ARMA 19–2020

An Analytical Model for Hydraulic Fracture Initiation in

Deviated Wellbores
Roostaei, M., Sharbatian, A., Fattahpour, V. and Mahmoudi, M.
RGL Reservoir Management Inc., Leduc, Alberta, Canada
Velayati, A.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Ghalambor, A.
Oil Center Research International, Lafayette, USA
Nouri, A.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Copyright 2019 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 53rd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in New York, NY, USA, 23–26 June
2019. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: This paper presents an analytical model to calculate the hydraulic fracture initiation pressure from an arbitrarily
oriented wellbore in an elastic medium with and without perforations and investigates the competition between axial and transverse
fractures. The model predicts the location of fractures and their initiation pressures, in relation to the in-situ stress condition and
wellbore azimuth and inclination. Not only has the model been applied to different states of in-situ stress and wellbore orientations,
but also the results have been presented in terms of non-dimensional parameters to improve the applicability of the study.
The presence of both transverse and axial hydraulic fractures can cause significant near-wellbore tortuosity. Besides, the stress
distribution around the perforation tunnel has a substantial impact on the fracture initiation pressure and thus the fracture geometry
near the wellbore. The introduced analytical model was verified against existing models. The model has been successfully applied to
different conditions of in-situ stress and wellbore orientations, which were not addressed in previous studies. The results can be used
to obtain the optimum well and perforation design in deviated wellbores by providing the minimum fracture initiation pressure and
the perforation orientation that minimizes the near-wellbore fracture tortuosity.

Previous studies show that hydraulic fractures initiate

1. INTRODUCTION
Hydraulic fracturing is one of the effective stimulation
techniques for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery.
Advancement of directional drilling and the combination
of this technique with fracturing treatment has boosted
economical production from reservoirs. Performing an
efficient hydraulic fracture stimulation job requires the
prediction of fracture initiation pressures. Location of
initial fractures and the initiation pressure of these
fractures in deviated wellbores are essential in many other
operations such as production optimization as well. Near-
wellbore pressure losses can be minimized or even
eliminated with the help of oriented fracturing, enabling
the use of higher proppant concentrations for better
conductivity and larger proppant sizes and greater
production response (Manrique and Venkitaraman, 2001;
Andrews et al., 2008). A better estimation of fracture
initiation pressure can lead to improved design and
implementation of fracturing treatments.
from the surface of the wellbore or perforation in a
direction that is dependent on the in-situ stress state and
after initial propagation reorient to grow in a plane
perpendicular to the minimum original in-situ stress,
within one wellbore diameter (Behrmann and Elbel,
1991). Moreover, it is preferable that the initiated fracture
does not change direction from the initiation orientation
since this will cause a reduction in the width of the
fracture along its path. Therefore, the location and onset
of fracturing requires the computation of the stress
concentration around the wellbore. Careful consideration
of these factors will prevent the creation of multiple
fractures and adverse near-wellbore issues.
The impact of principal stress orientation and wellbore
azimuth and inclination on fracture initiation has been
widely studied. Daneshy, 1973 raised the issue for the first
time by performing theoretical and experimental
investigation on inclined hydraulic fractures. Later,
Hallam and Last, 1991 investigated the geometry of
hydraulic fractures from modestly deviated wells and
provided some guidelines for minimizing adverse effects
of loss of productivity due to poor linkage of the fractures
via laboratory experiments. Weng, 1993 presented the
result of an analytical study of hydraulic fracture initiation
and propagation from deviated wellbores. He presented a
criterion that correlates fracture link-up to wellbore
parameters and investigated the impact of the horizontal
stress anisotropy and multiple fracture formation.
Other than well trajectory, presence of perforations may
result in initiation of fractures at the non-preferred
locations and non-preferred orientation. Hossain et al.,
2000 included the effect of perforations in their modeling
by calculating induced tangential stresses at the junction
of wellbore with perforation. Overcoming rock tensile
strength by the tangential stress was used as a rock failure
criterion. They only investigated perforation effects in the
vertical and horizontal wellbores as the equations become
very simple in these cases. Fallahzadeh et al., 2010
improved the considered failure criterion by Hossain et
al., 2000 with considering pore pressure effects. It was
demonstrated that at any specific stress regime there is an
optimum well and perforation orientation, which reduces
the fracture initiation, pressure and near-wellbore fracture
tortuosity. They, however, did not indicate the location of
initiated fractures.
The tangential and radial induced stresses depend on the
wellbore pressure. Therefore, by increasing wellbore
pressure, eventually tensile tangential stresses are
generated that may exceed tensile strength of the
formation and create axial fractures (Hubbert and Willis,
1957; Haimson and Fairhust, 1969). On the other hand,
transverse fractures initiate due to tensile axial stresses.
Creation and propagation of a longitudinal fracture from
a deviated wellbore is always desirable. In certain
conditions, however, a transverse fracture may propagate
concurrently with an axial fracture as reported by field
observations (Waters et al., 2006; Daneshy, 2009, 2011)
and experiments (Weijers and de Pater, 1994; Abass et al.,
1996, 2009). As indicated by laboratory experiments on
hydraulically fractured rock blocks (Weijers and de Pater,
1994) and numerical simulations (Hossain et al., 2000,
Alekseenko et al., 2012), the copresence of both axial and
transverse fractures can lead to adverse effects like higher
treating pressures, poor proppant placement and higher
possibility of screenouts.
It is therefore clear that for an efficient fracturing
treatment, the ability to predict and control the initiation
pressure is essential. In doing so, the focus of this study is
to investigate the location and required pressure for
generation of initial fractures for different wellbore
configurations and in-situ stress conditions. This paper
also investigates the effect of the perforations, pore
pressure and transverse fractures. In all cases, a sensitivity
analysis is performed to explore the main controlling
parameters of fracturing. Unlike previous studies, the
current investigation is not limited to analyzing certain
azimuth or inclination angles. Considering only certain
azimuth or inclination angles is due to the fact that the
final equations for induced stresses in deviated wellbores
become so extensive that finding the principal stresses is
always a challenge. With the method introduced in this
paper, it is now possible to perform the analysis for the
full range of Azimuth and inclinations. Additionally, we
have performed the analysis for varying pore pressure
situations in both non-perforated and perforated wellbores
which is more realistic compared to the constant pore
pressure situations presented in earlier works. This study
also investigates the competition between axial and
transverse fractures in terms of their initiation pressure
requirements for different well trajectory and stress states.
Although the analysis is purely analytical, it is expected
that the findings of this study to help in well trajectory and
perforation planning and reduces occurrence of high
treating pressures, complex fracture geometries and
treatment failures. The results can be applied, in
particular, for designing and implementing a successful
hydraulic fracturing treatment. Parameters like cement
quality, formation heterogeneity, anisotropy of the rocks,
and elasto-plastic behaviors of the rock will also impact
the stress concentration and initiation fracture pressure.
However, although important, these topics are beyond the
scope of this study. Hence, this work presents a purely
analytical approach which provides for qualitative rather
than quantitative guidelines.
The study first introduces the topic of stress concentration
around the wellbores. Then, it brings its extension to the
deviated wellbores. Impact of parameters such as pore
pressure and perforation tunnel will also be investigated.
Finally, transverse fractures initiation will be discussed.
2. ANALYTICAL MODEL
The analytical model developed in this study is based
on previous models by extending them to cover all
affecting parameters such as pore pressure and the
existence of perforations. Furthermore, it addresses
the required conditions for the initiation of transverse
and axial fracture.
2.1. Stress Distribution around Deviated
Wellbore: Constant Pore Pressure Case
This situation can happen during drilling of the wellbore
where pore pressure in the formation is constant and in
the well is mud pressure which is assumed to not penetrate
into the formation due to the filter cake created on the
wellbore wall. Three orthogonal stresses define the stress
system in the underground formations. One of them can
be taken along vertical direction, which is designated as
𝜎𝑣 , and the other two along horizontal directions, which
are 𝜎𝐻 and 𝜎ℎ . These three stresses are the principal
stresses and are called in-situ stresses. After the wellbore stress and the x axis, and the inclination, 𝜓 is the angle
is drilled in the formation, there will be stress between the vertical in-situ stress and the z axis. The
redistribution around the wellbore due to the stressed stresses in the new coordinate system, x y z, can be
solid material removal and the fact that the fluid pressure obtained by a rotation of 𝛽 along z axis and a rotation of
in the wellbore does not match the original stresses of the 𝜓 around y axis.
formation. This stress concentration may lead to higher
deviatoric stresses than stresses that the formation can
support and lead to borehole collapse. Therefore,
borehole stability problems require understanding of the
stresses around the borehole.
Kirsch in 1898 (Fjar et al., 2008) was the first who
presented the stress distribution around a circular hole in
an infinite medium subjected to far-field tension. Bradley,
1979 generalized Kirsch formulas to the case of an
arbitrarily oriented borehole with non-uniform far-field
stresses. In the radial coordinate system (Fig. 1), these
equations at the borehole wall become:
𝜎𝑟 = 𝑝𝑤 (1)
𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝑥0+ 𝜎𝑦0 0 0
− 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃 (2)
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 − 𝑝𝑤
𝜎𝑧 = 𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 (3)
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃]
𝜏𝑟𝜃 = 0 (4)
0 0
𝜏𝜃𝑧 = 2(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃) (5)
𝜏𝑟𝑧 = 0 (6) Fig. 1. In-Situ Stress System around an Arbitrarily Oriented
0 0 0 0 0 Wellbore
where pw is wellbore pressure, 𝜎𝑥 , 𝜎𝑦 , 𝜎𝑧 , 𝜏𝑥𝑦 , 𝜏𝑥𝑧 , and
0
𝜏𝑦𝑧 are original in-situ normal and shear stresses, The rotation matrices around each axis are:
respectively, in the x y z coordinate system before the cos 𝛽 − sin 𝛽 0
wellbore was drilled. As it is shown in Fig. 1, z axis is 𝑅𝑧 (𝛽) = [ sin 𝛽 cos 𝛽 0] (7)
along the borehole, x axis points towards the lowest radial 0 0 1
direction of the hole and y axis is horizontal. 𝜎𝑟 , 𝜎𝜃 and cos 𝜓 0 sin 𝜓 (8)
𝜎𝑧 are the radial, tangential and axial stresses along the 𝑅𝑦 (𝜓) = [ 0 1 0 ]
𝑥’, 𝑦’ and 𝑧’ axis after the well was drilled, and 𝜏𝑟𝜃 , 𝜏𝜃𝑧 − sin 𝜓 0 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜓
and 𝜏𝑟𝑧 are the corresponding shear stresses. 𝜈 is Therefore, the total rotation matrix will be:
Poisson’s ratio of the formation rock, 𝑝𝑤 is the wellbore
pressure and 𝜃 is shown in the Fig. 1. The equations are 𝑅𝑡 = 𝑅𝑦 (𝜓)𝑅𝑧 (𝛽)
valid for non-permeable materials. cos 𝜓 cos 𝛽 − cos 𝜓 sin 𝛽 sin 𝜓
(9)
=[ sin 𝛽 cos 𝛽 0 ]
These equations are not restricted to vertical wellbores. In − sin 𝜓 cos 𝛽 sin 𝜓 sin 𝛽 cos 𝜓
other words, they provide full redistributed stress tensor
matrix around the wellbore based on normal and shear Finally, the rotation of the stress tensor from the in-situ
stresses in the coordinate system defined by x, y and z coordinate system to a local wellbore coordinate system
axes in Fig. 2. However, in-situ stresses are usually is given by:
known in the vertical and horizontal directions. 𝜎𝑥𝑦𝑧 = 𝑅𝑡 𝜎𝑣𝐻ℎ (𝑅𝑡 )𝑇 (10)
Therefore, it is preferable to calculate the stresses around
the wellbore based on the vertical and horizontal stresses or
rather than the in-situ stresses in the borehole coordinate 𝜎𝑥0 = 𝜎ℎ cos2 𝛽 . cos 2 𝜓 + 𝜎𝐻 sin2 𝛽 . cos 2 𝜓 (11)
frame. + 𝜎𝑣 sin2 𝜓
The original normal and shear stresses in the x y z
coordinate system in Fig. 1 are obtained from the in-situ
stresses in the x' y' z' coordinate system by stress 𝜎𝑦0 = 𝜎ℎ sin2 𝛽 + 𝜎𝐻 cos 2 𝛽 (12)
transformation. The azimuth of the wellbore, 𝛽 , is defined
as the angle between the minimum horizontal in-situ
 𝜎𝑧0 = 𝜎ℎ cos2 𝛽 . sin2 𝜓 + 𝜎𝐻 sin2 𝛽 . sin2 𝜓 (13) where 𝑝𝑤 is the wellbore pressure that initiates the
+ 𝜎𝑣 cos2 𝜓 fracture at 𝜃𝑐𝑟 . In Eq. 21, the minimum value of 𝑝𝑤 that
initiates the tensile fracture should be found. It should be
noted that Eq. 21 is valid for non-porous materials in
0
𝜏𝑥𝑦 = −𝜎ℎ cos 𝛽 . cos 𝜓. sin 𝛽 (14) which the pore pressure is zero. Considering the effect of
+ 𝜎𝐻 sin 𝛽 . cos 𝜓 . cos 𝛽 (constant) pore pressure, and no communication between
0 the wellbore and reservoir, the fracture initiation criterion
𝜏𝑦𝑧 = 𝜎ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛽 . sin 𝜓 sin 𝛽 (15)
becomes:
− 𝜎𝐻 sin 𝛽 . sin 𝜓 . cos 𝛽
2
0 𝜏𝜃𝑧
𝜏𝑧𝑥 = −𝜎ℎ cos2 𝛽 . sin 𝜓 cos 𝜓 (16) 𝜎𝜃 ′ = (22)
− 𝜎𝐻 sin2 𝛽 . sin 𝜓 cos 𝜓 𝜎𝑧 ′
+ 𝜎𝑣 sin 𝜓 cos 𝜓 where 𝜎𝜃 ′ = 𝜎𝜃 − 𝛼𝑝𝑅 and 𝜎𝑧 ′ = 𝜎𝑧 − 𝛼𝑝𝑅 . 𝛼 is Biot’
Substitution of Eqs. 10-16 into Eqs. 1-6 gives the full, constant and 𝑝𝑅 is Reservoir pressure. In this case the
redistributed stress tensor after the deviated wellbore is fracture initiation pressure becomes:
drilled. 𝑝𝑤 = 𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃𝑐𝑟
Tensile fractures will initiate if one of the normal stresses 2
𝜏𝜃𝑧
exceeds the tensile strength of the formation. To calculate − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃𝑐𝑟 − ′ (23)
𝜎𝑧
the wellbore pressure that initiates the tensile fracture at − −𝛼𝑝𝑅
the wellbore wall, the minimum principal stress at the
wellbore wall should be calculated and compared to the On the other hand, if it is assumed that there is
tensile strength of the rock. The minimum principal stress communication between reservoir and wellbore, then
will generate the maximum tension. Since the radial 𝑝𝑅 = 𝑝𝑤 and:
stress, 𝜎𝑟 , is one of the principal stresses, the minimum 2
𝜏𝜃𝑧
principal stress will be: 𝜎𝜃 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 = (24)
𝜎𝑧 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤
2
𝜎3 = 0.5 [(𝜎𝜃 + 𝜎𝑧 ) − √(𝜎𝜃 − 𝜎𝑧 ) + 4𝜏𝜃𝑧 ] (17) In this case the fracture initiation pressure can be obtained
by solving below quadratic equation:
Then the criterion for tensile fracture becomes: 2
𝐴𝑝𝑤 + 𝐵𝑝𝑤 + 𝐶 = 0 (25)
𝜎3 = 𝜎𝑓 (18) where:
Here effective minimum principal stress is not used 𝐴 = 𝛼 + 𝛼2 (26)
because the effect of pore pressure is neglected to simplify
the equations. The tensile strength of the underground 𝐵 = −𝛼(𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
rocks can be assumed to be negligible due to the presence − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃) −
(27)
of natural fractures inside the formation (Bradley, 1979; (𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0
Aadnoy et al., 1987). Therefore the tensile fracture + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦0
sin 2𝜃])(𝛼 + 1)
criterion becomes:
𝐶 = (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
𝜎3 = 𝜎𝑓 = 0.5 [(𝜎𝜃 + 𝜎𝑧 ) − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦0
sin 2𝜃) ×
0 0 0 0 (28)
(19) (𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃 + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃])
2
− √(𝜎𝜃 − 𝜎𝑧 ) + 4𝜏𝜃𝑧 ]=0 2
− 𝜏𝜃𝑧

After some simple mathematical manipulations: Obviously, this equation has two solutions and only the
solution with smaller value should be considered.
2
𝜏𝜃𝑧
𝜎𝜃 = (20) 2.2. Effect of Varying Pore Pressure
𝜎𝑧 This scenario happens during production or injection in
Since the wellbore pressure that initiates the fracture is of which pore pressure in the formation is not constant and
interest, it is better to substitute Eq. 2 for 𝜎𝜃 to obtain: varies with distance from the wellbore. Also, there is open
communication between wellbore and reservoir.
𝑝𝑤 = 𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃𝑐𝑟
2 The superposition principle states that for a linear system
𝜏𝜃𝑧 (21)
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃𝑐𝑟 − such as the loading system of hollow cylinders (like
𝜎𝑧 wellbore), the net response of all loads at a certain place
and time would be the sum of responses which would
have been caused by each individual load. External radial 𝑏 = (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
stresses, borehole pressure and pore pressure are 0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)(2𝜂 − 𝛼) +
individual loads in our loading system. Fjaer et al., 2008
demonstrated that the effect of pore pressure on stresses (𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0
(41)
0
around the wellbore depends on Biot coefficient and + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃])(2𝜂 − 𝛼
Poisson’s ratio of the formation and this effect can be − 1)
simply added to the stress solutions for nonporous −2𝜂𝑝𝑅 (4𝜂 − 2𝛼 − 1)
material to obtain:
𝜎𝑟 = 𝑝𝑤 (29) 𝑐 = (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃) ×
𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 (30)
0
(𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 − 𝑝𝑤 0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃]) −
− 2𝜂(𝑝𝑅 − 𝑝𝑤 )
2𝜂𝑝𝑅 (𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0 (42)
𝜎𝑧 = 𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 (31) − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 0
sin 2𝜃 +
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] − 2𝜂(𝑝𝑅 𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0
− 𝑝𝑤 ) + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 0
sin 2𝜃]) + 4𝜂2 𝑝𝑅2
2
𝜏𝑟𝜃 = 0 (32) − 𝜏𝜃𝑧
0 0
𝜏𝜃𝑧 = 2(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃) (33) This quadratic equation gives two solutions for
𝑝𝑤 .The minimum value of 𝑝𝑤 gives the tensile
𝜏𝑟𝑧 = 0 (34)
fracture initiation pressure.
where 𝜂 is poroelastic stress coefficient and is given 2.3. Perforated Wellbores: Constant Pore Pressure
by: Case
1 − 2𝜐 (35) This section incorporates the effect of perforations
𝜂= 𝛼 on the fracture initiation pressure. It should be noted
2(1 − 𝜐)
that other perforation parameters such as size, shape
𝑝𝑅 is the initial reservoir pressure and 𝛼 is the Biot’s or length has not been taken into consideration. The
coefficient. It should be noted that in this equation it tangential stress at the base of the perforation tunnel
was assumed that open communication exists can be obtained by considering the orthogonal
between the well fluid and the formation. intersection of two holes of different sizes. Figure 3
The tensile fracture criterion in this case becomes: shows the geometric model of this system. Here the
stress distributions around the perforated tunnel are
𝜎3 ′ = 𝜎𝑓 (36)
developed. Suppose that the stress along the
where 𝜎’ denotes effective stress. Eq. (20) still holds perforation axis is 𝜎𝑥𝑝 , and the other two orthogonal
if effective stresses are used instead of total stresses: stresses be 𝜎𝑦𝑝 and 𝜎𝜉𝑝 . The stress distribution around
2 the perforation will follow the relationships stated in
𝜏𝜃𝑧 (37)
𝜎𝜃 ′ = Eqs. 1-6:
𝜎𝑧 ′
or 𝜎𝑟𝑝 = 𝑝𝑤 (43)
2
𝜏𝜃𝑧 (38) 𝜎𝜃𝑝 = 𝜎𝑥𝑝 + 𝜎𝑦𝑝 − 2(𝜎𝑥𝑝 − 𝜎𝑦𝑝 ) cos 2𝜃′ (44)
𝜎𝜃 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 = 𝑝
𝜎𝑧 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃′ − 𝑝𝑤

Substitution of Eqs. (29-34) into Eq. (38) leads to a 𝜎𝜉𝑝 = 𝜎𝑧𝑝 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥𝑝 − 𝜎𝑦𝑝 ) cos 2𝜃 ′ (45)
quadratic equation, with 𝑝𝑤 as the unknown, of the 𝑝
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 ′]
form: 𝑝
2
𝜏𝑟𝜃 =0 (46)
𝑎𝑝𝑤 + 𝑏𝑝𝑤 + 𝑐 = 0 (39)
𝑝 𝑝 𝑝
𝜏𝜃𝑧 = 2(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃′ + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃′) (47)
where
𝑝
𝑎 = (2𝜂 − 𝛼 − 1)(2𝜂 − 𝛼) (40) 𝜏𝑟𝑧 =0 (48)
where 𝑝 denotes perforation. Now, according to Fig.
2:
𝜎𝜉𝑝 = 𝑝𝑤 − 𝜈{2(𝜎𝑧0
𝜎𝑥𝑝 = 𝜎𝑧𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (49) − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
𝜎𝑦𝑝 = 𝜎𝜃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (50) 0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] −
[𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0 0
𝜎𝑧𝑝 = 𝜎𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (51) 0 (62)
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃
𝑝 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝜏𝑥𝑦 = 𝜏𝜃𝑧 (52) − 𝑝𝑤 ) cos 2𝜃 ′ ]} +
0 0
𝑝
𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
= 𝜏𝑟𝑧 (53) 8(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃) sin 2𝜃 ′]
𝑝 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝜏𝑦𝑧 = 𝜏𝑟𝜃 (54)
𝑝
𝜏𝜃𝑧 =0 (63)
However, the wellbore stresses were presented
earlier in Eqs. 11-16. After substituting these Since all the shear stresses at the base of the
perforation tunnel disappear, 𝜎𝑟𝑝 , 𝜎𝑧𝜃
𝑝
relationships into Eqs. 49-54 one obtains: and 𝜎𝜃𝑝 are
𝜎𝑟𝑝 = 𝑝𝑤 (55) principal stresses and the tensile fracture criterion
𝑝
becomes:
𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝑧𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 + 𝜎𝜃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (56)
𝜎𝜃𝑝 = 0 (64)
− 2(𝜎𝑧𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
− 𝜎𝜃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 ) cos 2𝜃′ or
𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
− 4𝜏𝜃𝑧 sin 2𝜃′ − 𝑝𝑤 1
𝑝𝑤 = [𝜎 0
𝜎𝜉𝑝 = 𝜎𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑧𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 − 𝜎𝜃𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 ) cos 2𝜃 ′ (57) (2 cos 2θ′ + 2) 𝑧
𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
+ 4𝜏𝜃𝑧 sin 2𝜃 ′] 0
𝑝
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] +
𝜏𝑟𝜃 =0 (58) 0 0 0 0
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃
𝑝 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 0
𝜏𝜃𝑧 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙
= 2(−𝜏𝑟𝑧 sin 𝜃′ + 𝜏𝑟𝜃 cos 𝜃′) (59) − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 −
0 0 0 (65)
𝑝 2(𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃
𝜏𝑟𝑧 =0 (60) 0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] − (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0
All the terms in these equations are defined earlier in − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
Eqs. 10-16. Angle 𝜃′ which is shown in Fig. 2, 0
displays the location of the tangential stress with − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)) cos 2𝜃′
0
respect to 𝜎𝑧 and 𝜃 shows the perforation orientation − 8((−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃
with respect to 𝜎𝑥 . This equation is valid for + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃)) sin 2𝜃 ′ ]
0

perforated wellbores with any orientation. The Again, Eq. 65 is for the case of zero pore pressure
equations for tangential and axial stresses around and the minimum value of 𝑝𝑤 will be the fracture
perforations after substitution of all the terms initiation pressure. In this case, depending on the
become very lengthy and complex: value of 𝜃′, axial or transverse fractures may be
𝜎𝜃𝑝 = 𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 generated. For the case of constant pore pressure and
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] + assuming communication between perforation and
reservoir, the criterion and initiation pressures
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0 0
simply become:
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 −
2(𝜎𝑧 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0
0
(61)
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] −
(𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0 0
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)) cos 2𝜃 ′ −
0 0
8((−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃)) sin 2𝜃 ′
− 𝑝𝑤 (2 + 2𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃′)
 𝑝
𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
𝜎𝜃𝑝 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 = 0 (66) + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] +
0 0 0 0 0
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 ) cos 2𝜃 − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃
1 (67) −
𝑝𝑤 = [𝜎 0
(2 cos 2θ′ + 2 + α) 𝑧 2(𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦
0
sin 2𝜃]
− 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 0
− (𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 0
0
(68)
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] + − 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 0 0 − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)) cos 2𝜃′
0
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃 − − 8((−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃
+ 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃)) sin 2𝜃 ′ − 𝑝𝑤 (2
0
2(𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 + 2𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃′) − 2𝜂(𝑝𝑅 − 𝑝𝑤 )
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] − (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0 − 𝛼𝑝𝑤
− 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0 In this case, the required wellbore pressure 𝑝𝑤 for fracture
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)) cos 2𝜃′ initiation becomes:
0
− 8((−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃
1
+ 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃)) sin 2𝜃 ′ ]
0
𝑝𝑤 = [𝜎 0
(2 cos 2θ′ + 2 + α − 2η) 𝑧
− 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] + 𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0
− 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃
0
− 2(𝜎𝑧
− 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 (69)
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] − (𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0
− 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃)) cos 2𝜃′
0
− 8 ((−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃
0
+ 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃)) sin 2𝜃 ′
− 2𝜂𝑝𝑅 ]
2.5. Transverse Fractures
As it can be seen from Eqs. 30 and 31, tangential and axial
stresses at the borehole wall depend on the wellbore
pressure. The criteria that were discussed in the previous
Fig. 2. Geometry of a Perforated Wellbore and Stress State sections are based on the fact that increasing the wellbore
2.4. Effect of Varying Pore Pressure in Perforated pressure will eventually generate tensile tangential
stresses that may exceed tensile strength of the rock and
Wellbores
generate longitudinal or axial fractures (Haimson and
Including the effect of pore pressure modifies the
Fairhust, 1967). On the other hands, axial tensile stresses
tangential stress at the base of perforation. Again,
generation can initiate transverse fractures directly from
according to superposition principle, the tangential
the wellbore wall (Fig. 4). This situation happens not only
effective stress at the base of the perforation will be:
due to the high wellbore pressure, but also due to the
prevailing in-situ stress conditions. The same concept can
be applied to perforated wellbores, which may lead to
creation of fractures transverse to the perforations.
 1
𝑝𝑤 = [𝜈[2(𝜎𝑧0
(1 − 𝜈𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃 ′ + 2𝜂 − 𝛼)
− 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] − 𝜎𝑥0 + 𝜎𝑦0
(75)
− 2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃
0
− 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃) cos 2𝜃 ′
0
− 8(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃
+ 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃) sin 2𝜃 ′ ] + 2𝜂𝑝𝑅 ]
0

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. 3. Transverse and Axial Fractures along the Wellbore and This section presents the result of the analytical analysis
Perforation
discussed in previous section, in the same order presented.
For non-perforated wellbores, the axial stress along the Typical ranges for in-situ stresses in underground
wellbore axis should satisfy the fracture initiation formations have been selected. This section also
criterion and therefore, the criteria of transverse fracture investigates the effect of stress regimes (normal, strike
generation will be: slip and reverse faulting) on the hydraulic fracture
initiation pressure. Hossain, 2000 and Huang et al., 2012
𝜎𝑧 ≤ 0 (70)
performed a parametric study and presented their results
Therefore, according to Eq. 31: in the dimensionless form to enhance the applicability of
their analysis. Their dimensionless variables consisted of
𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 + 4𝜏𝑥𝑦
0
sin 2𝜃] (71) 𝑝 𝜎 𝜎
wellbore azimuth and inclination angles, 𝑤, 𝐻 and 𝐻.
− 2𝜂(𝑝𝑅 − 𝑝𝑤 ) − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 ≤ 0 𝜎𝑣 𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝑣
This set of stress ratios does not distinguish between the
in which 𝜎𝑥0 , 𝜎𝑦0 , 𝜎𝑧0 and 𝜏𝑥𝑦
0
are calculated from Eqs. 11- stress regimes and for this reason it was decided to
14. From this equation, it can be seen that high difference 𝜎 𝜎
normalize the stresses with respect to 𝜎𝑣 ( 𝐻 and 𝐻). In
between the two stresses that are orthogonal to wellbore 𝜎𝑣 𝜎𝑣
axis increases the chance of transverse fracture initiation. this case, different stress regimes can be recognized by:
𝑝𝑤 in this case will be: 𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝐻
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔: < <1
1 𝜎𝑣 𝜎𝑣 (76)
𝑝𝑤 = [−𝜎𝑧0
(2𝜂 − 𝛼)
(72)
+ 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝐻
0
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] + 2𝜂𝑝𝑅 ] 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒 − 𝑆𝑙𝑖𝑝 𝐹𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔: <1<
𝜎𝑣 𝜎𝑣 (77)
For perforated wellbores transverse fractures to the
perforation will be created if the axial stress at the base of 𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝐻
the perforation becomes: 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔: 1< < (78)
𝜎𝑣 𝜎𝑣
𝑝
𝜎𝜉 ≤0 (73)
Section 3.1 presents the results in the form of
Therefore: dimensionless variables as given by Hossain, 2000 and
Huang et al., 2012 to be able to compare the results. In all
𝑝𝑤 − 𝜈{2(𝜎𝑧0 − 𝜈[2(𝜎𝑥0 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 the other parts, stresses are normalized with respect to the
0 vertical stress. It should be noted that the Biot’s
+ 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 sin 2𝜃] −
[𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦0 ) cos 2𝜃 − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦
0 0 0 0
sin 2𝜃 coefficient and Poisson’s ratio have been assumed to be
′
(74) equal to unity and 0.2, respectively.
− 𝑝𝑤 ) cos 2𝜃 ]} +
0 0
8(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 sin 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 cos 𝜃) sin 2𝜃 ′] 3.1. Mud Pressure for Fracture Initiation, without
− 2𝜂(𝑝𝑅 − 𝑝𝑤 ) − 𝛼𝑝𝑤 = 0 Considering Pore Pressure Effects
or Figure 4 compares the result of the analytical analysis
(Eq. 21) with the one performed by Hossain, 2000 and
Huang et al., 2012. In each of these figures, the ratio of
maximum horizontal stress to vertical stress and wellbore
azimuth are kept constant and wellbore inclination is
varied for different minimum to maximum horizontal
stress ratios. As it is shown in Fig. 4, a good match can be
seen between our results and results of other studies.

Fig. 5. Comparison between Results of Introduced Model and

Hossain, 2000 and Huang et al., 2012, Effect of Wellbore
Azimuth
3.2. Normal Faulting Stress Regime
The condition of normal faulting is expressed in Eq. 76.
Before performing the analysis, the effect of pore pressure
on fracture initiation pressure is investigated for 4
different cases: 1) Non-porous material, 2) Porous
material with constant pore pressure and no
communication between the wellbore and reservoir, 3)
Porous material with constant pore pressure and open
communication between the wellbore and reservoir and 4)
Porous material with varying pore pressure. As Fig. 6
displays, pore pressure effect reflects in decreasing the
fracture initiation pressure. Additionally, the fracture
initiation pressure decreases if open communication
exists between reservoir and wellbore. All the results
presented from here on are for the case of varying pore
pressure situation.

Fig. 4. Comparison between Results of Introduced Model and

Hossain, 2000 and Huang et al., 2012, Effect of Wellbore
Inclination
In Fig. 5, wellbore inclination is kept constant at 90
degrees and the wellbore azimuth is changing. Again, a
good match has been obtained between the results of
current analysis and the ones for Hossain, 2000 and
Huang et al., 2012.
Fig. 6. Effect of Pore Pressure on Fracture Initiation Pressure
It can be concluded from Fig. 7 that fracture initiation
pressure generally decreases with wellbore inclination.
However, this trend is different when wellbore azimuth is
low and horizontal stress ratios are close to 1. In this case,
fracture initiation pressure increases with wellbore
inclination until it reaches a maximum value at around 70
degrees and then its usual decreasing trend starts. From
Fig. 7, it can also be concluded that in some stress
conditions and wellbore orientations, wellbore fails by
tensile fracturing solely due to stress conditions and
wellbore orientations, without fluid injection.

Fig. 7. Effect of Wellbore Inclination on Fracture Initiation

Pressure in Different Stress Regimes (Varrying Pore Pressure
Case)
Figure 8 presents the effect of wellbore azimuth on the
fracture initiation pressure. For vertical wellbores, we
cannot define wellbore azimuth and therefore, azimuth
does not have any effect on the amount of required
initiation pressures. At all inclination angles, fracturing
pressure generally decreases with increasing azimuth.
Stress ratios, on the other hand play a more important role
such that initiation pressure decreases at lower stress
ratios. This is due to the fact that smaller stress regimes
require less pressure for fracture initiation.
 lower fracturing pressures are expected. Only in
wellbores with very low azimuth angle some deviations
to this general rule is observed.

Fig. 8. Effect of Wellbore Azimuth on Fracture Initiation

Pressure in Different Stress Regimes
Figure 9 is an investigation of the severity of normal
faulting on the fracture initiation pressure. As the ratio of
maximum horizontal stress to vertical stress increases,
which means as the normal faulting severity decreases,
Fig. 9. Effect of Faulting Severity on Fracture Initiation
Pressures
3.3. Strike-Slip and Reverse Faulting Stress
Regimes
The condition of strike-slip and reverse faulting regime is
expressed in Eqs. 77 and 78. Figure 10 shows the effect
of inclination on initiation pressure in strike-slip faulting
regime. The trend in most azimuth angles is the same as
the normal faulting, which is the initiation pressure
generally increases as the inclination angle increases.
However, at low stress ratios, the trend is a bit different
since the initiation pressure decreases and then increases
by increasing inclination angle.

Fig. 10. Effect of Wellbore Inclination on Fracture Initiation

Pressure in Strike-Slip Faulting Regime
Figure 11 shows the effect of inclination on fracturing
pressure in reverse stress regime, which is completely
different than normal and strike-slip faulting regime. In
this scenario, the fracturing pressure decreases with
increasing inclination angle. At higher inclination angles,
the drop in fracturing pressure for lower stress ratios is
more compared to other stress ratios.
Fig. 11. Effect of Wellbore Inclination on Fracture Initiation
Pressure in Reverse Faulting Regime
As it can be seen from Fig. 12, wellbore azimuth has a
severe effect on initiation pressure only in highly deviated
wellbores. Otherwise, fracturing pressure is not very
sensitive to azimuth of the wellbore.

Fig. 12. Effect of Wellbore Azimuth on Fracture Initiation
Pressure in Strike-Slip Faulting Regime
3.4. Effect of Perforations
In this section the effect of perforation on fracturing
pressures is investigated by using the equation that was
previously developed (Eq. 69) for tangential stress around
the perforation. For brevity, only 2 cases are considered.
In the first case it is assumed the wellbore azimuth is 90°
and in the second case it is assumed the azimuth is 45°
(Fig. 13). In both cases, a strike-slip faulting regime was
considered. Figure 13 shows the initiation pressure in
deferent perforation orientations. The optimum
perforation orientation in each inclination is the direction
that has the smallest value of initiation pressure. This type
of analysis can be employed to obtain the optimum well
and perforation design in deviated wellbores by providing
the minimum fracture initiation pressure and the
perforation orientation that gives less near wellbore
fracture tortuosity.
Fig. 13. Effect of Perforation Orientation on Initiation Pressure
3.5. Transverse vs. Axial Fractures
In this section the competition between axial and
transverse fracture pressure initiation is investigated.
According to Fig. 14, as fluid pressure increases, either an
axial or transverse fracture is generated. Increasing the
wellbore pressure then might initiate the other type of
fracture directly from wellbore and lead to T, H or
intersecting fracture configurations. Hence, to avoid this
complex fracture creation, wellbore pressure should be
maintained within a certain range.
Figure 14: Transverse and Axial Fracture Creation
4. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the current study was analytical
investigation of the effect of wellbore deviation and
azimuth on fracture initiation in deviated wellbores. The
following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
• The state of underground stresses which
determine the normal, strike-slip or reverse
faulting regime, has a significant impact on the
effect of azimuth and inclination on the fracture
initiation pressure.
• In normal faulting regime, increasing inclination
angle generally decreases the fracture initiation
pressure, except for very low azimuth angles or
when the horizontal stress ratios are close to 1. In
this case, there is a peak in initiation pressure as
the inclination angle is increased.
• On the other hand, fracture initiation pressure
generally decreases by increasing azimuth angle.
Stress ratios play a more important role in
decreasing the initiation pressure than azimuth
angle.
• As the normal faulting severity decreases, lower
fracturing pressures are expected. Only in
wellbores with very low azimuth angle or very
low minimum horizontal stress some deviations
to this general rule is observed.
 • In strike-slip faulting regime, at low azimuth 𝑅𝑡 Total Rotation Matrix
angles, the fracture initiation pressure first
𝑅𝑥 , 𝑅𝑦 , 𝑅𝑧 Rotation Matrices
decreases to a minimum and then increases, as the Around x, y and z
inclination is increased. At high azimuth angles, Axes
the initiation pressure always increases by
increasing inclination angle. 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 Axes of the Coordinate
System
• In reverse faulting regime, fracturing pressure is
more sensitive to wellbore inclination and it 𝑥′, 𝑦′, 𝑧′ Axes of the Coordinate
decreases at a higher rate compared to normal or System
strike-slip faulting regimes as the inclination is  Biot Coefficient
increased. Azimuth angle does not have any
effect on the decreasing trend of fracture  Wellbore Azimuth
initiation pressure with inclination angle.  Poroelastic Stress
• There is an optimum well and perforation Coefficient
direction in deviated wellbores in which near 𝑐𝑟 Angle of Fracture
wellbore fracture tortuosity becomes minimum. Initiation
• There is a competition between axial and  Poisson’s Ratio
transverse fracture pressure initiation. Increasing
the fluid pressure can lead to either an axial or 3 Minimum Principal
transverse fracture generation. Increasing the Stress
wellbore pressure might then create a very 𝜎3 ′ Eeffective Minimum
complex fracture network. Principal Stress
This study has proposed a new approach to optimize the ℎ , 𝐻 Minimum and
design of wellbore and perforation for deviated well by Maximum Horizontal
providing the minimum fracture initiation pressure and In-Situ Stresses
the perforation orientation that lead to minimized near
wellbore tortuosity. 𝑟 ,  , 𝑧 , 𝑟 , 𝑟𝑧 , 𝑧 Radial, Tangential and
Axial stresses in the
The results indicate that the current modeling presented 𝑥’𝑦’𝑧’ Coordinate
can be used for fracture initiation pressure prediction. System
Consequently, quantitative prediction of fracture
initiation pressure of deviated wellbore and perforated 𝑣 Vertical In-Situ Stress
well is achieved, which in turn allows analytical 𝜎𝑥0 , 𝜎𝑦0 , 𝜎𝑧0 , 0𝑥𝑦 , 0𝑥𝑧 , 0𝑦𝑧 Original in-situ Normal
prediction for perforation and wellbore optimization and and Shear Stresses
design of hydraulic fracturing treatment. 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝
𝜎𝑥 , 𝜎𝑦 , 𝜎𝑧 , 𝑥𝑦 , 𝑥𝑧 , 𝑦𝑧 Stresses along the
Perforation
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Wellbore Inclination
The authors would like to acknowledge RGL Reservoir
Management Inc. for the permission to publish this paper,
and the financial support provided by NRC and NSERC REFERENCES
through their IRAP and CRD programs is also
1. Aadnoy, B. S., and M. E. Chenevert. 1987. Stability of
acknowledged. highly inclined boreholes (includes associated papers
18596 and 18736). SPE Drilling Engineering. 2(04),
6. NOMENCLATURE 364-374.

Symbols Definition 2. Abass, H. H., S. Hedayati, and D. L. Meadows. 1996.

Nonplanar fracture propagation from a horizontal
𝑝𝑅 Initial Reservoir wellbore: experimental study. SPE Production and
Pressure Facilities. 11(03), 133-137.

𝑝𝑤 Wellbore Pressure 3. Abass, H. H., M. Y. Soliman, A. M. Al-Tahini, J. B.

Surjaatmadja, D. L. Meadows, and L. Sierra. 2009.
𝑝𝑤𝑓 Wellbore Pressure that Oriented fracturing: A new technique to hydraulically
Initiates Fracture fracture an openhole horizontal well. In SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 4-7 October 2009.
4. Alekseenko, O., D. Potapenko, S. Cherny, D. Esipov, D. Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3
Kuranakov and V. Lapin. 2012. 3D modeling of fracture October 2001.
initiation from perforated noncemented wellbore. SPE
19. Waters, G. A., J. R. Heinze, R. Jackson, A. A. Ketter, J.
Journal. 18(03), 589-600.
L. Daniels and D. Bentley. 2006. Use of horizontal well
5. Andrews, J. S., H. Joranson and A. M. Raaen. 2008. image tools to optimize Barnett Shale reservoir
Oriented Perforating as a Sand Prevention Measure. exploitation. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Case Studies from a Decade of Field Experience Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September
Validating the Method Offshore Norway. In Offshore 2006.
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 5-8 May
20. Weijers, L., C. J. De Pater, K. A. Owens, and H. H.
2008,.
Kogsbøll. 1994. Geometry of hydraulic fractures
6. Behrmann, L. A., and J. L. Elbel. 1991. Effect of induced from horizontal wellbores. SPE Production and
perforations on fracture initiation. Journal of Petroleum Facilities. 9(02), 87-92.
Technology. 43(05), 608-615.
21. Weng, X. 1993. Fracture initiation and propagation from
7. Bradley, W. B. 1979. Failure of inclined boreholes. deviated wellbores. In SPE annual technical conference
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 101(4), 232- and exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
239.
8. Daneshy, A. A. 2009. Horizontal-well fracturing: Why
is it so different?. Journal of Petroleum Technology.
61(09), 28-35.
9. Daneshy, A. A. 1973. A study of inclined hydraulic
fractures. SPE Journal. 13(02), 61-68.
10. Daneshy, A. A. 2011. Hydraulic fracturing of horizontal
wells: Issues and insights. In SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
24-26 January 2011.
11. Fallahzadeh, S. H., S. R. Shadizadeh, P. Pourafshary,
and M. R. Zare. 2010. Modeling the perforation stress
profile for analyzing hydraulic fracture initiation in a
cased hole. In Nigeria Annual International Conference
and Exhibition, Tinapa - Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July - 7
August 2010.
12. Fjar, E., R. M. Holt, A. M. Raaen, R. Risnes, and P.
Horsrud. 2008. Petroleum related rock mechanics. 2nd
ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
13. Haimson, B., and C. Fairhurst. 1967. Initiation and
extension of hydraulic fractures in rocks. SPE Journal.
7(03), 310-318.
14. Hallam, S. D., and N. C. Last. 1991. Geometry of
hydraulic fractures from modestly deviated wellbores.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. 43(06), 742-748.
15. Hossain, M. M., M. K. Rahman and S. S. Rahman. 2000.
Hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation: roles of
wellbore trajectory, perforation and stress regimes.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 27(3-4),
129-149.
16. Huang, J., D. V. Griffiths and S. W. Wong. 2012.
Initiation pressure, location and orientation of hydraulic
fracture. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences. 49, 59-67.
17. Hubbert, M. K., and D. G. Willis. 1957. Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
18. Manrique, J. F. and A. Venkitaraman. 2001. Oriented
fracturing - a practical technique for production
optimization. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and