Rock Mech Rock Eng (2015) 48:585–601
DOI 10.1007/s00603-014-0608-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation from Wellbore
with Oriented Perforation
Haiyan Zhu • Jingen Deng • Xiaochun Jin •
Lianbo Hu • Bo Luo
Received: 24 November 2012 / Accepted: 14 May 2014 / Published online: 3 June 2014
 Springer-Verlag Wien 2014
Abstract Considering the influence of casing, analytical
solutions for stress distribution around a cased wellbore are
derived, based on which a prediction model for hydraulic
fracture initiation with the oriented perforation technique
(OPT) is established. Taking well J2 of Z5 oilfield for an
example, the predicted initiation pressure with the OPT of
our model is about 4.2 MPa higher than the existing model,
which neglects the influence of casing. In comparison with
the results of laboratory fracturing experiments with OPT
on a 400 9 400 9 400 mm3 rock sample for a cased well
with the deviation of 45, the fracture initiation pressure of
our model has an error of 3.2 %, while the error of the
existing model is 6.6 %; when the well azimuth angle is 0
and the perforation angle is 45, the prediction error of the
fracture initiation pressure of the existing model and our
model are 3.4 and 7.7 %, respectively. The study verifies
that our model is more applicable for hydraulic fracturing
prediction of wells with OPT completion; while the exist-
ing model is more suitable for hydraulic fracturing with
conventional perforation completion.
Keywords Hydraulic fracture  Fracture initiation 
Fracture propagation  Oriented perforation
H. Zhu (&)  B. Luo
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and
Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, 8# Xindu Road,
Xindu, Chengdu 610500, China
e-mail: zhuhaiyan040129@163.com
H. Zhu  J. Deng  L. Hu
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and Prospecting,
China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China
X. Jin
Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73071, USA
1 Introduction
To create large single hydraulic fractures, many scholars
pointed out that the perforation holes should be in the
preferred fracture plane (PFP), that is, the perforation holes
should be parallel to the maximum principal stress and
perpendicular to the minimum principal stress (EI Rabaa
1989; King 1989; Behrmaan and Elbel 1991; Hallam and
Last 1991; Pearson et al. 1992; Deeg et al. 1997). This
perforating technique is named oriented perforation, during
which the charges penetrate the casing and the formation
about 300–600 mm deep, linking the wellbore and the
formation. Later, hydraulic fracturing fluid under high
pressure is pumped through the wellbore into the perfora-
tion holes. Once the fracturing fluid pressure exceeds the
pore pressure and the tensile strength of the reservoir rock,
hydraulic fractures initiate and start to propagate. The
directions of perforating guns are controlled to make sure
the perforation holes lie in the PFP, so that the hydraulic
fractures can merge with each other as a large single one
(Fig. 1). Being capable of eliminating near-wellbore tor-
tuosity, abnormally high initiation and propagation pres-
sures, and narrow fracture width, OPT is recommended for
hydraulic fracturing treatment in offshore oil and gas fields.
So far, many petroleum engineers and scholars (Pearson
et al. 1992; Behrmann and Nolte 1998; Almaguer et al.
2002; Fallahzadeh et al. 2010a) claim that a micro-annulus
exists between the casing and the cement sheath or the
cement sheath and the formation during hydraulic fractur-
ing (Fig. 2). As the fracturing fluid flows into the perfora-
tion holes, the weak interface between the casing and the
cement sheath or the cement sheath and the formation firstly
debonds to form a micro-annulus and provide a flow path
for the fracturing fluid; then, a hydraulic fracture initiates at
the point where its fracture initiation pressure is the lowest,
123
586
Fig. 1 The principle of the oriented perforation (Almaguer et al.
2002)
Fig. 2 The micro-annulus during hydraulic fracturing (Almaguer
et al. 2002)
either around the wellbore or in the perforation holes; the
hydraulic fracture does not always initiate in the perforation
holes. If the perforation angle (the angle h between the
perforation direction and the maximum principal stress
direction) is zero, the hydraulic fracture will initiate from
the perforation holes; no matter whether the micro-annulus
develops or not. The influence of casing should be consid-
ered in the analysis of stress distribution around the well-
bore with the OPT. Current models of the fracture initiation
pressure are derived upon the stress distribution of an open
hole (Daneshy 1973; Yew and Li 1987; Pearson et al. 1992;
Weng 1993; Abass et al. 1994; Chen et al. 1995; van de
Ketterij and de Pater 1997, 1999; Hossain et al. 1999, 2000;
Crosby et al. 2001, 2002; Soliman and Boonen 2000, Sol-
iman et al. 2004; Osorio and Lopez 2009; Fallahzadeh et al.
2010a, b). However, application of OPT changes this situ-
ation. To precisely calculate the fracture initiation pressure,
a method for hydraulic fracturing with OPT is needed. Thus,
123
H. Zhu et al.
Fig. 3 The transformation geometry
in this paper, besides the influence of casing on the stress
distribution around the wellbore, OPT is accounted to
provide a more accurate fracture initiation and propagation
model for hydraulic fracturing design.
2 Fracture Initiation Pressure with OPT
2.1 Stress Distribution Around an Open Hole
During hydraulic fracturing, the rock around the wellbore is
under complex stress conditions, as a result of the fluid
pressure, the in situ stresses, the pore pressure, the additional
stress caused by infiltration of fracturing fluid, the stress
concentration induced by the packer, and so on. Moreover,
the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the formation compli-
cate this problem. For simplicity, the rock is assumed as a
homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic porous material,
and the stress distribution around the wellbore is considered
as a plane strain problem. The stress state around an open
hole is described in the coordinate system shown in Fig. 3 (Li
1991), the axes of which (1, 2, 3) are aligned with the
directions of rV (the vertical stress), rH (the maximum
horizontal principal stress) and rh (the minimum horizontal
principal stress). Rectangular coordinates (x, y, z) and
cylindrical coordinates (r, h, z) are established for the well-
bore, in which Oz is set along the wellbore axis, and Ox and
Oy are located on the plane normal to the wellhole. In Fig. 3,
a is the borehole deviation angle and b is the borehole azi-
muth angle. Taking the 3-axis as the rotation axis, (1, 2, 3)
can be transformed to (x1, y1, z1) by a rotation of b using the
right-hand rule. Similarly, considering the y1-axis as the
rotation axis, (x, y, z) can be obtained from (x1, y1, z1) by a
rotation of a using the right-hand rule.
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation 587

Fig. 5 Stress distribution resultant from the fluid pressure

Fig. 4 The stress distribution around the wellbore where rh is the tangential or hoop stress around the well-
bore; rr is the radial stress and rzz ia the axial stress along
the wellbore; rrh , rhz and rrz are corresponding shear
The in situ stress components (1, 2, 3) in the rectangular
stresses; P is the hydraulic fracturing fluid pressure; P0 is
coordinate system (x, y, z) can be expressed as
8 the in situ pore pressure; h is the wellbore circumferential
>
> r ¼ rH cos2 a cos2 b þ rh cos2 a sin2 b þ rv sin2 a angle starting from the maximum horizontal principal
> xx
>
>
> stress; o is the effective stress coefficient. If the wellbore is
>
> ryy ¼ rH sin2 b þ rh cos2 b
>
>
>
> impermeable, d ¼ 0; and if the wellbore is permeable,
< rzz ¼ rH sin2 a cos2 b þ rh sin2 a sin2 b þ rv cos2 a
d ¼ 1.
>
> rxy ¼ rH cos a cos b sin b þ rh cos a cos b sin b
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.2 Stress Distribution Around the Cased Wellbore
>
> rxz ¼ rH cos a sin a cos2 b þ rh cos a sin a sin2 b  rv cos a sin a
>
>
:
ryz ¼ rH sin a cos b sin b þ rh sin a cos b sin b
The elastic moduli of the cement sheath and the formation
ð1Þ are of the same order of magnitude, and are much smaller
where rxx , ryy and rzz are normal stresses (Fig. 3), while rxy , than that of the casing. To simplify the problem, the elastic
ryz and rxz are shear stresses in the (x, y, z) coordinate system. modulus of the cement sheath and that of the formation are
The stress distribution around the wellbore is affected by assumed as equal (Li 1991; Yew 1997). The stress distri-
the fluid pressure, the in situ stresses and the additional stress bution around the cased wellbore results from the hydro-
caused by the infiltration of the fracturing fluid. Here, the sign static pressure of the drilling fluid and the pre-existing
of tensile stress is assumed as negative and the compression in situ stresses. According to the calculation methods of Li
stress is positive. It is suitable to describe the wellbore stress (1991) and Yew (1997), the analytical solution of the stress
in the cylindrical coordinate system (Fig. 4), as are expressed distribution around the cased wellbore considering the
in Eq. (2) (Daneshy 1973; Yew and Li 1987; Pearson et al. influence of casing is given.
1992; Weng 1993; Chen et al. 1995; van de Ketterij and de
Pater 1997, 1999; Hossain et al. 1999, 2000; Luo et al. 2.2.1 Stress Distribution Resultant from the Fluid Pressure
(2007); Fallahzadeh et al. Fallahzadeh et al. 2010a, b):
8 According to the calculation method of Timoshenko and
>
> rr ¼ P Goodier (1969), stress distribution resultant from the fluid
>
>
>
> rh ¼ P þ rxx þ ryy  2ðrxx  ryy Þ cos 2h  4rxy sin 2h pressure is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the casing is
>
>
>
> loaded by an internal pressure P and an external pressure
>
> þ doð1  2mÞðP  P0 Þ=ð1  vÞ
>
> Pi , and the rock is only loaded by an internal pressure Pi .
>
>
>
< rz ¼ rzz  m½2ðrxx  ryy Þ cos 2h þ 4rxy sin 2h Stresses in the casing (R1 \ r \ R2):
8
>
> þ doð1  2mÞðP  P0 Þ=ð1  vÞ > R2 R2 ðPi  PÞ 1 PR21  Pi R22
>
> >
> ðrr Þp ¼ 1 22 þ
>
> < R2  R21 r 2 R22  R21
>
> rrh ¼ 0
>
> ð3Þ
>
> >
> R1 R2 ðPi  PÞ 1 PR21  Pi R22
2 2
>
> r ¼ 2ryz cos h  2rxz sin h >
: ðrh Þp ¼  þ
>
> hz R22  R21 r 2 R22  R21
>
:
rrz ¼ 0 ð2Þ
Stresses in the rock (R2 \ r \ ?):

123
588 H. Zhu et al.

8
>
> R2
< ðrr Þp ¼  22 Pi
r ð4Þ
>
> R 2
: ðrh Þ ¼ 2 Pi
p
r2
where R1 and R2 are the internal and external diameters of
the casing, respectively; and Pi can be calculated by the
displacement compatibility condition at the casing and the
rock interface (r ¼ R2 ):
1þm1 2ð1m1 Þ 2
E1 R22 R21 R1
Pi ¼ h iP ð5Þ
1þm2 R21 þð12m1 ÞR22
E2 þ 1þm
E1
1
R22 R21

2.2.2 Stress Distribution Resultant from rxx, ryy and rxy Fig. 6 Stress distribution around the cased wellbore, rr jr¼1 ¼ rxx =2
in the x–y Plane
1m22
Firstly, the stress distribution around the cased wellbore
rr0 ¼ E2 2 2  rxx ð9Þ
produced by rxx is calculated, and then that caused by ryy 1þm2
þ 1þm1 R2 þR1 2m1 R2
2

E2 E1 R22 R21
can be obtained by rotating the stress distribution by 90.
The stress distribution generated by the shear stress rxy can (2) The stresses in the casing and rock produced by
be obtained by superposing the stress distribution from rxx rr jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx cos 2hÞ=2 and rrh jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx sin 2hÞ=2
and ryy , specifically, making rxx ¼ rxy and ryy ¼ rxy and can be expressed as Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\R2 ):
then rotating the coordinate system by 45 (Yew 1997). 8  
> 6C1 4D1
(1) As introduced by Timoshenko and Goodier (1969), > ðr
> r x2 Þ ¼  2A 1 þ þ cos 2h
>
> r4 r2
the remote field stress rxx can be converted into the >
>  
< 6C1
cylindrical coordinate system: ðrh Þx2 ¼ 2A1 þ 12B1 r 2 þ 4 cos 2h ð10Þ
8 >
> r
> rxx >
>  
< rr jr¼1 ¼ ð1 þ cos 2hÞ >
> 6C 2D
2 >
: ðrrh Þx2 ¼ 2A1 þ 6B1 r 2  41  2 1 sin 2h
r ð6Þ
>
: rrh jr¼1 ¼  xx sin 2h r r
2
Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
It can be seen that the stress distribution around the 8  
wellbore resulting from rxx consists of three parts: the > 6C2 4D2
>
> ðrr Þx2 ¼  2A2 þ 4 þ 2 cos 2h
>
> r r
uniform radial stress rr jr¼1 ¼ rxx =2, the radial stress >
>  
< 6C2
rr jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx cos 2hÞ=2, and the shear stress 2
ðrh Þx2 ¼ 2A2 þ 12B2 r þ 4 cos 2h ð11Þ
rrh jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx sin 2hÞ=2. >
> r
>
>  
(1) The stress distribution around the cased wellbore, >
> 6C 2D
>
: ðrrh Þx2 ¼ 2A2 þ 6B2 r 2  42  2 2 sin 2h
rr jr¼1 ¼ rxx =2, is depicted in Fig. 6. r r
Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\ R2 ):
8   where the constants A1 , A2 . . .D1 , D2 are determined by the
>
> R22 R21 boundary conditions,
>
< ðrh Þx1 ¼ R2  R2 1 þ r 2 rr0
2 1 (
  ð7Þ rr jr¼R1 ¼ 0 ; rrh jr¼R1 ¼ 0
>
> R 2
R21
> ðrr Þ ¼
: 2
1  r
x1
R22  R21 r2
r0 rr jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx cos 2hÞ=2 ; rrh jr¼1 ¼ ðrxx sin 2hÞ=2
ð12Þ
Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
8  
> rx R22 R2 and the continuity equations:
>
> ðrr Þx1 ¼ 1  2 þ 22 rr0 (
< 2 r r
ð8Þ ðrr Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ðrr Þ2 jr¼R2 ; ðrrh Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ðrrh Þ2 jr¼R2
 
>
> rx R 2
R2
>
: ðrh Þx1 ¼ 1 þ 22  22 rr0 ður Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ður Þ2 jr¼R2 ; ðuh Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ðuh Þ2 jr¼R2 ð13Þ
2 r r
The stress function can be written as Uðr; hÞ ¼
The interfacial radial stress rr0 can be calculated by
applying the displacement compatibility condition at the f ðrÞ cos 2h (Deng et al. 1994), in which f ðrÞ ¼
 2  2  4
casing and the rock interface (r ¼ R2 ): A ar þB ar þC ar þD (Yin et al. 2006). Substituting

123
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation 589

Eqs. (12) and (13) into Eqs. (10) and (11), the eight ðri Þx ¼ ðri Þx1 þ ðri Þx2 ð34Þ
unknown constants A1 , A2 ; . . .; D2 are solved.
where i stands for r, h or rh.
1
A1 ¼ rxx R22 ð14Þ (2) The stress distribution resultant from ryy can be
4
obtained from that generated from rxx by replacing h with
1 h þ p=2 (Li 1991).
B1 ¼ ð3S þ S2  2S3 ÞR22 ð15Þ
6 Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\R2 ):
C1 ¼ 0 ð16Þ 8  
> 0 6C10 4D01
>
> ðr Þ
r y ¼ 2A þ þ cos 2h
1 >
> 1
r4 r2
D1 ¼ ð2S  S2 þ S3 ÞR22 ð17Þ >
>  
2 < 6C0
ðrh Þy ¼  2A01 þ 12B01 r 2 þ 41 cos 2h ð35Þ
1 >
> r
A2 ¼  rxx ð18Þ >
>  
4 >
> 6C0 2D0
>
: ðrrh Þy ¼  2A01 þ 6B1 r 2  41  2 1 sin 2h
B2 ¼ 0 ð19Þ r r
C2 ¼ B1 R22 ð20Þ Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
8  
D2 ¼ D1 ð21Þ > 0 6C20 4D02
>
> ðrr Þy ¼ 2A2 þ r 4 þ r 2 cos 2h
>
>
1 >
>  
S ¼ rxx ð22Þ < 6C20
2 0 0 2
ðrh Þy ¼  2A2 þ 12B2 r þ 4 cos 2h ð36Þ
>
> r
C22 þ C12 4ð1  m22 Þ E1 >
>  
S2 ¼  ð1  m2 ÞS ð23Þ >
> 6C0 2D0
C11 C22  C12 C21 1 þ m1 E2 >
: ðrrh Þy ¼  2A02 þ 6B02 r 2  42  2 2 sin 2h
r r
C21 þ C11 4ð1  m22 Þ E1
S3 ¼  ð1  m2 ÞS ð24Þ where A01 , A02 , B01 , B02 , C10 , C20 , D01 and D02 are similar con-
C11 C12  C12 C21 1 þ m1 E2
  stants to those of the stress distribution resultant from rxx ,
1 þ m2 E 1 5 except that rxx should be replaced by ryy .
C11 ¼ A þ  2m2 ð1  m2 Þ3 ð25Þ
1 þ m1 E 2 3 (3) The stress distribution resultant from shear stress rxy .
 
1 þ m2 E 1 4 The stress distribution, as shown in Fig. 7, can be
C12 ¼ B   2m2 ð1  m2 Þ3 ð26Þ obtained from those of rxx and ryy by replacing rxx , ryy and
1 þ m1 E 2 3
  h with rxy , rxy and h  p=4, respectively.
1 þ m 2 E1 4
C21 ¼ C   2m2 ð1  m2 Þ3 ð27Þ First, replacing rxx and h with rxy and h  p=4 gives
1 þ m 1 E2 3 Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\R2 ):
  8  
1 þ m 2 E1 5 6C100 4D001  p
C22 ¼ D þ  2m2 ð1  m2 Þ3 ð28Þ >
>
> ðr Þ ¼  2A 00
þ þ cos 2 h 
1 þ m 1 E2 3 >
>
r xy1 1
r4 r2 4
  >
>  
< 6C 00  p
2
A ¼ 1  m1 þ ð5  6m1 Þm2 þ ð3  2m1 Þm4 ðrh Þxy1 ¼ 2A001 þ 12B001 r 2 þ 41 cos 2 h 
> r 4
 3  >
>
>  
5 >
> 6C 00
2D 00  p
þ  2m1 m6 ð29Þ >
: ðrrh Þxy1 ¼ 2A001 þ 6B001 r 2  41  2 1 sin 2 h 
3 r r 4
 
2 4 ð37Þ
B ¼  m1 þ 2m1 m2  2ð2  m1 Þm4   2m1 m6 ð30Þ
3 3 Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
  8  
2 4 6C200 4D002  p
C ¼  m1 þ 2m1 m2  2ð2  m1 Þm4   2m1 m6 >
>
> ðr r Þ ¼  2A 00
þ þ cos 2 h 
3 3 >
> xy1 2
r4 r2 4
>
>  
ð31Þ < 6C 00  p
    ðrh Þxy1 ¼ 2A002 þ 12B002 r 2 þ 42 cos 2 h 
2 5 >
> r 4
D¼ 1  m1  ð3  2m1 Þm2 þ ð3  2m1 Þm4 þ  2m1 m6 >
>   
3 3 >
>
> 6C 00
2D 00
p
: ðrrh Þxy1 ¼ 2A002 þ 6B002 r 2  42  2 2 sin 2 h 
ð32Þ r r 4
R1 ð38Þ
m¼ ð33Þ
R2 where A001 , A002 , B001 , B002 , C100 , C200 , D001 and D002 are similar
Now, the stress distribution around the cased wellbore constants to those of the stress distribution resultant from
produced by rxx is rxx , except that rxx should be replaced by rxy .

123
590 H. Zhu et al.

xy 2.2.3 Stress Distribution Resultant from rzz

xy Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\R2 ):

ðrz Þz ¼ v1 ðrr þ rh Þ ð43Þ
Casing
R1 Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
P ðrz Þz ¼ rzz  v2 ðrxx þ ryy Þ þ v2 ðrr þ rh Þ ð44Þ
R2 Rock
2.2.4 Stress Distribution Resultant from rxz and ryz
xy

It is assumed that no dilatancy occurs in the rock in spite of

xy
the shear stresses exerted on, and then the Navier’s equa-
tion of elasticity can be simplified as
Fig. 7 The stress distribution around the cased wellbore resultant
from shear stress rxy r 2 ui ¼ 0 ð45Þ
where ui is the displacement component, i = 1, 2, 3; r2 is
the 3D Laplace operator.
Then, replacing ryy and h with rxy and h  p=4 yields: (1) The stress distribution resultant from rxz
Stresses in the casing (R1 \r\R2 ): With the method established by Hashin and Rosen
8   
> 000 6C1000 4D000 p (1964), we can obtain the stress distribution influenced by
>
> ðrr Þ ¼ 2A þ þ 1
cos 2 h 
>
> xy2 1
r 4 r 2 4 shear stresses rxz and ryz around the cased wellbore.
>
>  
< 6C1 000  p The displacement and stress distribution in the casing
ðrh Þxy2 ¼  2A000 000 2
1 12B1 r þ cos 2 h  (R1 \r\R2 ):
>
> r 4 4
>
>    8  
>
>
>
000
6C1 2D1 000
p >
> 0000 B0000
1
: ðrrh Þxy2 ¼  2A000 1 þ 6B 000 2
1 r   sin 2 h  < ðuz Þxz ¼ A1 r þ r cos h
>
r4 r2 4
ð46Þ
ð39Þ >
> ðu Þ ¼ C10000 z cos h
> r xz
:
ðuh Þxz ¼ C10000 z sin h
Stresses in the rock (R2 \r\1):
8   8  
6C2000 4D002  p > E1 0000 0000 B0000
>
> ðr Þ ¼ 2A 000
þ þ cos 2 h  >
> ðr Þ
rz xz ¼ A þ C  1
cos h
> r xy2
> 2 >
> 2ð1 þ v1 Þ 1 1
r2
>
> r4 r2 4 <  
>
<   
6C 000
p > ðr Þ ¼ 
E1
A 0000
þ C 0000
þ
B0000
1
sin h
ð47Þ
ðrh Þxy2 ¼  2A000 2 þ 12B 000 2
2 r þ 2
cos 2 h  >
> hz xz
2ð1 þ v Þ 1 1
r 2
>
> r4 4 >
> 1
>
>    :
>
>
> 6C 000
2D 000
p ðrr Þxz ¼ ðrh Þxz ¼ ðrz Þxz ¼ ðrrh Þxz ¼ 0
: ðrrh Þxy2 ¼  2A000 2 þ 6B 000 2
2 r  2
 2
sin 2 h 
r4 r2 4 The displacement and stress distribution in the rock
ð40Þ (R2 \r\1):
8  
where A000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
1 , A2 , B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , D1 and D2 are the similar > B0000
> 0000 2
constants to those of the stress distribution resultant from < ðuz Þxz ¼ A2 r þ r cos h
>
ryy , except that ryy should be replaced by rxy . ð48Þ
>
> ðu Þ ¼ C20000 z cos h
Finally, the stress distribution around the cased wellbore > r xz
:
ðuh Þxz ¼ C20000 z sin h
generated from rxy can be obtained: 8  
> E2 0000 0000 B0000
ðri Þxy ¼ ðri Þxy1 þ ðri Þxy2 ð41Þ >
> ðr Þ
rz xz ¼ A þ C  2
cos h
>
> 2ð1 þ v2 Þ 2 2
r2
<  
Superposition of the stress distributions produced by rxx , E2 0000 0000 B0000
2 ð49Þ
ryy and rxy yields the total stress distribution around the >
> ðr Þ
hz xz ¼  A 2 þ C 2 þ sin h
>
> 2ð1 þ v2 Þ r 2
cased wellbore contributed by the three stresses in the x–y >
:
ðrr Þxz ¼ ðrh Þxz ¼ ðrz Þxz ¼ ðrrh Þxz ¼ 0
plane:
riðxyÞ ¼ ðri Þx þ ðri Þy þ ðri Þxy Constants A0000 0000
1 … and C2 are determined by applying the
ð42Þ following conditions.
¼ ðri Þx1 þ ðri Þx2 þ ðri Þy þ ðri Þxy1 þ ðri Þxy2 The boundary conditions:

123
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation 591

(
rrz jr¼R1 ¼ 0; rrz jr¼1 ¼ rxz cos h Table 1 Parameters of well J2 in Z5 oilfield
ð50Þ
rhz jr¼1 ¼ rxz sin h Parameters Value

Wellbore diameter (mm) 178 (7 in.)

The continuity conditions:
( Well depth (m) 3,200
ður Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ður Þ2 jr¼R2 ; ðuz Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ðuz Þ2 jr¼R2 Well deviation 0
ð51Þ
ðrrz Þ1 jr¼R2 ¼ ðrrz Þ2 jr¼R2 Well azimuth 0
External diameter of the casing (mm) 178
Substituting Eqs. (50) and (51) to Eqs. (46) to (49), the Internal diameter of the casing (mm) 164
unknown constants B0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
1 , B2 , A1 þ C1 , A2 þ C2 are
0000
In-situ stresses (MPa) 68.2, 64.6, 52.5
obtained. Elastic modulus of rock (MPa) 51,500
4rxz R21 R22 Poisson’s ratio of rock 0.25
B0000
1 ¼ E1 2 2 E2 2 2
ð52Þ
1þv1 ðR2  R1 Þ þ 1þv2 ðR2 þ R1 Þ
Elastic modulus of casing (MPa) 210,000
Poisson ratio of casing 0.21
1 þ v2
B0000
2 ¼ 2 rxz R22 Pore pressure (MPa) 32
E2 Fracturing fluid pressure (MPa) 50
4rxz R22 ðR22  R21 Þ
  2 ð53Þ
E2 2 2 1þv1 E2 2 2
1þv2 ðR2  R1 Þ þ E1 1þv2 ðR2 þ R1 Þ

4rxz R22
A0000 0000
1 þ C1 ¼ E1 2 2 E2 2 2
ð54Þ
1þv1 ðR2  R1 Þ þ 1þv2 ðR2 þ R1 Þ

1 þ v2
A0000 0000
2 þ C2 ¼ 2 rxz ð55Þ
E2
(2) The stress distribution resultant from ryz can be
obtained directly from the stress distribution around the
cased wellbore produced by rxz by replacing rxz with ryz .

2.2.5 The Total Stresses Around the Cased Wellbore

The total stresses around the cased wellbore are obtained

by superposing the corresponding parts of the stress dis-
tribution produced by P, rxx , ryy , rxy , rxz , ryz and rzz , Fig. 8 AS and FEM stress distribution results around wellbore
which can be written as
8 distribution model around the cased wellbore. With the
>
> rr ¼ ðrr Þp þ ðrr Þx1 þ ðrr Þx2 þ ðrr Þy þ ðrr Þxy1 þ ðrr Þxy2
>
> same parameters, rr of the open hole is 12.2 MPa smaller
>
> rh ¼ ðrh Þp þ ðrh Þx1 þ ðrh Þx2 þ ðrh Þy þ ðrh Þxy1 þ ðrh Þxy2
>
> than that of the cased wellbore (62.97 MPa), i.e., 19.4 %;
>
>
< r ¼ ðr Þ rh of the cased wellbore is 26.4 % larger than that of the
z z z
> rrh ¼ ðrrh Þx2 þ ðrrh Þy þ ðrrh Þxy1 þ ðrrh Þxy2 open hole (67.3 MPa) by 17.8 MPa; rz of the open hole is
>
> 4.7 MPa larger than that of the cased wellbore (71.3 MPa)
>
>
>
> rhz ¼ ðrhz Þxz þ ðrhz Þyz
>
> or 6.6 %. These relative errors manifest that the stress
>
:
rrz ¼ ðrrz Þxz þ ðrrz Þyz distribution calculation methods derived for open hole are
far from accurate for hydraulic fracture initiation pressure
ð56Þ
evaluation with the OPT completion.
Taking well J2 in Z5 oilfield for case study, the stress
distribution considering the influence of casing has been 2.3 Stress Distribution Around Perforation Holes
verified using finite element analysis (FEM). The well
parameters listed in Table 1 are substituted into Eq. (56), The perforation hole is assumed as a cylindrical micro-hole
and the stress distribution at the radius r = 100 mm is perpendicular to the borehole axis, and the calculation of
computed, as is plotted in comparison with the FEM results stress distribution around the perforation hole near the
in Fig. 8. It is obvious that the analytical solutions (AS) wellbore can be treated as a plane problem, as shown in
derived here are very close to the FEM results with a dif- Fig. 9 (Hossain et al. 2000). This cylindrical perforation
ference of only 1.7 %, verifying the accuracy of the stress assumption is analogous to the real perforation shape in the

123
592 H. Zhu et al.

region near the wellbore, where most fractures initiate 2.4 Hydraulic Fracture Initiation with OPT
(Fallahzadeh et al. 2010a, b). Although this is not exactly
true, for the analysis of stress concentration around the Since rock tensile strength is much smaller than its uniaxial
perforation hole, it is meaningful. Compared with the compressive strength (UCS), hydraulic fractures are sup-
fracture initiation pressure measured by micro-fracture test, posed to be mode I fractures. Most fracture initiation
the results from Hossain’s model is very accurate, with an models are established using linear elastic fracture
error of less than 2 % (Hossain et al. 1999, 2000). Hence, mechanics (LEFM), according to which, the hydraulic
these assumptions are adopted here for stress distribution fracture initiates when the maximum principal stress in the
calculation around perforation holes (Fig. 10). c direction reaches the rock tensile strength,
8 0
>
> rr ¼ P  d/Pn ðrÞ rðcÞ ¼ St ð58Þ
>
> 0
>
> rh0 ¼ rxx þ ryy þ rz þ 2  ðrxx þ ryy  rz Þcosð2h0 Þ
>
> Given the stress distributions around the cased wellbore
>
>
>
>  2ðrxx  ryy Þðcosð2hÞ þ 2cosð2hÞcosð2h0 ÞÞ and the perforation holes, the fracture initiation pressure
>
>
>
>  4rzh sinð2h0 Þ and the initiation angle between the fracture plane and the
>  4rxy ð1 þ 2cosð2hÞÞsinð2hÞ
>
> 
>
> oð1  2mÞ
hole axis, which is positive from the fracture plane to the
>
> 0
>
<  Pð2cosð2h Þ þ 2Þ þ d  / Pn ðrÞ hole axis in the clockwise direction, can be obtained (Weng
1m
ð57Þ 1993).
>
>
> r0z ¼ rr  m½2ðrz  rh Þcos2h0 þ 4rhz sin2h0  The three principal stresses around the perforation hole
>
> 
>
> oð1  2mÞ are
>
> þd  / Pn ðrÞ
>
> 1m 8 0
>
> r1 ¼ r0r
>
> >
>
>
>
> r0rh0 ¼ 0 >
> sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
> >
>  0 
>
> 0
> rzr ¼ 0
>
< 0 r0z þ r0h0 rz  r0h0 2 02
>
> r2 ¼ þ þrh0 z
: r0 ¼ 2r cosh0  2r sinh0 2 2 ð59Þ
h0 z rh rz >
> s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
> 0 0  0 0  2
>
> r z þ rh 0 rz  rh0
where, r0r , r0h0 , r0z , r0rh0 , r0zr , and r0h0 z are the stresses dis- >
: r03 ¼  þr02
2 2 h0 z
tributed in the rectangular coordinate system and h0 is the
tangential angle of the perforation. By calculating these three stresses at different angle h’,
the hydraulic fracture initiation pressure when the maxi-
Fig. 9 Wellbore and
perforation geometry r mum effective stress of the formation equals the rock
Wellbore tensile strength can be found.
z
(
P r0 ðh0 Þ  aP0 ¼ St ; impermeable wellbore
ð60Þ
z Perforation
r0 ðh0 Þ  aP ¼ St ; permeable wellbore

Defining:
dr ðh0 Þ
0
¼0 ð61Þ
dh0
The tensile failure angle h0 occurring at the perforation
hole can be achieved.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Hydraulic Fracture Initiation with OPT

Taking a vertical cased wellbore with OPT completion in

Fig. 10 Stress distribution around the perforation hole
Z5 oilfield for example, the rock UCS is 42.4 MPa, and its
tensile strength measured from the micro-fracture test is
3.0 MPa. A micro-fracture test is a small hydraulic frac-
turing conducted to obtain the Hmin. Hydraulic pressure is
applied to the formation, usually through perforations in the
casing/liner, until a fracture initiates in the formation (Jones

123
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation
Fig. 11 Fracture initiation pressure changes with deviation angles
Fig. 12 Fracture initiation angle changes with deviation angle
and Sargeant 1993). The fracture initiation pressure minus
the fracture reopening pressure is the rock tensile strength.
The effects of well deviation angle a and well azimuth angle
b (Fig. 3) on fracture initiation pressure and angle are
studied using both our model (the dotted lines) and the
existing model (solid lines), as shown in Figs. 11, 12, 13,
and 14. Seen in Fig. 11, the fracture initiation pressure of
our model is 56.4 MPa, while that of the existing open hole
model is 53.8 MPa, bringing about an error of 4.8 %. Both
the initiation angles of our model and existing open hole
model are 0 (Fig. 12, when the well azimuth angle is zero).
The fracture initiation pressure of our model is larger
than the existing model, with the maximum difference of
about 4.2 MPa (Fig. 13), i.e., a relative error of 6.1 %. The
influence of the azimuth angle on the initiation pressure is
more distinct than the deviation angle. The initiation
pressure slightly decreases with the deviation angles
(Fig. 11), and increases with the azimuth angles (Fig. 13).
The fracture initiation angles of the existing model are all
zero, yet our model gives non-zero values (Fig. 14).
593
Fig. 13 Fracture initiation pressure changes with azimuth angle
3.1.1 Effect of the Ratio of the Maximum Horizontal Stress
SH to the Minimum Sh on Fracture Initiation
Figure 15 shows that the fracture initiation pressure
decreases very slightly as the well deviation angle increa-
ses, which well agrees with Fig. 11. The fracture initiation
pressure decreases with increasing ratio of the maximum
horizontal stress SH to the minimum Sh. The formation
in situ stress has a large influence on the hydraulic fracture
initiation pressure. According to the calculation results of
the fracture initiation angle, no matter what the well
deviation angle is, the fracture initiation angle is zero.
3.1.2 Effect of Well Azimuth Angle on Fracture Initiation
It is obvious in Fig. 16 that the fracture initiation pressure
increases as the well azimuth angle increases. When the
well azimuth angle is less than 70, the fracture initiation
pressure decreases with increasing ratio SH/Sh; however,
this trend reversed as the well azimuth angle exceeds 70.
With increasing well azimuth angle, the fracture initiation
angle firstly increases and then decreases to zero, as shown
in Fig. 17. For a certain in situ stress ratio, there exists a
maximum initiation angle.
3.1.3 Effects of Rock Elastic Modulus and Poison’s Ratio
on Fracture Initiation
The range of rock elastic modulus is set as 20–80 GPa and
that of the Poison’s ratio is 0.13–0.4. The Poison’s ratio is set
at 0.25 when the influence of rock elastic modulus on the
fracture initiation is investigated. And the rock elastic
modulus is set at 51.5 GPa, as the influence of Poison’s ratio
is studied. As can be seen in Figs. 18 and 19, the rock elastic
modulus and the Poison’s ratio have little influence on the
fracture initiation pressure, which almost remains constant.
123
594
Fig. 14 Fracture initiation angle changes with azimuth angle
Fig. 15 Initiation pressure as a function of well deviation angle with
different SH/Sh, the well azimuth angle is 0
3.1.4 Effect of Rock Tensile Strength on Fracture
Initiation
Figure 20 indicates that the influence of rock tensile
strength on the fracture initiation pressure is small. As the
rock tensile strength increases from 0 to 20 MPa, the
increment of fracture initiation pressure is only 6.22 MPa.
At the rock tensile strength of 12 MPa, the fracture initi-
ation pressure is only about 5.5 % higher than that of zero
tensile strength. Therefore, the rock tensile strength can be
neglected in the fracture initiation pressure calculation,
which is consistent with the result of Cui et al. (1998).
3.1.5 Effect of Formation In Situ Pore Pressure
on Fracture Initiation
Figure 21 shows that the fracture initiation pressure
increases linearly with the in situ pore pressure.
123
H. Zhu et al.
Fig. 16 Fracture initiation angle as a function of well azimuth angle
with different SH/Sh, the well deviation angle is 0
Fig. 17 Fracture initiation angle as a function of well azimuth angles
with different SH/Sh, the well deviation angle is 0
3.2 Hydraulic Fracture Propagation with OPT
It is impossible to model the full-scale test of hydraulic
fracturing in the laboratory, thus numerical scaling for
experimental rock, perforation hole, injection rate, and
fracturing fluid property is necessary. Pater et al. (de Pater
et al. 1994) introduced a scale model for the experiments
based on the theoretical analysis. The critical factors that
control the experiments include the in situ stresses, high
viscosity fluid, and low injection rate. They also proved
that the hydraulic fracture propagation is governed by the
cracking opening criteria from LEFM in the laboratory
experiment. Bunger et al. (2005) introduced a design
method to laboratory experiments for the penny-shaped
fracture propagation. Using a pseudo 3D model of
hydraulic fracturing established by Clifton and Abou-
Sayed (1979), Liu et al. (2000) developed a similarity
principle for the laboratory experiment, and the similarity
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation
Fig. 18 Fracture initiation pressure changes with Poison’s ratio
Fig. 19 Fracture initiation pressure changes with elastic modulus
Fig. 20 Fracture initiation pressure changes with rock tensile
strength
groups and the groups’ theoretical origins are presented in
the ‘‘Appendix’’. With the parameters of Z5 oilfield, the
experimental parameters obtained by the similarity prin-
ciple are listed in Table 2.
The experiments were conducted with a 400 9 400 9
400 mm3 hydraulic fracturing test equipment designed by
the rock mechanics laboratory of China University of
595
Fig. 21 Fracture initiation pressure changes with in situ pore
pressure
Petroleum (Beijing) (Fig. 22, Zhu et al. 2014). More
detailed information about the schematic diagram of this
equipment can be found in the reference (Zhou et al. 2010).
The horizontal principal stresses were generated by the
four hydraulic jacks around the sample, and the vertical
stress was loaded by the crane underneath the sample (Not
shown in Fig. 22). The four surrounding hydraulic jacks
are flat, simulating the in situ horizontal principal stresses
by exerting pressure onto the concrete sample. Concrete
samples made of cement and fine-sand with the proportion
of 1:1 were used as analogs of the formation rock. The E of
the concrete is 8.4 GPa, m is 0.23, tensile strength is
3.0 MPa, UCS is 29.2 MPa, permeability is 0.1 mD, and
the porosity is 1.85 %. As can be seen in Fig. 23, three
samples with well deviation angle a of 45, perforation
length of 60 mm, perforation angle h of 0, and different
well azimuth angle b of 0, 45, and 90 were utilized for
the hydraulic fracturing experiments; besides, another
sample with well deviation of 45, well azimuth of 0,
perforation length of 60 mm and perforation angle of 45
was tested (Zhu et al. 2014). In each sample, all the per-
foration holes are shot in the same direction to simulate the
oriented perforation.
The hydraulic fracturing experiment of a vertical open
hole was carried out to verify the experimental design
method. The simulated vertical stress is 15 MPa, and the
two horizontal principal stresses were 14 and 11.5 MPa,
respectively. According to Eqs. (2), (57), and (60), the
fracture initiation pressure of a vertical open hole can be
expressed as
Pf ¼ 3ryy  rxx  aP0 þ St ð62Þ
The initial pore pressure was zero, and the tensile
strength St of the rock sample read from the hydraulic
fracturing curve was 3.1 MPa (Fig. 24) which agreed with
the experimental results of the sample. To verify the
effectiveness of the experimental design, the vertical open
123
596 H. Zhu et al.

Table 2 Experimental parameters 400

Fluid inlet

200
Parameters Experimental Field

400
parameters parameter
200 Sh

170
Wellbore diameter (mm) 18 177.8 (7 in.) Wellbore
Wellbore

20
Perforation interval (mm) 20 200 SH

20 0
20
8
Perforation rows 3 3
Perforations
Perforation diameter (mm) 2 C9 A Sh Perforations

400
Perforation length (mm) 60 C300 A A-A direction
Injection rate (cm3/min) 0.126 2000000
SH
Viscosity of fracturing fluid (Pa s) 0.5 0.04–0.6

Fig. 23 Schematic diagram of the perforation technique

Fig. 24 Hydraulic fracturing curve of vertical open hole

Fig. 22 Triaxial hydraulic fracturing test equipment
hole well was chosen as the reference well. In the experi-
ment, a large vertical fracture with fairly smooth surface
initiated in the PFP of the vertical wellbore. The initiation
pressure measured is 24.2 MPa which agrees very well
with the analytic solution of 23.6 MPa from Eq. (62),
demonstrating that the experiment design is correct and
reliable.
Then, two kinds of hydraulic fracturing tests are con-
ducted. The confining pressures are 58.2 MPa (the vertical
stress), 54.6 MPa (the max. horizontal stress), and
42.5 MPa (the min. horizontal stress), respectively.
(1) Fracturing tests in OPT completion well with 45
well deviation and different well azimuth.
All fractures observed in the experiments initiate along
the perforation holes in the PFP. When the well azimuth is
0, the fracture initiates from the lower and upper perfo-
ration holes; a big plane fracture is created at the lower and
upper sides of the deviated wellbore (Fig. 25a). For the
sample with the well azimuth of 45, the fracture initiates
along the perforation holes at the upper side; in the lower
perforation holes, although the fracture initiates but does
not propagate deeper (Fig. 25b). As the well azimuth
increases to 90, the fracture initiates from the perforation
holes and forms a smooth plane fracture as well (Fig. 25c).
The fractures with different well azimuth angle all ini-
tiate from the perforation holes, suggesting that the high
pressure fluid acts directly on the rock and then forces the
fracture initiation. Hence, No matter whether the micro-
annulus develops or not during the hydraulic fracturing,
calculation of the fracture initiation pressure with OPT
should consider the influence of casing on the stress dis-
tribution around wellbore. It should be noticed that
although for the wellbore with the azimuth of 45, fracture
initiates at both sides of the perforation holes, the fracture
at the lower side does not propagate. The reason is the
upper fracture reaches the rock boundary first and then
rapidly releases the pressure in the fracture, in the absence
of which the lower facture cannot propagate any further.

123
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation
Fig. 25 Fracture propagation with OPT
By applying the similarity principle of the laboratory
experiment, the fracture initiation pressure in Z5 oilfield is
calculated (Fig. 26). Our model has an error of less than
597
Fig. 26 Fracture initiation pressure changes with different well
azimuth angle
Fig. 27 Geometry of the fracture propagation
3.2 % compared to the experimental results; while the error
of the existing model is about 6.6 %, demonstrating that
the model developed here is suitable for calculating
hydraulic fracture initiation pressure with OPT.
(2) Conventional perforation completion well with 45
perforation angle.
As illustrated in Fig. 27, the plane fracture is not
parallel to the perforation direction, and is about 45 from
the maximum horizontal principal stress, signifying the
existence of the micro-annulus. Deviation of the perfo-
ration from PFP verifies the accuracy of the existing
fracture initiation model for the open hole. The experi-
mental fracture initiation pressure is 75.8 MPa; the pre-
diction of the existing model is 73.2 MPa with a relative
error of 3.4 %; while our model gives 81.6 MPa with an
overestimation of 7.7 %, meaning that the existing model
is more accurate for the conventional perforation com-
pletion well.
123
598
4 Conclusion
1. An analytical model for stress distribution around a
cased wellbore is derived and verified with the FEM
results. The accuracy of the prediction is improved by
taking the influence of the casing into consideration
2. A hydraulic fracture initiation model for cased well
with OPT has been developed. Results show that the
well deviation angle has little influence on the fracture
initiation pressure and angle; fracture initiation pres-
sure increases but the initiation angle decreases with
increasing well azimuth. Moreover, as the ratio SH/Sh
increases, the fracture initiation pressure decreases,
H. Zhu et al.
fluid velocity gradient in the direction of fracture width is
neglected in comparison with those along the fracture
height and length, due to the smallness of the width; and (5)
the fracture propagation is governed by the cracking
opening criteria from LEFM. To facilitate the application of
similarity principle, the fracturing fluid here is considered to
be a Newtonian fluid.
Clifton and Abou-Sayed’s governing equations for
hydraulic fracture propagation consist of an equilibrium
equation, a fluid continuity equation and a pressure gradi-
ent equation (1979).
1. The elastic equilibrium equation.
pðx; yÞ  r0zz ðx; y; 0Þ
while the initiation angle increases. ZZ    
3. For well J2 in Z5 oilfield, hydraulic fracturing o 1 owðx; yÞ o 1 owðx; yÞ
¼ Ee þ dxdy
experiments with OPT in 400 9 400 9 400 mm3 A ox R ox oy R oy
concrete samples were carried out based on the ð63Þ
similarity principle. When the well deviation angle is
where Ee ¼ G=ð4pð1  vÞÞ is the equivalent elastic
45, no matter how the well azimuth changes, the
hydraulic fracture initiates and propagates in the PFP. modulus; R ¼ ½ðx  x0 Þ2 þ ðy  y0 Þ2 1=2 is the dis-
The experimental results show that our model is more tance between integral point ðx; yÞ of the integrand
accurate than the existing model for calculating and the pressure point ðx0 ; y0 Þ.
hydraulic fracturing initiation pressure with OPT. 2. The fluid continuity equation.
pi p0
Under the same conditions, if the perforation angle is oqx oqy ow 2KL r0zz ð0;0Þp0
not zero, the existing model is more accurate for the þ þ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  q1 ¼ 0 ð64Þ
ox oy ot t  sðx; yÞ
prediction of the fracture initiation angle and pressure.
4. In the oilfield application, during the OPT, the where pi is the fluid pressure inside the fracture; r0zz is
measurement inaccuracy or the influence of other the normal pressure on fracture surface before
factors may lead to the deviation of the perforation hydraulic fracturing; KL is the total leak-off coeffi-
direction from the direction of the maximum horizon- cient; w is the fracture width; qx is the volume flow
tal principal stress. Therefore, the real fracture initia- rate per unit length along x direction; qy is the volume
tion pressure should lie between the predictions of our flow rate per unit length along y direction; s is the
model and the existing model. contact time between the fracture and fracturing fluid;
t is the fracture propagation time; q1 is the injection
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the SWPU Science rate per unit area of the fracture.
& Technology Fund (No. 2013XJZ003), the research Foundation of 3. The pressure gradient equation.
Sichuan Province under Grant No. 2014HH0004, and the National 8
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51374178, 51221003, >
> op qx
< þg 3 ¼0
51174219), and the Key Program of National Natural Science ox w
ð65Þ
Foundation of China (No. 51134004). This work was also supported >
> op qy
by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, No. : þ g 3 ¼ qFy
oy w
2014CB239205).
where g is the viscosity coefficient of hydraulic
fracturing fluid; q is the density of fracturing fluid, the
Appendix qFy is the force per unit volume.
4. Fracture propagation condition.
The governing equations are cited from the 3D model wa ðsÞ [ wc ¼ KIc ð2aðsÞ=pÞ1=2 =2pEe ð66Þ
proposed by Clifton and Abou-Sayed (1979), whose
assumptions include: (1) the rock formation acts as isotropic where a is the width of vicinity area at the fracture tip;
and linear elastic solid; (2) the porosity and permeability of KIc is the critical stress intensity factor for fracture
the reservoir are so low that the poroelastic effect is negli- propagation; and wc is the critical fracture width for
gible; (3) the fluid flow between the porous parallel plates is fracture propagation. When wa ðsÞ\wc , fracture
non-compressible, non-Newtonian, and laminar; (4) the propagation terminates.

123
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation 599

8 rffiffiffiffi
5. Single-value conditions include the geometric con- > Q ðkÞ L3 ðkÞ Q
>
> ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
dition, medium conditions, boundary conditions, and < p0 ¼ Ee; r0 ¼ Ee; q0 ¼ ; t0 ¼ ; KL0 ¼
L Q L
the initial conditions. > 3 p ffiffiffi
>
> ðkÞ Q ðkÞ EeL ðkÞ Ee ðkÞ
The geometric condition: the dimension of the hydraulic : qI0 ¼ 2 ; g0 ¼ ; qFy0 ¼ ; KIC0 ¼ Ee L
fracture is restricted by the rock sample geometry. L Q L
The medium conditions: parameters qFy , g, Ee, KIc and ð70Þ
KL are classified as the medium conditions. Substituting Eq. (70) into the governing equations, and
The boundary conditions: parameters r0zz , pi , q1 and the non-dimensionalizing the governing equations:
R h=2 8 ZZ    
flow rate Q ¼ 2 h=2 qx ð0; y; tÞdy are classified as the > o 1 ow  o 1 ow 
> ðkÞ
> p  rzz ¼ 0ðkÞ
þ d
xd
y
boundary conditions. >
> x R o y R o
>
> A o x o y
The initial conditions: the hydraulic fracturing time is >
>
>
>
ðkÞ
ðkÞ pi p0
ðkÞ

t ¼ T, the effective fracture length achieved is xmax ¼ L. >

> ðkÞ ðkÞ 2KL 0ðkÞ
> o
> qx oqy ow  rzz pf
ðkÞ

Then, to obtain the experimental parameters, the simi-

>
>
> o þ þ þ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  qðkÞ
1 ¼0
> x oy  ðkÞ
ot  ðkÞ
t  s ðkÞ
>
>
larity principle is employed to derive the governing equa- >
> ðkÞ
>
> opðkÞ ðkÞ qx
tions. First, some units of measurement are used as >
> þ g
 ¼0
>
> o x w3
temporary variables, which are >
>
< ðkÞ ðkÞ
op ðkÞ qy ðkÞ
l0 ; p0 ; r0 ; Ee0 ; q0 ; qI ; t0 ; Q0 ; KL0 ; g0 ; qFy0 ; KIC0 ð67Þ þ g
 ¼ qFy
>
> o
y w 3
>
>
Then, the identical equations can be obtained as follows: >
> ðkÞ  1=2
>
> K1C 2 a
>
>w c ¼
p pf r0 >
> 2p p
p¼ p0 ¼ pp0 ; pf ¼ p0 ¼ pf p0 ; r0zz ¼ zz r0 ¼ r0zz r0 ; >
>
p0 p0 r0 >
> Z h=2

>
>
>
> ¼ qðkÞ ; tðkÞ Þd
Ee x y >
> 1 2 x ð0; y y
Ee ¼ Ee0 ¼ EeEe0 ; x ¼ l0 ¼ xl0 ; y ¼ l0 ¼ yl0 ; >
>  
h=2
Ee0 l0 l0 >
>
>
> tðkÞ ¼ TðkÞ
w wc >
>
w ¼ l0 ¼ wl0 ; wc ¼ l0 ¼ wc l0 ; >
: x ¼ 1
l0 l0 max
qFy
qFy ¼ qFy0 ¼ qFy qFy0 ; ð71Þ
qFy0
R h a where the dimensionless variables are
R ¼ l0 ¼ Rl0 ; h ¼ l0 ¼ hl0 ; a ¼ l0 ¼ al0 ; 8
l0 l0 l0 >
> L ¼ 1; Ee ¼ 1; Q  ¼ 1; x ¼ x ; y ¼ y
qI >
> L L
qI ¼ q0 ¼ qI q0 ; >
>
q0 >
> w wc  R  h a p
>
> w ¼ ;w c ¼ ; R ¼ ; h ¼ ; a ¼ ; pðkÞ ¼
qx qy Q >
> L L L L L Ee
>
>
qx ¼ q0 ¼ qx q0 ; qy ¼ q0 ¼ qy q0 ; Q ¼ Q0 ¼ QQ0 ; >
>
q0 q0 Q0 < ðkÞ pf 0ðkÞ r0zz ðkÞ qFyL ðkÞ q1 L2
pf ¼ ; rzz ¼ ; qFy ¼ ; q1 ¼
t s KL Ee Ee Ee Q
t ¼ t0 ¼ tt0 ; s ¼ s0 ¼ ss0 ; KL ¼ KL0 ¼ K L KL0 ; >
>
t0 s0 KL0 >
> q L q L gQ sQ
>
> ðkÞ
q ¼
x ðkÞ
; qy ¼
y ðkÞ
;g ¼ ðkÞ
;t ¼ s ¼ 3ðkÞ
KIC g >
> x Q Q EeL 3 L
KIC ¼ KIC0 ¼ K IC KIC0 ; g ¼ g0 ¼ gg0 ; ð68Þ >
> rffiffiffiffi
>
>
KIC0 g0 >
> ðkÞ KL L ðkÞ KIC KIC
>
: K L ¼ ðkÞ ¼ KL Q; K IC ¼ ðkÞ ¼ Eepffiffiffi
>
L
According to the Gaussian rule of absolute measurement KL0 KIC0
units, the expressions of the governing equations should ð72Þ
not be affected by the selection of different measurement
units. Substituting Eq. (68) into the governing equations, Substituting the single-value condition (67) into
nine dimensionless Eq. (72), we get the dimensionless similarity
8 constraints are obtained: principle:
> p0
> r0 l20 t0 KL0 q10 l0
>
< Ee ¼ 1; Ee ¼ 1; t q ¼ 1; q pffiffiffi ffi ¼ 1; ¼1 8
0 0 0 0 0 t 0 q0 > p pf r0 LqFy
>
< ¼ idem; ¼ idem; zz ¼ idem; ¼ idem;
>
> q 0 g0 l0 qFy0 KIC0 Q0 Ee Ee rffiffiffiffi Ee Ee
>
: ¼ 1; ¼ 1; pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 1; ¼1
2
p0 l 0 p0 Ee0 L0 q0 l0 >
> TQ L KIC gQ
: ¼ idem; KL ¼ idem; pffiffiffi ¼ idem; ¼ idem
ð69Þ L3 Q Ee L EeL3
ð73Þ
Selecting l0 ; Ee0 ; Q0 as the free measurement units,
l0 ¼ L; Ee0 ¼ Ee; Q0 ¼ Q, and substituting these expres- where idem is the criterion numeral. After simplifying (73),
sions into Eq. (69), nine measurement units are achieved: we obtain the dimensionless similarity index:

123
600
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
Cp C r0 CT CQ CL CK2 Cg CQ
¼ zz ¼ ¼ CKL ¼ 2 IC ¼ ¼1
CEe CEe CL3 CQ CEe CL Cp CL3
ð74Þ
where the similarity coefficient is
CV ¼ Vmodel =Vfield ð75Þ
where subscript V ¼ L; Ee; Q; T; KL ; g; p; r0ZZ ; KIC , and CV
is the ratio of the model quantities to the field quantities.
References
Abass HH, Brumley JL, Venditto JJ (1994) Oriented perforations—a
rock mechanics view. SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans,
Louisiana
Almaguer J, Manrique J, Wickramasuriya S, Habbtar A, López-de-
Cárdenas J, May D, McNally AC, Sulbarán A (2002) Orienting
perforations in the right direction. Oilfield Rev 14(1):16–31
Behrmaan LA, Elbel JL (1991) Effect of perforations on fracture
initiation. J Pet Technol 43(5):608–615
Behrmann LA, Nolte KG (1998) Perforating requirements for fracture
stimulations. SPE formation damage control conference, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Lafayette, Louisiana
Bunger AP, Jeffrey RG, Detournay E (2005) Application of scaling
laws to laboratory-scale hydraulic fractures. The 40th U.S.
symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS), American Rock
Mechanics Association, Anchorage, AK
Chen M, Chen ZX, Huang RZ (1995) Hydraulic fracturing of highly
deviated wells. J Univ Pet CHN 19(2):30–35 (In Chinese)
Clifton RJ, Abou-Sayed AS (1979) On the computation of the three-
dimensional geometry of hydraulic fracturings. Symposium on
low permeability gas reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Denver, Colorado
Crosby DG, Yang Z, Rahman SS (2001) Methodology to predict the
initiation of multiple transverse fractures from horizontal
wellbores. J Can Pet Technol 40(10):68–75
Crosby DG, Rahman MM, Rahman MK, Rahman SS (2002) Single
and multiple transverse fracture initiation from horizontal wells.
J Pet Sci Eng 35(3–4):191–204
Cui L, Ekbote S, Abousleiman Y, Zaman MM, Roegiers J-C (1998)
Borehole stability analysis in fluid saturated formations with
impermeable wall. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
35(4):582–583
Daneshy AA (1973) A study of inclined hydraulic fractures. SPE J
13(2):61–68
de Pater CJ, Cleary MP, Quinn TS, Barr DT, Johnson DE, Weijers L
(1994) Experimental verification of dimensional analysis for
hydraulic fracturing. SPE Prod Facil 9(4):230–238
Deeg WFJ, Brumley JL, Abass HH (1997) Hydraulic fracturing of
deviated wells: an investigation of pressure trends in fracture
propagation during two stages of injection. SPE western regional
meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Long Beach, California
Deng JG, Wang KP, Huang RZ, Chen M (1994) Collapse resistance
of oil well casing-cement mantle combination subjected to non-
uniform loading by rock creep. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
13(2):161–167 (In Chinese)
EI Rabaa W (1989) Experimental study of hydraulic fracture
geometry initiated from horizontal wells. SPE annual technical
conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, San
Antonio, Texas
123
H. Zhu et al.
Fallahzadeh SH, Shadizadeh SR, Pourafshary P, Zare MR (2010a)
Modeling the perforation stress profile for analyzing hydraulic
fracturing initiation in a cased Hole. In: The 34th annual SPE
international conference and exhibition held in Tinapa. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Calabar, Nigeria
Fallahzadeh SH, Shadizadeh SR, Pourafshary P (2010b) Dealing with
the challenges of hydraulic fracturing in deviated cased perfo-
rated boreholes. In: Trinidad and Tobago energy resources
conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Port of Spain,
Trinidad
Hallam SD, Last NC (1991) Geometry of hydraulic fractures from
modestly deviated wellbore. J Pet Technol 43(6):742–748
Hashin Z, Rosen BW (1964) The elastic moduli of fiber reinforced
materials. J Appl Mech 31:223–232
Hossain MM, Rahman MK, Rahman SS (1999) Comprehensive
monograph for hydraulic fracturing initiation from deviated
wellbores under arbitrary stress regimes. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil
and gas conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Jakarta, Indonesia
Hossain MM, Rahrnan MK, Rahman SS (2000) Hydraulic fracture
initiation and propagation: roles of wellbore trajectory, perfora-
tion and stress regimes. J Pet Sci Eng 27(3–4):129–149
Jones C, Sargeant JP (1993) Obtaining the minimum horizontal stress
from microfracture test data: a new approach using a derivative
algorithm. SPE Prod Facil 8(1):39–44
King GE (1989) Perforating the horizontal well. J Pet Technol
41(7):671–672
Li Y (1991) On initiation and propagation of fractures from deviated
wellbores. The University of Texas at Austin, Houston
Liu GH, Pang F, Chen ZX (2000) Development of scaling laws for
hydraulic fracturing simulation tests. J Univ Pet CHN
24(5):45–48 (In Chinese)
Luo TY, Guo JC, Zhao JZ, Wang JH, Pan JJ (2007) Study on fracture
initiation pressure and fracture starting point in deviated
wellbore with perforations. Acta Pet Sin 28(1):139–142 (In
Chinese)
Osorio JG, Lopez CF (2009) Geomechanical factors affecting the
hydraulic fracturing performance in a geomechanically complex,
tectonically active area in Colombia. In: Latin American and
Caribbean petroleum engineering conference, Society of Petro-
leum Engineers, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
Pearson CM, Bond AJ, Eck ME, Schmldt JH (1992) Results of stress
oriented and aligned perforating in fracturing deviated wells.
J Pet Technol 44(1):10–18
Soliman MY, Boonen P (2000) Rock mechanics and stimulation
aspects of horizontal wells. J Pet Sci Eng 25(3–4):187–204
Soliman MY, East L, Adams D (2004) Geomechanics aspects of
multiple fracturing of horizontal and vertical wells. In: SPE
international thermal operations and heavy oil symposium and
western regional meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Bakersfield, CA
Timoshenko S, Goodier JN (1969) Theory of elasticity, 3rd edn.
McGraw Hill, New York
van de Ketterij RG, de Pater CJ (1997) Experimental study on the
impact of perforations on hydraulic fracturing tortuosity. In: SPE
European formation damage conference held in The Hague,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, The Netherlands
van de Ketterij RG, de Pater CJ (1999) Impact of perforations on
hydraulic fracturing Tortuosity. SPE Prod Facil 14(2):131–138
Weng XW (1993) Fracture initiation and propagation from deviated
wellbores. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition,
3–6 October 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston,
TX
Yew CH (1997) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Houston, Texas
Yew CH, Li Y (1987) Fracturing of a deviated well. SPE Prod Eng
3(4):429–437
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation
Yin YQ, Chen ZW, Li PE (2006) Theoretical solutions of stress
distribution in casing-cement and stratum system. Chin J Theor
Appl Mech 38(6):835–842 (In Chinese)
Zhou J, Jin Y, Chen M (2010) Experimental investigation of
hydraulic fracturing in random naturally fractured blocks. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47(7):1193–1199
601
Zhu HY, Deng JG, Liu SJ, Wen M, Peng CY, Li JR, Chen ZJ, Hu LB,
Lin H, Dong G (2014) Hydraulic fracturing experiments of
highly deviated well with oriented perforation technique.
Geomech Eng 6(2):153–172
123