HYDRAULIC FRACTURING for STRESS MEASUREMENTS

The in situ state of stress in the earth's crust has been widely recognized as a basic parameter necessary in the engineering design of underground openings. Quantitative evaluation of horizontal in situ stresses in rock at a specific site cannot be made since gravitational forces are practically the only one clearly understood. Therefore, these horizontal stresses require direct measurements in the field. Presently the most common method of measuring in situ stress from near-surface to considerable depths is hydraulic fracturing (or hydrofrac). Typically hydraulic fracturing is conducted in vertical boreholes. A short segment of the hole is sealed off using an straddle packer. This is followed by the pressurization of the fracture-free segment of the hole by pumping in water. The pressure is raised until the rock surrounding the hole fails in tension at a critical pressure. Following breakdown, the shut-in pressure, the lowest test-interval pressure at which the hydrofrac closes completely under the action of the stress acting normal to the hydrofrac. In a vertical test hole the hydrofrac is expected to be vertical and perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress.

ELASTIC MODEL
Hubbert and Willis (1957) developed the first realistic model relating the recorded hydraulic fracturing test variables to the in situ state of stress in rock. At the borehole wall the tangential stress at the two points aligned perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress, Sh, will be the first to meet this criterion as the test-interval pressure is raised. A hydraulic fracture will thus initiate and extend in the direction of the maximum horizontal stress, SH. With these assumptions, Hubbert and Willis (1957) were able to obtain an elastic solution relating the hydraulic fracturing initiation pressure Pc (also called critical or breakdown pressure) and the two principal horizontal stresses, Sh and SH.

where T is the tensile strength of the rock. In their paper, Hubbert and Willis assumed that T is negligible at great depth because of preexisting fissures traversing the rock and did not incorporate it in the above fracturing criterion .

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Hubbert and Willis suggested that the least horizontal stress is equal to the wellbore pressure required to extend the hydraulic fracture while holding it open. Kehle (1964) was more precise about the magnitude of Sh and suggested that it was equal to the shut-in pressure, Ps, or the minimum pressure needed to keep the fracture open against the fracture-normal stress (equal to Sh) after pumping has been stopped:

Thus, knowledge of four test variables (Pc, Ps, Po and T) is required to calculate the two horizontal principal stresses provided the above assumptions hold. To avoid the need for determining T, one of the most ambiguous rock mechanical properties (Hudson and Fairhurst, 1969), Bredehoeft et al. (1976) suggested replacing the breakdown pressure Pc with the fracture reopening (or refrac) pressure, Pr, obtained in subsequent pressurization cycles. Under the assumption that the hydraulic fracture closes completely between pressurization cycles and that the state of stress around the borehole thus returns to its pre-test condition, equation Hubbert and Willis equation reduces to:

Typical Hydrofrac Pressure-Time Record

| Top |

POROELASTIC MODEL
One of the simplifying assumptions made in the elast model is that no injected fluid penetrates into the surrounding rock. This condition may be correct in oil wells lined with impermeable mud cake, but certainly inaccurate in clean open holes of the type commonly used for stress measurements. The radial outward flow of the injected fluid into the rock pores creates an additional stress field around the borehole. Haimson and Fairhurst (1967) invoked the theory of poroelasticity (Biot, 1941) to incorporate the

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

effect of the injection fluid permeation on the stress distribution around the borehole, and obtained the following hydraulic fracturing criterion:

a is the Biot poroelastic parameter (Biot and Willis, 1957), and is defined as a = 1 - Cr/Cb, where Cr is rock matrix compressibility and Cb is rock bulk compressibility; n is the Poisson's ratio for the rock. | Top |

FRACTURE MECHANICS MODEL

Conventional elastic and poroelastic criteria assume that the rock subject to hydraulic fracturing behaves as a continuous medium. However, the presence of natural cracks in the test interval may violate this simplifying assumption. Abou-Sayed et. al. (1978) introduced a fracture mechanics approach to the hydraulic fracturing criterion assuming the existence of arbitrarily oriented cracks in rock. Further assuming that there is always a symmetrical double crack of length a (typical of the rock type) which extends from the hole wall in the direction of SH. Rummel and Winter (1983) and Rummel (1987) derived a fracture mechanics solution that can be used to calculate SH. They suggest that hydraulic fracturing will occur when the mode I (opening) stress intensity factor KI at the tip of the crack reaches a critical value (fracture toughness KIC). The peak pressure Pc recorded on the pressure-time plot is then interpreted as equal to:

where f*, g*, h* are dimensionless stress intensity functions calculated in terms of the normalized crack length a/r, where r is the radius of the borehole. For comparison with the classical elastic solution (Hubbert and Willis, 1957) the first term of the equation f*KIC/ r is equivalent to the apparent hydraulic fracturing tensile strength of the rock. | Top |

HTPF
A novel approach to calculating in situ stresses from hydraulic fracturing data has been proposed by Cornet and Valette (1984). It is the Fracture Pressurization Method, originally called 'hydraulic tests on preexisting fractures' (HTPF) by Cornet (1986). By

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

using the general theory of stress in 3-dimensional space, the fracture-normal stress can be formulated as a nonlinear function of depth and fracture orientation, expressed in the form of 6 unknown parameters which uniquely define the stress tensor. Unlike the conventional models, the fracture pressurization method neither invokes the stress-strain relations nor assumes the idealistic (homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic) rock properties. The only assumptions made where the fracture pressurization criterion is used are:

The shut-in pressure is equal to the magnitude of the stress normal to the pressurized fracture Sn even if it is not oriented along Sh.

Each non-zero component of the stress tensor varies linearly with depth. Sv is taken equal to the weight of the overburden and assumed to be a principal component of the in situ stress tensor.

Under these assumptions, the state of stress at depth D can be represented by the following tensor (Cornet and Valette, 1984):

where g is the mean weight density of the rock; D is the depth; (S) is symmetric with four independent components; (A) is the stress tensor at the surface (D=0); and (B) is a tensor representing the linear variation of the stress components with depth. McGarr (1980) had shown that the stress linear relationship with depth is a direct result of the equations of static equilibrium when the horizontal stresses are uniform over large area. Using the definitions in the above equations A1 and A2 are the principal horizontal stresses at the surface (D=0). Denoting the direction of A1 with respect to north as l A, eigenvalues of (B) as B1 and B2, and the direction of the eigenvector corresponding to B1 with respect to A1 as l B. Then each normal (i=j) and shear (i j) stress component Sij (i,j=x,y) can be related to the six unknown principal components A1,A2,B1,B2,l A and l B by (Jaeger and Cook, p. 24-26, 1976):
Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

The measured attitude (dip f i, dip direction y i) of the pressurized fracture defines the unit normal vector (n) of each fracture-normal stress Sn,i across ith fracture, measured by the respective shut-in pressure Ps,i can be related to each stress component of (S):

By conducting a minimum of six pressurization tests in separate intervals within the same stress regime, the six unknown parameters (A1, A2, B1, B2, l A and l B) in the fracturenormal stress equation can be determined, using one of several available least squares techniques. The six parameters completely define three independent components (Sxx, Syy, Sxy) of horizontal stresses as a function of depth. Thus, the horizontal principal stresses and their directions are calculated as follows:

Knowledge of the in situ stress in rock mass is required in the design of underground openings, in the earthquake studies, and in the extraction of oil and gas. The magnitudes and directions of in situ stresses, obtained by hydraulic fracturing, provide the crucial design parameters - layout (orientation, depth, and cross-sectional shape) of the opening, frictional strength of the fault, and orientation of the fracture propagation. The following are the examples of underground activities requiring the state of in situ stresses.

Nuclear waste disposal repository design (YMP, WIPP) Oil & gas storage design (SPR)

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) design (Norton) Pumped energy storage design (Bath County, Smith Mt. Lake, Tianhuangping, Snowy Mountains Scheme) Transportation tunnel design Earthquake prediction (Earthquake list, San Andreas, Parkfield) Man-made earthquake studies Plate tectonics (USGS, Earthquakes, platetectonics.com) Waste injection for environmental restoration (SPE) Enhancement of oil / groundwater recovery (Fracture toughness) Geothermal energy extraction (Fenton Hill, Soultz, Deep Heat Mining, Geocrack, Long Valley) Borehole stability problems (DEM, Karlsruhe)

Hydraulic fracturing field testing is a two-step procedure. Sequentially, it consists of (a) pressurization of the selected borehole segment until fracturing occurs, and (b) delineation of the induced fracture. Typically, a complete test will consist of two trips downhole to the test interval, each with different equipment assemblies. The most common tool for fracturing is a straddle packer system; for fracture tracing on the borehole wall the oldest and still the most reliable is the impression-orienting tool. In its simplest form the straddle packer system includes two inflatable rubber packer elements straddled by an interval spacer. The packer elements are used to seal off a segment of the hole so as to enable its leak-free hydraulic pressurization. The impression packer-orienting tool assembly comprises of a compass-like (or gyroscopic) device and a packer element covered with a partially cured thin rubber sleeve for taking an imprint of the borehole wall when pressurized against it. A common method has been described in ASTM standard D4645-87 (1989).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Wireline Straddle Packer System (Haimson and Lee, 1984)

Selected References for Hydraulic Fracturing

ASTM Designation D4645-87, Standard test method for determination of the in-situ stress in rock using the hydraulic fracturing method, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4.08, 851-856 (1989). Aamodt R. and M. Kuriyagawa, Measurement of Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure in Crystalline Rock, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 28-43 (1983). Abou-Sayed, A. S., C. E. Brechtel and R. J. Clifton, In Situ Stress Determination by Hydrofracturing: A Fracture Mechanics Approach, J. Geophys. Res., 83, 2851-2862 (1978). Ahagen, H., Instruments for Hydrogeological and Geochemical Measurements in Deep Boreholes, International Symposium on Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Zurich, 1289-1292, (1983). Baumgartner, J. and F. Rummel, Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing as a Stress Measuring Technique in Jointed Rock Mass, in Proc. 2nd International Workshop on

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, University of Wisconsin-Madison, pp. 168204, (1988).

Baumgartner, J., F. Rummel, B. C. Haimson, and M. Y. Lee, In Situ Stress Measurements and Natural Fracture Logging in Drill Hole CY-4, the Troodos ophiolite, Cyprus, In Cyprus Crustal Study Project, Initial Report, Hole CY-4, Geological Survey of Canada, paper 88-9, pp. 315-330 (1989). Biot, M. A, General Theory of Three-dimensional Consolida-tion. J. Appl. Phys. 12, 155164 (1941). Biot, M. A. and Willis, D.G., The Elastic Coefficients of the Theory of Consolidation, J. Applied Mechanics, 594, (1957). Bjarnason, B, C. Ljunggren, and O. Stephansson, New Developments in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements at Lulea University of Technology, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 26, 579-586 (1989). Bradley, W. B., Failure of Inclined Boreholes. J. Energy Res. Tech., Trans. AIME, 102, 232-239 (1979). Bredehoeft, J., R. Wolff, W. Keys, and E. Shuter, Hydraulic Fracturing to Determine the Regional In-situ Stress Field, Piceance Basin, Colorado, Geol. Soc. America Bull., 87, 250-258 (1976). Cheung, L. S. and B. C. Haimson, Laboratory Study of Hydraulic Fracturing Pressure Data-How Valid Is Their Conventional Interpretation?, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. SCI & Geomech. Abstr., 26, 595-604 (1989). Cheung, L.S., Laboratory Simulated Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements in Intact and Prefractured Rocks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1990). Clark, J. B., A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Productivity of Wells, Trans. AIME, Vol. 186, 1949. Cornet, F. H. and B. Valette, In Situ Stress Determination from Hydraulic Injection Test Data, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 11527-11537 (1984). Cornet F. H., Stress Determination from Hydraulic Tests on Preexisting Fractures- the H.T.P.F. Method. in Proc. Intl. Symp. Rock Stress and Rock Stress Measurements, CENTEK Publ., Lulea, pp. 301-311 (1986). Daneshy, A. A., A Study of Inclined Hydraulic Fractures. Soc. Petr. Engrs. J., 13, 61-68 (1973). De la Cruz, R. V. and C. B. Raleigh, Absolute Stress Measurements at the Rangely Anticline, Northwestern Colorado, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. SCI & Geomech. Abstr., 9, 625-634 (1972).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Dischler, S. A. and K. Kim, Determination of Rock Deformation Modulus during Hydraulic Fracturing, in Proc. 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 363-373, (1985). Doe, T.W., W.A. Hustrulid, B. Leijon, K. Ingvald and L. Strindell, Determination of the State of Stress at the Stripa mine, Sweden, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 119-129 (1983). Enever, J. R. and B. A. Wooltorton, Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing as a Means of Estimating In-Situ Stress in Australian Coal Basin Sediment, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 28-43, (1983). Enever, J. R. and P. N. Chopra, Experience with Hydraulic Fracture Stress Measurements in Granite, in Proc. International Symposium on Rock Stress and Rock Stress Measurement, CENTEK Publ., Lulea, pp. 411-420 (1986). Evans, K., A Laboratory Study of Two Straddle-Packer Systems under Simulated Hydrofrac Stress-Measurement Conditions, J. Energy Resources Technology, 109, 180190 (1987). Gronseth J.M. and P. R. Kry, Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure and its Relationship to the Minimum In-situ Stress, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washing-ton, D. C., 55-60 (1983). Haimson, B. C., Earthquake Related Stresses at Rangely, Colorado, in Proc. 14th US Rock Mech. Symp., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs, New York, NY, pp. 689-708 (1973). Haimson, B. C., A Simple Method for Estimating In Situ Stresses at Great Depths, In Field Testing and Instrumentation of Rock, ASTM STP 554, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 156-182 (1974). Haimson, B. C., Design of Underground Powerhouses and the Importance of Preexcavation Stress Measurements, in Proc. 16th US Rock Mech. Symp., Am. Soc. Civil Engrs, New York, NY, 197-204 (1977). Haimson, B. C., Crustal Stress in the Michigan Basin. J. Geophys. Res. 83, 5857-5863 (1978a). Haimson, B. C., The Hydrofracturing Stress Measuring Method and Recent Results, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. SCI & Geomech. Abstr., 15, 167-178 (1978b). Haimson, B. C., Field Measurements and Laboratory Tests for the Design of Energy Storage Caverns, in Proc. 4th ISRM Congress, 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 195-201 (1979). Haimson, B. C., Near Surface and Deep Hydrofracturing Stress Measurements in the Waterloo Quartzite, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. SCI & Geomech. Abstr., 17, 81-88 (1980). Haimson, B. C., Stress Measurements at Hanford, Washington for the Design of a Nuclear Waste Repository Facility, in Proc. 6th Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 119-123 (1987).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Haimson, B. C., Current Hydraulic Fracturing Interpretation, How Correctly Does It Estimate the Maximum Horizontal Crustal Stress?. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. U., 69, 1454 (1988). Haimson, B. C. and T. W. Doe, State of Stress, Permeability, and Fractures in the Precambrian Granite of Northern Illinois, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 7355-7371 (1983). Haimson, B. C. and J. N. Edl, Hydraulic Fracturing of Deep Wells, SPE 4061, presented at the 47th annual fall meeting, AIME, Soc. of Petr. Engr. (1972). Haimson, B. C. and C. Fairhurst, Initiation and Extension of Hydraulic Fracture in Rocks, Soc. Petr. Engrs. J., Sept., 310-318 (1967). Haimson, B. C. and X. Huang, Hydraulic Fracturing Breakdown Pressure and In Situ Stress at Great Depth. In Rock at Great Depth (Edited by Maury and Fourmaintraux), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 939-946 (1989). Haimson, B. C. and C. F. Lee, Hydrofracturing Stress Determinations at Darlington, Ontario. In Proc. 13th Canadian Rock Mech. Symp., Canadian Inst. Min. Met, Toronto, Ontario, pp. 42-50 (1980). Haimson, B. C. and M. Y. Lee, Development of a Wireline Hydrofra-cturing Technique and Its Use at a Site of Induced Seismicity, in Proc. 25th US Rock Mech. Symp., Soc. Mining Engrs, New York, NY, pp. 194-203 (1984). Haimson, B. C. and M. Y. Lee, Stress Measurements at the Jordanelle Dam Site, Central Utah, Using Wireline Hydrofracturing, final report to US Geological Survey, 14-080001-21890 (1985). Haimson, B. C. and M. Y. Lee, The State of Stress in a Jointed Rhyolite, in Proc. 28th US Rock Mech. Symp., Rotterdam, Balkema, pp. 231-240 (1987). Haimson, B. C. and B. Voight, Crustal stress in Iceland. Pageoph, 115, 153-190 (1977). Haimson, B. C., M.Y. Lee, N. Feknous, and P. de Courval, "Stress Measurements at the Site of the SM3 Hydroelectric Scheme, Near Sept-Iles, Quebec", Intl. J. Rock Mech. and Mining Sci., vol.33, 487-497, (1996). Haimson, B. C., M. Y. Lee, and N. Chandler, Estimating the State of Stress at the Underground Research Laboratory from Hydraulic Fracturing Tests in Three Holes of Different Plunges, in Rock Mechanics Tools and Techniques, Eds. M. Aubertin, F. Hassani and H. Mitri, Balkema Pub., vol. I, 913-919 (1996). Healy, J. H. and M. D. Zoback, Hydraulic Fracturing In Situ Stress Measurements to 2.1 km Depth at Cajon Pass, California, Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, 1005-1008 (1988). Hickman, S. H. and M. D. Zoback, The Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracturing PressureTime Data from In-situ Stress Determination, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 44-54 (1983).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Hubbert, M. K. and D. G. Willis, Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing, Trans. AIME, 210, 153-166 (1957). Hudson J. A. and C. Fairhurst, Tensile Strength, Weibull's Theory and a General Statistical Approach to Rock Failure, in Proc. Southampton 1969 Civil Engineering Materials Conference, pp. 901-914 (1969). Kehle, R. O., The Determination of Tectonic Stresses Through Analysis of Hydraulic Well Fracturing. J. Geophys. Res. 69, 259-273 (1964). Lee M. Y. and B. C. Haimson, PC-based Data Acquisition and Analysis Software for Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, in Field Measurements in Geotechnics, Ed (Sorum), 455-464 (1991). Lee M. Y. and B. C. Haimson, Statistical Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurement Parameters, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 26, 447-456 (1989). Li, F., Q. Zhai, M. D. Zoback, B. C. Haimson, and M. Y. Lee, Stress Measurement in the Red River Fault Region of Yunnan province, China, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. U., 66, 1060 (1985). Ma, M., Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation of Potential Underground Sites for Housing Superconductive Magnet Using Field and Laboratory Methods, M. S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979). Mardia, L., The Statistics of Orientation Data, Academic Press, London (1972). Martin, C. D., Characterizing In Situ Stress Domains at the AECL Underground Research Laboratory, Can. Geotech. J., 27, 631-646 (1990) Muskat, M., Use of Data on Build-up of Bottom Hole Pressures, Trans. AIME., 123, 4448 (1937). Ren, N. K., Experimental Evaluation of Mechanical Anisotropy in the Waterloo Quartzite, M. S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979). Richardson, R. M., Hydraulic Fracture in Arbitrarily Oriented Boreholes: An Analytic Approach, in Hydraulic Frac-turing Stress Measurements, Nation-al Academy Press, Washing-ton, D.C., pp. 167-175 (1983). Rogiers, J. C., C. Fairhurst and R. B. Rosene, The DSP - A New Instrument for Estimation of the In-Situ Stress State at Depth, paper SPE 4246 presented at 6th Conference on Drilling and Rock Mechanics of SPE-AIME, Austin, Texas (1973). Rummel, F., Fracture Mechanics Approach to Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, in Fracture Mechanics of Rock (Edited by B.K. Atkinson), Academic Press, London, pp. 217-239, (1987).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Rummel, F., J. Baumgartner H. J. Alheid, Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements Along the Eastern Boundary of the SW-German Block, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 3-17 (1983). Rummel, F. and Winter, R. B., Fracture Mechanics as Applied to Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Earthq. Predict. Res. 2, 33-45 (1983). Schmitt, D. and M. D. Zoback, Laboratory Tests of the Effects of Pore Pressure on Tensile Failure, in Rock at Great Depth ( Edited by Maury and Fourmaintraux), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 883-889 (1989). Sumner, J. S., Geophysical Studies of the Waterloo Range, Wisconsin, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1956). Tarantola, A. and B. Valette, Generalized Nonlinear Inverse Problem Solved Using the Least Squares Criterion, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 20, 219-232 (1982). Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, J. Wiley, New York (1943). Thwaites, F.T., Buried Precambrian of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Map (1957). Tsukahara, H., Stress Measurements Utilizing the Hydraulic Fracturing Technique in the Kanto-Tokai Area, Japan, in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 18-27 (1983). Tunbridge, L. W., Interpretation of the Shut-In Pressure from the Rate of Pressure Decay, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 26, 457-459 (1989). Tunbridge, L. W., C. M. Cooling, and B. C. Haimson, Measurement of Rock Stress Using the Hydraulic Fracturing Method in Cornwall, U.K.-Part I. Field Measurements, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 26, 351-360 (1989). Warpinski, N. R., P. Branagan and R. Wilmer, In-Situ Stress Measurements at U.S. DOE's Multiwell Experiment Site, Mesaverde Group, Rifle, Colorado, J. Petr. Tech., 527-536 (1985). Zemanek, J., R. L. Caldwell, E.E. Glenn Jr., S. V. Holcomb, L.J. Norton and A. J. D. Straus, The Borehole Televiewer-A New Logging Concept for Fracture Location and Other Types of Borehole Inspection, J. Petr. Tech., 762-774 (1969). Zoback, M. D. and B. C. Haimson, Status of Hydraulic Fracturing Method for In-situ Stress Measurements, in Issues in Rock Mechan-ics, Proc. 23rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Soc. of Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, pp. 143-156 (1982). Zoback, M. D. and S. H. Hickman, In Situ Study of the Physical Mechanisms Controlling Induced Seismicity at Monticello Reservoir, South Carolina, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 69596974 (1982).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com

Zoback, M. D. and D. D. Pollard, Hydraulic Fracture Propagation and the Interpretation of Pressure Time Records for IN-Situ Stress Determination, in Proc. 19th U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., pp. 14-22 (1978). Zoback, M. D., H. Tsukahara and S. Hickman, Stress Measure-ments Near the San Andreas Fault, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 6157-6173 (1980). Zoback, M. L. and M. D. Zoback, State of Stress in the Conterminous United States, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 6113-6156 (1980). Zoback, M. D. and B. C. Haimson, Editors, Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements I National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 270 p., (1983).

Adapted from http://www.hydrofrac.com