Main Menu

Acoustic emission and SEM analyses of hydraulic fractures under triaxial stress conditions
Akash Damani*, Abhishek Sharma, Carl Sondergeld and Chandra Rai, Mewbourne School of Petroleum and
Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma

Summary

Microseismic monitoring has become an essential tool in understanding the fracture growth and diagnostics during hydraulic
fracturing operations. Although fractures are considered as planar features in modeling, field and lab studies indicate that most of
the fractures are non-planar complex features. These departures affect energy dissipation during fracture propagation and affect
proppant dispersement. Hypocenter locations and fault plane solutions of microseismicity are used to determine the orientation
and geometry of fractures. The variation in velocity structure and the complex fracture geometry results in the uncertainty
associated with hypocenter location. Laboratory acoustic emission measurements during hydraulic fracturing provide controlled
conditions, better azimuthal coverage and understanding of the velocity model.
We report the results of controlled laboratory hydraulic fracturing experiments instrumented with piezoelectric acoustic emission
sensors. The rock samples studied are a tight sandstone and pyrophyllite. Sandstone is considered to be isotropic while
pyrophyllite is a strongly foliated metamorphic rock having strong elastic anisotropy (~25%) and permeability in the nanodarcy
range, both very similar to shales. The samples are loaded triaxially to replicate the insitu stress conditions. The uncertainty in
hypocenter locations, frequency analysis, source mechanisms and the effects of stress on fracture propagation will be discussed.
SEM observations of the fractures are correlated with the mapped microseismic events. Fracture initiation in anisotropic
materials is affected by the magnitude of anisotropy and can be predicted if the elastic constants are known. Fractures are
nonplanar and shear failure is observed via focal mechanisms to be the dominant fracture mechanism.

Introduction

Hydraulic Fracturing is a well-known and useful technique for increasing production from petroleum reservoirs. Since its
inception by Clark in 1949, it has made a significant contribution in the oil industry. One of the major difficulties in the
successful application of hydraulic fracturing is the uncertainty in the orientation of the hydraulic fracture. Fractures are assumed
to be simple (mode I tensile) planar features which propagate symmetrically about the wellbore. In the field, asymmetrical and
complex fractures have been reported by Warpinski (1985) and Jeffrey et al. (1995) during the mine back experiments. This may
be attributed to the stress heterogeneity, anisotropy and lithology variations present in the rocks.
Microseismic mapping holds promise for imaging fracture complexity. Acoustic emission techniques have been used in mapping
the hydraulic fractures and assessing fracture mechanisms in the laboratory studies (Matsunaga et al., 1993; Masuda et al., 1993).
The source mechanism studies in the lab and field studies (Warpinski 2009, Chitrala et al. 2010) suggest that shear failure is the
dominant mechanism.

A constant velocity model cannot be assumed in anisotropic rocks such as shales. The fragility and reactiveness of shales make it
very difficult to study them directly. Pyrophyllite, due to its anisotropy, stability and similar characteristics to shale, is used as a
substitute to shales in the laboratory studies.

Experimental Setup

Fig 1(a) shows the field setup for microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing. An array of sensors is placed in the monitor
well to detect the microseismic activity during hydraulic fracturing operation in the treatment well. We try and simulate the field
conditions in laboratory experiments where a cylindrical rock sample of diameter 4 inch and length of approximately 6 inch is
used to resemble the formation (Fig 1(b)). It is drilled along the axis and completed with a tubing of 0.25 inch external diameter
with an injection point located at about halfway along the length of the sample. Hydraulic fracture is created by pumping fluid
through this simulated wellbore. Acoustic emission sensors (15 in number) are placed all around the sample to monitor the
acoustic emissions during hydraulic fracturing.
The triaxial stress state is achieved using specially designed loading equipment shown in Figure 2. The three stresses are applied
using confining fluid pressure, hydraulic flat jacks and axial piston. Test Parameters have been summarized in Table 1.

2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 1
Main Menu

Fig 1(a): Typical observation well microseismic detection Fig 1(b): Experimental Setup to detect acoustic emissions
setup (Warpinski, 2009). generated during laboratory hydraulic fracturing. (Chitrala et
al., 2011).

Table 1: Test Parameters

Rock K Mineralogy Pump Frac.
(%) (md) Rate Fluid,
(cc/min) Viscosity
Lyons
9 0.02 Quartz, 86% 10
sandstone Oil, 50 cp
-6 Calcite, 48%,
Pyrophyllite 3 8 x 10 5
Dolomite, 31%

Observations

The temporal distribution of acoustic activity is shown in Fig 3 along with

the pressure curve. A rapid burst of Acoustic events (AE) is seen to occur
during the fracture creation which corresponds to the pressure buildup
period. This is followed by a slower rate of recorded AE during fracture
propagation stage. Secondary microseismic activity is observed during the
closing of the fracture once the pumping is stopped. This secondary activity
observed in case of sandstone samples may be due to the shearing of the
asperities during closing of the fracture.

Fig 2: Triaxial loading apparatus with a jacketed

and instrumented sample in place.

2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 2
Main Menu

Laboratory Hydraulic Fracture Mapping

The microseismic events detected during hydraulic fracturing

were located using a least square based inversion algorithm.
Fig 4(a) and 4(b) show the plan view and lateral view,
respectively, of located acoustic emission events in the
sandstone sample. Number of located events is approximately
21 percent of the total AE events. These located events have
been divided into three groups: early, intermediate, and late.
The AE locations coincide well with the physical surface
observation of the fracture as seen in Fig 4 (c) and (d). It is
observed that the events occurring earlier in time are more
diffusely distributed around the fracture zone as these occur
during the fracture creation period while the later time events
tend to trace the fracture process zone more precisely because
most of these occur during secondary activity resulting from
closing of the fracture.
Focal mechanism studies were carried out and classified into Fig 3: Pore pressure and acoustic emission event counts versus
4 different failure mechanisms: tensile, compressive, shear time for a triaxial hydraulic fracture in Lyons sandstone. Axial,
and complex. Majority of the events fell under the complex confining and horizontal pressures are 2000, 500, and 750 psi,
and shear categories. Microscopic observations on samples respectively; Breakdown pressure is about 13876 psi.
taken from the fractured rock also revealed abundance of shear failure mechanism along with other features like non-planarity
and fracture bifurcation etc.

Conclusions

The microseismic activity detected during laboratory fracturing experiments

mapped the fracture fairly accurately. Majority of AE events occurred in the
pressure buildup periods for both isotropic and anisotropic rocks. Errors in the
hypocenter locations for the anisotropic sample are greater than the errors in
the isotropic rock. The developed fractures are non-linear and non-planar
features with shear failure being more dominant than tensile failure
mechanism. Microscopic observations reveal the non-linear and complex
nature of the developed fracture.

Fig 5: Shear failure observed under SEM.

2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 3
Main Menu

Laboratory Hydraulic Fracture Mapping

(a) (b)

(c) X (d)

Y
Z

X
Fracture

Fig 4(a): Plan View of Microseismic events in sandstone with events grouped into 3 sets: early, intermediate and late time
events; Fig 4(b): Lateral View of Microseismic events in sandstone with temporal grouping of events; Fig 4(c): Plan view
of fracture trace on sample surface; Fig 4(d): Lateral view of fracture trace on sample surface.

2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 4
Main Menu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2012
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES
Chitrala, Y., 2011, Laboratory study of fluid induced hydraulic fractures Hypocenter locations, source
mechanism, frequency analysis and microscopic observations: M.S. dissertation, University of
Oklahoma.
Masuda, K., O. Nishizawa, K. Kusunose, and T. Sato, 1990, Laboratory study of fluid pressure diffusion
in rock using acoustic emissions: Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, no. B13, 2159321607.
Matsunaga, I., H. Kobayashi, S. Sasaki, and T. Ishida, 1993, Studying hydraulic fracture mechanism by
laboratory experiments with acoustic emission monitoring: International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences Geomechanics Abstracts, 30, 909912.
Warpinski, N., 2009, Microseismic monitoring: Inside and out: Journal of Petroleum Technology, 61, no.
11, 8085.

2012 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2012-1585.1

SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Page 5