i gned hydr au1 ic fr acture 1ength is computed,

based on the width and fluid loss equations, assuming
a constant fracture height. The fracture length will
increase with narrower widths, greater fluid loss efficiency and a higher Young's Modulus. The PI curve
in figure 2 can be used as a guide to desirable frac
length. For economic analysis, a reservoir simulator
should be used.
An example of present value, as a function of frac
length on a typical Cotton Valley evaluation is shown
in figures 5 and 6 for 320 acre (1.3 x 10 6m2) and
640 (2.5 x 106m2) spacing respectively. The optimum length for 320 acre spacing is between 1500 feet
(457m) and 2000 feet (610m). For 640 acre (2.5 x
106m2) spacing, the op-timum length is over 2000
feet (610m). Holditch 14 found similar results for
tight gas reservoi rs with opt imum 1engths of 1500
feet (457m) to 1800 feet (610m). Most people agree a
320 acre (1.3 x 10 6m2) or less spacing will be
required for the effective drainage of the gas in
p1 ace.

The topics of fluid loss, fluid selection, prop

selection and prop transport are very important
aspects of the design procedure. They will be discussed in detail in a companion paper 16
CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.
3.

In tight gas sands, an accurate permeability is

required to optimize fracture length.

G. F. DANIELS AND J. L. WHITE

SPE 9064
NOMENCLATURE
13. Kristianovic, S. A. and Zheltov, Y. P.:
"Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of
Highly Viscious Liquid", Proc. Fourth World Pet.
Young's Modulus
E
Cong., Rome (1955).
14.

Holditch, S. A., Jenning, J. W., and Neuse, S.

H.:
"The Optimization of Well Spacing and
Fr acture Length in Low Permeabil ity Reservoi rs" ,
paper SPE 7496 presented at SPE 53rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.

FG

Frature Height
Gross Fracture Height
Net Fracture Height

15. Holditch, S. A. and Lee, W. J.:

"Fracture
Evaluation with Pressure Transient Tests in Low
Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Part II:
Field
Examples", paper SPE 7930 presented at SPE-AIME
Sympos i urn of Low-Permeabi 1ity
Reservoi rs,
Denver, May 20-22, 1979.
16.

Daniel, E. F. and
Treatments in the
to be presented
Symposium, Tyler,

Fracturing Gradient

Permeability
Length
Pressure

White, J. L.: "Design of MHF

Cotton Va 11 ey", paper SPE 9065
at the 1980 Cotton Valley
Texas, May 21, 1980.

Breakdown Pressure for Fracturing

Hydrostatic Pressure
Pisi

Instant Shut-in Pressure

Pore or Reservoir Pressure

Pump Rate

Total Stress

Width
Matric Stress
Poisson's Ratio

FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTURING
(T Z=MAXIMUM STRESS
(T A=LEAST STRESS
(Ta=INTERMEDIATE STRESS

ORIENTATION OF FRACTURE EXPECTED BY

, APPLYING INTERNAL PRESSURE EQUAL TO
OR GREATER THAN LEAST STRESS
IDEALIZED STRESS DISTRIBUTION.,
TECTONICALl Y RelAXED FORMATION

Fig. 1 - Idealized stress distribution;

tectonically relaxed formation.

14

12

I--

VERTIcAL

IFRA~TURES

10

~~

~ ~ L.-

;:;;'-1-""

8
~
JI!!!. ~

0,1

....
'"

~ ~ r--

0,3 0.6 1

6 10

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Z
50% 0

i=

"""
"""

2~

I-I--

40% oC(
30',
20', Z
10', CI..

~ ~I-""

~:::

30

60 100

KfW ~ 40

Fig. 2 - Estimated production increase

after fracturing (vertical fractures).

(a)
VERTICAL

(h)
NEAR-VERTICAL

Fig. 3 - Fracture orientation.

OVERBURDEN

OVERBURDEN

UNDERBURDEN

UNIlERBUROEN

Fig. 4 - Possible fracture geometry.

PRESENT VALUE VS FRACTURE LENGTH

COTTON VALLEY 320 ACRE SPACING
PERM
0.0022 md
POROSITY
5%
HEIGHT
360 FEET
INITIAL GAS PRICE
ESCALATEO AT
OF 16 OOIMCF

250

:z

200

150

100

>

1229/MCF

2S,!;

TO

A MAXIMUM

~
INTEREST

RATE

IIR)

::

;;;;

50

""
50
100
.150
0

~ DISCOUNT

IR

~OISCOUNT

IR

r",,""' "

1000
2000 2500
FRACTURE LENGTH

Fig. 5 - Present value vs. fracture length,

Cotton Valley - 320 acre spacing.

PRESENT VALUE
COTTON VALLEY
0" DISCOUNT
INTEREST RATE

300
250

VS

FRACTURE LENGTH
640 ACRE SPACING

(lR)

PERMEABILITY
POROSITY

....

200

HEIGHT

0.0022

md

S"
360 FEET

:z

150

>

::
;;;;
=>
....

..

INITIAL

GAS

ESCALATED
MAXIMUM

52.29/MCF

PRICE
AT

Of

25'1>

TO

SO.OO/MCF

100
10\

50

DISCOUNT

y::::::::

""

II
II
IR

50
100
-150

1000 1500 2000 2500

fRACTURE LENGTH

Fig. 6 - Present value vs. fracture length,

Cotton Valley - 640 acre spacing.