Research and application on simulation of oilfield 3D in-situ stress field by multi-information co-processing

  • Yi ZhangEmail author
  • Baojun Bai
  • Shen Lei 
  • Xiao Chuang Ye
Original Paper


When designing an oilfield development program and deploying well patterns, it is often assumed that the maximum principal stress is along a single direction. A wrong determination of the principle stress may cause early water breakthrough and thereby abate production results. In-situ stress field has significant impacts on well pattern design and hydraulic fracturing. To obtain the distribution of a 3D in-situ stress field for a research area, the single-well in-situ stress curves were built by synthesizing laboratory experiments, fracturing results, and experienced formula and logging information. A 3D in-situ stress model was built by stochastic modeling. First, the relationship between vertical compressional wave velocity and longitudinal compressional wave velocity was established. Then, a calculated model of corrected rock mechanical parameters model was built with a triaxial rock mechanics testing system, and a modified tectonic stress coefficient was established according to fracturing data. In accordance with the calculated model and correction coefficient, the single-well in-situ stress variation curve is then determined. Base on the obtained single-well curve, a logging curve, a 3D in-situ stress model of the area was built by applying the stochastic modeling method. Further applications of the 3D in-situ stress field model were finally demonstrated through comparison of simulated results with field monitoring data in Ordos Basin. The results demonstrated high accuracy of the new model and therefore provided guidance to reservoir simulation and well pattern design for low-permeability reservoirs.


In-situ stress field Multi-information synthesis Triaxial rock mechanics test Hydraulic fracturing Rock mechanical parameters Stochastic modeling 



The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for the numerical simulation method applied in the research of this paper based on the mining influence (51404196) supported by them.


  1. Backers T, Meier T, Gipper P, Stephansson O(2014) Rock mechanics - confidence of SKB’s models for predicting the occurrence of spalling. SSM Technical Note 10Google Scholar
  2. Bae SH, Kim JM, Kim JS, Park ES (2007) Daejeon. Evaluation of initial rock stress state by hydraulic fracturing test in Korea: overall characteristics and a case study.1st Canada - U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, 27–31 May, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. Cudjoe S, Barati R (2017) Lattice Boltzmann simulation of CO2 transport in kerogen nanopores—an evaluation of CO2 sequestration in organic-rich shales. J Earth Sci 28(5):926–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cudjoe S, Vinassa M, Gomes JHB, Barati RG (2016) A comprehensive approach to sweet-spot mapping for hydraulic fracturing and CO2 huff-n-puff injection in Chattanooga shale formation. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 33:1201–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deng J, Huang R, Tian X (1997) A new method for oilfield deep strata stress measurement of J. J Univ Pet (Natl Sci Ed) 21(1):32–35Google Scholar
  6. Gan Y, Zhang S, Chen L (2006) Optimization design of integral hydraulic fracturing for skewed patterns in low-permeability complex faulted reservoir. Acta Pet Sin 27(4):81–84Google Scholar
  7. Gao H, Li H (2015) Determination of movable fluid percentage and movable fluid porosity in ultra-low permeability sandstone using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique. J Pet Sci Eng 133:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haimson BC (1968) Hydraulic fracturing in porous and nonporous rock and its potential for determining insitu stress at great depth, PhD thesis, Univ. Minnesota, 234ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Haimson BC, Fairhurst C (1967) Initiation and extension of hydraulic fractures in rocks. Soc Pet Eng J 7:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He MC, Guo HY, Chen X, Liu PY, Xi SZ (2010) Numerical simulation of the effect of geostress on large deformations of deep soft rock tunnels. International symposium on in-situ rock stress, Beijing, pp 25–27 595–599Google Scholar
  11. Holcomb DJ (1993) General theory of the Kaiser effect. Geological engineering program, UW-Madison. Permission to Distribute - American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu J, Zhao Y, Wang L, Li D (2013) Reservoir parameters inversion based on fracturing operation parameters. International Petroleum Technology Conference, BeijingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang RZ (1981) Crack initiation and propagation in hydraulic fracturing. Pet Explor Dev 5:62–74Google Scholar
  14. Huang R, Zhuang J (1986) A new method for predicting formation fracture pressure. Pet Drill Prod Technol 8(3):1–14Google Scholar
  15. Huang M, Jiang L, Liaw PK, Brooks CR, Seeley R, Klarstrom DL (1998) website 50,(11) JOM. Retrieved 2011-12-05Google Scholar
  16. Li QP, Chen BR(2013) Research on micro-seismic source location during linear excavation process of deep tunnel. Rock characterisation, modelling and engineering design methods – Feng, Hudson & Tan, pp 675–680Google Scholar
  17. Li T, Zhang Y, Zhang N (2005) Solution of formation mechanical properties and its application in Sulige area. J Xi'an Pet Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 20(5):22–24Google Scholar
  18. Li J, Wu S, Gao Y, Li L, Zhou Y (2015) An improved multidirectional velocity model for micro-seismic monitoring in rock engineering. J Cent S Univ 22(6):2348–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin CD (2007) Quantifying in situ stress magnitudes and orientations for Forsmark Design Step D2. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB R-07-26)Google Scholar
  20. Michihiro K, Fujiwara T, Yoshioka H (1985) Study on estimating geostresses by the Kaiser effect of AE. 26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  21. Sanditov DS, Mashanov AA, Darmaev MD (2009) Propagation velocity of longitudinal and transverse acoustic waves and anharmonicity of lattice oscillations. Tech Phys 54(9):1398–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shanzhi S, Hui Y, Zhenli S, Houkun W, Hu Y (2015) The in-situ stress characteristics and fracture extension direction on lower Karamay formation of Qidong-1 area in Xinjiang Oilfield. Sci Technol Eng 15(17):117–120Google Scholar
  23. Shen X, Evans S (2016) Optimizing multistage hydraulic-fracturing design based on 3D continuum damage mechanics. SPE/IADC Middle East drilling technology conference and exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, SPE/IADC-178169-MSGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi X, Ju Y, Meng Z (2014) Characteristics of in-situ stress field in Xinji coal mine. Coal Geol Explor 42(6):68–72Google Scholar
  25. Shu X (2010) The method of bound regression analyse of the initial geostress field and its application. International Symposium on In-Situ Rock Stress, pp 25–27Google Scholar
  26. Su Y, Mu L, Fan W, Li Z, Gao L (2011) Optimization of fracturing parameters for ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Pet Drill Tech 39(6):69–72Google Scholar
  27. Vahaviolos SJ (1999) Acoustic emission: standards and technology update. STP-1353. ASTM International (publishing), Philadelphia, p 81 ISBN 0-8031-2498-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang H, Zhang S (1998) Numerical computation of hydraulic fracturing design. Petroleum industry press, Beijing, pp 178–186Google Scholar
  29. Wang Z, Deng H, Huang R (2014a) Three-dimensional inversion of geostress in Xinchang gas field, Western Sichuan Sag. Pet Geol Exp 36(6):792–797Google Scholar
  30. Wang B, Yonghong HE, Wang K, Wang Y, Dong L (2014b) Characteristics of lower assemblage reservoir of Yanchang Formation in Dingbian-Ansai area, Ordos Basin. Lithol Reserv 26(6):64–68Google Scholar
  31. Wu J-f, Hao J, Yu B-l (2009) Module development of 2D modeling & stress field analysis of rhombus-shaped wire super high pressure vessel based on ANSYS. Mach Des Manuf 8:76–78Google Scholar
  32. Wu Y, Dai J, Gu Y, Shang L, Liu Q (2014) Numerical simulation of present geostress field and its effect on hydraulic fracturing. J Geol Mech 20(4):363–370Google Scholar
  33. Yang SY (2015) Pore types and texture of sandstone reservoir of Chang 2 and Chang 6 reservoirs in Tangshan region of Dingbian oilfield. Liaoning Chem Ind 44(10):1247–1249Google Scholar
  34. Yang Z, Gao Q, Zhai S, Yang X (2016) Intelligent inversion method of in-situ stress field for a complicated engineering geological body. J Harbin Inst Technol 48(4):154–160Google Scholar
  35. Yao F, Weng D, Li Y, Yu Y (2007) Study and application of stress field prediction software for refractured oil wells. Acta Petrol Sin 28(4):130–133Google Scholar
  36. Yao R, Yang S, Lu Y, & Cui X, Chen Q, Mi Q (2010) Characteristics of tectonic stress in the east of Tibetan Plateau and its neighboring region inferred from in-situ stress measurement. In: International symposium on in-situ rock stress, 25–27 August, Beijing, China, pp 687–693Google Scholar
  37. Zhao J, Ii Y, Wang S, Jiang Y, Zhang L (2014) Simulation of a complex fracture network influenced by natural fractures. Nat Gas Ind 34(1):68–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Baojun Bai
    • 2
  • Shen Lei 
    • 3
  • Xiao Chuang Ye
    • 4
  1. 1.School of petroleum engineeringXi’an ShiYou UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Geosciences and geological and petroleum engineeringMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA
  3. 3.The Second Gas ProductionChangqing Oilfield of CNPCXi’anChina
  4. 4.The Third Oil ProductionChangqing OilfieldDa QingChina

Personalised recommendations