Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
(2017) 2:41
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0096-1
PRACTICE-ORIENTED PAPER
Effects of different stress regimes on hydraulic fracture geometry:
a particle flow code approach
Sajjad Jalili1 • Kaveh Ahangari2
Received: 21 March 2017 / Accepted: 27 June 2017 / Published online: 5 July 2017
Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract Hydraulic fracturing decisions are closely tied
to quantitative description of rock mechanical proper-
ties and in situ stresses in the subsurface. Geomechanics
plays a critical role in successfully optimizing hydraulic
fracturing, especially in different stress regimes. For
those stress regimes that are not normal, the hydraulic
fracture geometry is usually more complex and more
difficult to predict and investigate. In this study, a
particle flow code (PFC) has been developed to inves-
tigate and compare the hydraulic fracture geometry in
different stress regimes. The results have demonstrated
that hydraulic fracture geometry is closely tied to in situ
stress conditions, whereas any change in a predominant
stress regime from normal to reverse affects the
hydraulic fracture geometry. Based on the developed
PFC3D model, in a given fracturing pressure, the width
and height of the induced hydraulic fracture in a normal
stress regime is higher than a reverse stress regime,
while the length of the hydraulic fracture in a reverse
stress regime is greater than the normal stress regime.
The results from this study can be applied in both
planning and real-time decisions during hydraulic
fracturing jobs to optimize the operation and prevent
any job failure which will in turn affect the ultimate
productivity.
& Kaveh Ahangari
kaveh.ahangari@gmail.com
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords Hydraulic fracturing
Geomechanical
analysis
Particle flow code (PFC)
Stress regimes
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has been one of the most frequently
implemented techniques for increasing the production of
oil/gas reservoirs for several decades. Generally, hydraulic
fracturing is the pumping of fluids at rates and pressures
sufficient to break the rock, ideally forming a fracture with
two wings of equal length on both sides of the borehole. In
other words, when the pumping pressure exceeds the
strength of the rock formation, fractures are induced and
propagated into the formation. The fracturing fluid would
gradually leak off into the formation, and pressure inside the
fracture would fall affecting the geometry of the propagating
hydraulic fracture. Then the propping agent is pumped into
the fractures to keep them open after pumping. Therefore, a
passage with high conductivity is constructed and hydro-
carbon can flow into the well from the formation [4]. These
induced hydraulic fractures will open in the direction of least
principal stress and propagate perpendicular to this direction.
One of the important factors that should be considered during
hydraulic fracturing planning and real-time operation is
hydraulic fracture geometry. In this way, the effect of dif-
ferent parameters such as natural discontinuities on fracture
geometry and propagation behavior of hydraulic fracture has
been discussed by various authors [1, 3, 10–13, 15–18].
However, the role of stress regime on hydraulic fracture
geometry has not been fully investigated. Before planning to
do any hydraulic fracturing job, it is very important to know
the general orientation and geometry of the induced
hydraulic fracture, since the hydraulic fracture design for
horizontal and vertical fracture propagation is totally
123
41 Page 2 of 6
different. If the induced hydraulic fracture propagates hori-
zontally, but the well performance calculations and the
fracture propagation behavior are based on vertical fracture
orientation and geometry, the results can be challenging. In
other words, in a planning stage of a hydraulic fracturing job
in a reverse stress regime, if the fractures are not considered
to be horizontal and are assumed to be vertical, then the
productivity and efficiency would be affected in both tech-
nical and economical points of view. Fracture geometry is
usually described by fracture height, length and width (or
aperture) as shown in Fig. 1.
On the other hand, hydraulic fracture geometry will be
considerably affected by the predominant stress regime. Three
in situ stress regimes which are normal faulting, strike-slip
faulting and reverse faulting stress regime can be considered
to describe the stress states as represented in Fig. 2 [14].
In this way, in normal faulting stress regime, the vertical
stress (rv) is greater than the maximum (rH) and minimum
(rh) horizontal stress rh \ rH \ rv and in strike-slip
faulting stress regime the order is rh \ rv \ rH, while in
reverse faulting stress regime the vertical stress is the least
principal stress. For those stress regimes that are not nor-
mal, the hydraulic fracture geometry is usually more
complex and more difficult to predict. Therefore, applying
numerical models can be beneficial in such cases. One of
those efficient numerical approaches is particle flow code
(PFC). The PFC is a distinct element code that represents a
rock mass as an assemblage of spherical balls of specified
stiffness bonded together with bonds of specified strength
at contact points and each bond breakage is assumed to be a
microcrack [19]. The main objective of this study was to
investigate and compare the hydraulic fracture geometry in
normal and reverse stress regimes through PFC.
Fig. 1 Schematic view of a hydraulic fracture geometry described by
height, length and width [5]
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:41
Particle flow code (PFC)
PFC3D models are generally the movement and interac-
tion of spherical particles by the distinct element method
(DEM), as described by Cundall and Strack [2]. The
original application of this method was as a tool to per-
form research into the behavior of granular material,
which was through representative elements containing
several hundred particles tested numerically. The particle
model was used to understand element behavior (in which
conditions are uniform), and a continuum method was
used to solve real problems that involve complicated
deformation patterns (with the element behavior derived
from the particle model tests). The task of deriving gen-
eral constitutive laws from test results on particle
assemblies is very difficult, but with the spectacular
increase in the power of small computers it is now pos-
sible to model entire problems with particles; the consti-
tutive behavior is built into the model automatically.
PFC3D is designed to be an efficient tool to model com-
plicated problems in solid mechanics and granular flow. A
physical problem that is concerned with the movement and
interaction of spherical particles may be modeled directly by
PFC3D. It is also possible to create particles of arbitrary shape
by attaching two or more particles together, such that each
group of particles acts as an autonomous object. PFC3D is
also able to model a brittle solid by bonding every particle to
its neighbor. The resulting assembly can be regarded as a
solid that has elastic properties and can be fractured when
bonds break in a progressive manner.
PFC3D contains extensive logic to facilitate the modeling
of solids as close packed assemblies of bonded particles
where the solid may be homogeneous, or it may be divided
into a number of discrete regions or blocks. This type of
physical system may also be modeled by the distinct element
programs UDEC [7] and 3DEC [8], which deal with angular
blocks. However, PFC3D has three advantages. First, it is
potentially more efficient, since contact detection between
circular objects is much simpler than contact detection
between angular objects. Second, there is essentially no limit
to magnitude of displacement that can be modeled and, third,
it is possible for the blocks to break (since they are composed
of bonded particles), unlike blocks modeled with UDEC or
3DEC which cannot break [9].
Model construction
To increase computing speed, we have modeled a part of a
sandstone reservoir in such a way that the density of par-
ticles is 2.545 g/cm3. Parameters used in the PFC3D model
are shown in Table 1.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:41 Page 3 of 6 41

Fig. 2 Different faulting stress

regimes: a normal fault regime;
b strike-slip fault regime;
c reverse fault regime [6]

The particles are kept in a reservoir with fixed walls

(walls with zero displacement). It is necessary to mention
that modeling fluid flow in PFC3D does not allow using
circular boundaries. Since PFC3D is unable to build a
model with a curved wall, to simulate the model, a
polygonal inscribed on the curved walls has been consid-
ered. This circular surface includes 48 discrete walls with
the same angles and size (Fig. 3).
Each sector is 7.5 °. Also, the same method has been
used for the wall of the well as well as the circular cap. For
simulation of hydraulic fracturing, firstly the model is filled
with particles until all particles are deposited under the
weight forces. This job is carried out in several steps. At
each step, the mean unbalanced force curve (red curve) is
depicted. Convergence of the mean unbalanced force
toward a constant value in each step indicates that the Fig. 3 Schematic view of the constructed model
deposition is completed. Figures 4 and 5 represent the
initial and final steps of the particle deposition process. force in the system and the mean unbalanced force and
Each peak of the curve represents a step of the maximum unbalanced force are zero.
deposition.
Figure 6 shows the model and particles before fluid
injection. As it can be seen from the shape of the contact Results and discussions
force, the model is in a state of tranquility and the forces
are distributed uniformly. Also, there is no unbalanced To investigate the effects of different stress regimes on
hydraulic fracture geometry, two PFC3D models were
Table 1 The parameters used
Parameters Value constructed: one in a normal stress regime and the other
in the PFC3D model in a reverse stress regime. The hydraulic fracture
Primary porosity 0.3 geometry has been studied through three values of
Normal stiffness 106 N/m fracturing pressure (38.14, 39.81 and 40.52 MPa). So, in
Shear stiffness 106 N/m the first step to simulate a normal stress regime, the
Particle density 2.545 g/cm3 values for in situ stresses rv (‘Z’’ direction), rH (‘‘Y’’
Fluid density 1 g/cm3 direction) and rh (‘‘X’’ direction) were considered to be

123
41 Page 4 of 6
Fig. 4 The first step of particle deposition. The red curve shows the
mean unbalanced force converging to zero
Fig. 5 The final step of particle deposition. The red curve shows the
mean unbalanced force converging to zero
45, 40 and 30 MPa, respectively. The results of
hydraulic fracture geometry in three different fracturing
pressures are shown in Table 2.
As presented in Table 2, any increase in fracturing
pressure in a normal stress regime leads to increasing
fracture width, length and height. Figure 7 shows the
induced hydraulic fracture propagation in this case.
As a matter of fact, the fracture would open in the
direction of least resistance and would propagate per-
pendicular to that. Figure 7 represents the direction of
hydraulic fracture opening and propagation which would
be parallel to the minimum (along the X direction) and
maximum horizontal stress (along the Y direction),
respectively. In addition, since the direction of least
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:41
Fig. 6 State of the model before the fluid injection (black lines
indicate the contact forces between particles)
principal stress is horizontal, the hydraulic fracture will be
vertical and axial.
Also, a reverse stress regime has been modeled by
PFC3D in such a way that the values for rv (‘Z’’ direction),
rH (‘‘Y’’ direction) and rh (‘‘X’’ direction) would be 30, 45
and 40 MPa, respectively. Table 3 and Fig. 8 represent the
results of hydraulic fracture geometry in a reverse stress
regime.
Based on Table 3, it is clearly observed that hydraulic
fracture width, length and height will increase by increasing
the fracturing pressure. As shown in Fig. 8, in a reverse stress
regime, hydraulic fracture opening would be in the direction
of rv (‘‘Z’’ direction) and propagation along rh (‘‘X’’
direction). Also, based on Fig. 8, in a reverse stress regime
the hydraulic fracture would be horizontal and transverse,
since the vertical stress is the least in magnitude. The dif-
ference between the two horizontal stresses, which are
orthogonal to the wellbore axis, can be influential as well.
By comparing the results of hydraulic fracture geom-
etry in normal and reverse stress regime in Tables 2 and
3, one can easily see that the width and height of the
induced hydraulic fracture decreased in a reverse stress
regime compared to the normal stress regime, while the
hydraulic fracture length increased in a reverse stress
regime. In other words, since the width and height of the
hydraulic fracture in a reverse stress regime are lower
than the normal stress regime, proppant bridging and
blocking of proppant transport are more challenging in a
reverse stress regime. Also, based on Figs. 7 and 8, it is
clearly observed that in a normal stress regime the
hydraulic fracture is axial, but in a reverse stress regime it
is transverse.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:41 Page 5 of 6 41

Table 2 Hydraulic fracture geometry in a normal stress regime

Fracturing pressure Fracture opening (along the ‘‘X’’ Fracture length (along the ‘‘Y’’ Fracture height (along the ‘‘Z’’
(MPa) direction, mm) direction, m) direction, m)

38.14 20.16 21.82 44

39.81 23.67 30.05 51.36
40.52 30.41 34.86 62.2

Fig. 7 Top view of hydraulic fracture propagation in a normal stress Fig. 8 Hydraulic fracture propagation in a reverse stress regime
regime

Table 3 Hydraulic fracture geometry in a reverse stress regime

Fracturing pressure Fracture width (along the ‘‘Z’’ Fracture length (along the ‘‘X’’ Fracture height (along the ‘‘Y’’
(MPa) direction, mm) direction, m) direction, m)

38.14 12.32 28.35 39.62

39.81 17.95 33.27 43.2
40.52 24.12 40.24 51.23

Conclusions given fracturing pressure, the width and height of the

A new methodology based on PFC3D was introduced to
account for hydraulic fracture geometry in different stress
regimes. PFC3D is able to model the movement and inter-
action of spherical particles by the distinct element method
(DEM) and it is a tool to perform research into the behavior
of granular materials, like the lithotypes which are found in
oil and gas reservoirs.
It is clearly observed that the hydraulic fracture
geometry will be affected by any change in stress
regime, whereas hydraulic fracture width, length and
height are not similar in normal and reverse stress
regimes. Based on the developed PFC3D model, in a
induced hydraulic fracture in a normal stress regime are
higher than a reverse stress regime, while the length of
the hydraulic fracture in a reverse stress regime is
greater than the normal stress regime. This indirectly
means that, in a reverse stress regime, proppant transport
inside the induced hydraulic fracture is more crucial than
normal stress regime. Also, in a normal stress regime,
the induced hydraulic fracture propagates vertically,
while in a reverse stress regime it propagates
horizontally.
The results from this study can be applied to optimize
the hydraulic fracturing operation and prevent any job
failure which would in turn affect the ultimate productivity.

123
41 Page 6 of 6
Acknowledgements The authors thank the National Iranian South
Oil Company (NISOC) for the encouragement and continuous support
to publish this paper and also we appreciate Mr. Reza Keshavarzi for
his fabulous consultations.
References
1. Athavale AS, Miskimins JL (2008) Laboratory hydraulic frac-
turing tests on small homogeneous and laminated blocks. In:
42nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd US-Canada Rock
Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco
2. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29:47–65
3. Dahi-Taleghani A (2009) Analysis of hydraulic fracture propa-
gation in fractured reservoirs: an improved model for the inter-
action between induced and natural fractures. PhD dissertation.
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
4. Economides MJ, Nolte KG (2000) Reservoir stimulation. Wiley,
New York, pp 80–90 (160–167)
5. Engelder T (1993) Stress regimes in the lithosphere. Princeton
University, Princeton
6. Gross M, Lukas TC, Schwans P (2009) Application of mechan-
ical stratigraphy to the development of a fracture-enhanced
reservoir model, Polvo Field, Campos Basin, Brazil. AAPG
Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, 7–10 June 2009
7. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1996) UDEC—Universal Distinct
Element Code- Version 3.0. User’s manual, Minneapolis: ICG
8. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1998) 3DEC—3-dimensional
Distinct Element Code- Version 2.0. User’s manual, Minneapolis:
ICG
9. Itasca (2006) PFC3D user’s guide
10. Keshavarzi R, Mohammadi S (2012) A new approach for
numerical modeling of hydraulic fracture propagation in naturally
fractured reservoirs. In: SPE/EAGE European Unconventional
Resources Conference and Exhibition Vienna, Austria
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017) 2:41
11. Keshavarzi R, Jahanbakhshi R (2013) Real-time prediction of
complex hydraulic fracture behaviour in unconventional naturally
fractured reservoirs. In: SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman
12. Keshavarzi R, Mohammadi S, Bayesteh H (2012) Hydraulic
fracture propagation in unconventional reservoirs: the role of
natural fractures. In: 46th ARMA Symposium, Chicago
13. Narayan SP, Jing Z, Yang ZK, Rahman SS (1999) Influence of
natural fractures and in situ stresses on proppant-free hydraulic
stimulation of Hot Dry Rock reservoirs. In: 21th New Zealand
Geothermal Workshop. Auckland, New Zealand
14. Peng S, Zhang J (2007) Engineering Geology for Underground
Rocks. Springer Publication, Berlin
15. Renshaw CE, Pollard DD (1995) An experimentally verified
criterion for propagation across unbounded frictional interfaces in
brittle, linear elastic materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geo-
mech Abstr 32(3):237–249 (Pergamon)
16. Rodgerson JL (2000) Impact of natural fractures in hydraulic
fracturing of tight gas sands. In: SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers
17. Rogers SF, Elmo D, Dershowitz WS, Golder Redmond WA
(2011) Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Geometry and Inter-
actions. In: Pre-Conditioning through DFN and Numerical
Modeling. 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
San Francisco, California
18. Zhou J, Chen M, Jin Y, Zhang GQ (2008) Analysis of fracture
propagation behavior and fracture geometry using a tri-axial
fracturing system in naturally fractured reservoirs. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 45(7):1143–1152
19. Zhao X, Young R (2009) Three-dimensional dynamic distinct
element modeling applied to laboratory simulation of hydraulic
fracturing in naturally fractured reservoirs. In: 2009 SEG Annual
Meeting. Society of Exploration Geophysicists