DE

STATES
UNITED
OF THE
ARTMENT
G
S EURVEY

LOGI

[COULD

NOT

BE

CONVERTED

INTERIOR
C AL
TO

SEARCHABLE

TEXT]

[COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT]

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Area 12-43
1976

USGS-474-222

Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225

A METHOD FOR STRESS DETERMINATION IN N, E, AND T TUNNELS,

NEVADA TEST SITE, BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING,
WITH A COMPARISON OF OVERCORING METHODS
By
C. H. Miller
ABSTRACT
Twenty-nine intervals in 10 core holes were hydraulically
fractured in N, E, and T tunnels, Nevada Test Site, during 1974.
Certain pressures were determined and related to the ambient stress
field, but the orientation of the hydraulic fractures was not measured.

These data and data from previous investigations in G tunnel

indicated that both the magnitude of the hydraulic pressures and

the direction of fracturing are independent of the orientation of
the core holes.

The maximum and minimum principal compressive

stresses determined by the hydraulic fracturing methods are good

approximations of those determined by nearby overcore methods.
The data show that a good approximation of the magnitudes of the
maximum and minimum principal stress axes can be obtained from
several hydrofractured intervals in one core hole.

Furthermore,

if fracture orientation can be measured, then the direction of

minimum principal compressive stress can be determined and the
orientation of the plane of the maximum and intermediate principal
compressive stresses can also be determined.

INTRODUCTION

During the interval between June 1974 and February 1975, 29

zones in 10 core holes were hydraulically fractured (hydrofractured)
in three DNA (Defense Nuclear Agency) tunnels (N, E, and T) at NTS
(Nevada Test Site).

The purpose of the hydrofracturing was to

relate certain pressures used in fracturing rocks to the ambient

stress fields.

The project was funded and originated by DNA in

cooperation with SLA (Sandia Laboratories) at Albuquerque and the

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).

The following analysis and

conclusions fulfill the USGS role in the project.

THEORY OF HYDROFRACTURE MEASUREMENTS
The theory of hydrofracturing is discussed by Haimson (1974)
and Obert and Duvall (1967).

Some other hydrofracturing-for-stress

determinations at NTS have been reported by Haimson, LaComb, Jones,

and Green (1974).
Theory employed for analysis of the hydrofracturing experiment
assumes that the rocks are elastic, isotropic, and porous but impermeable between the rock grains.

Intergranular pore pressure of

the volcanic rocks approaches zero; any permeability is related to

fractures.
The method further assumes that the core hole used in fracturing is parallel to one of the principal stress axes of a differential stress field.

The holes used in the present study are

randomly oriented, and the relation of the magnitude of hydraulic

pressures to the orientation of the holes is discussed in this
report.
In a vertical hole drilled along the maximum principal stress
axis the breakdown pressure, Pc, required to fracture impermeable
rocks along an interval isolated by straddle packers is given by

where T is the hydraulic fracturing strength of the rocks; 03 is

the least horizontal stress, psi (pounds per square inch), normal
to the borehole; a1 is the maximum horizontal stress (psi) normal
to the borehole; and Pf is the pore-fluid pressure (psi), which is
zero in the present study.

Direction of fracture extension is

assumed to be parallel to a1 and normal to a3'

The factors Pc and

a3 (instantaneous shut-inpressure) are interpreted from the timepressure graphs; T is measured in the laboratory (Haimson and
others, 1974, p. 562), and a3 may be calculated when the other
elements of equation (1) are known.
Figure 1 shows a generalized time-pressure model of a hydrofracturing test.

The time-pressure graph of figure 1 and equation

(1) are models used as a basis of discussion in this report.

It is assumed that this model approximates the conditions encountered
in the randomly oriented holes discussed herein.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 summarizes drilling and pressure data for 29 intervals isolated by packers in 10 core holes in N, E, and T tunnels.
The hydrofracture pressures are interpreted from records taken by
Fenix and Scisson, Inc.

Orientations by hydrofractures were not

measured.
Apparent breakdown and fracture-extension pressures
Many of the breakdown pressures (Pc), that is, the "hump," are
not evident on the hydrofracture records run in the tunnels.

Instead

the pressure rises steadily with time until it reaches a plateau

pressure.

The beginning of the plateau is called Pc and fracture-

extension pressures were interpolated further along the plateau.

The magnitudes of the Pc humps are indicated in table 1 by the
difference between the apparent breakdown-pressure and fractureextension-pressure columns.

These data and previous experience

3

[COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT]

Figure 1.--Time-pressure model of a hydrofracturing test.

Table l.--Drilling and pressure data for hydrofracture holes in N; E, and T tunnels
(Queried where quality of data is in doubt)

[COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT]

suggest that tight fractures exist in the isolated zone between

packers.

Apparently there is some strength to the tight fractures.

Haimson, LaComb, Jones, and Green (1974, p. 559) also noted in their
lists that no breakdown pressures were recorded in 4 out of 12 cases
at NTS.

In these four cases it was believed that breakdown pressures

were nonexistent because of preexisting fractures in the rocks.

Time dependency of apparent breakdown
and fracture-extension pressures
Duration of pumping from beginning pressure to apparent breakdown of pressure during apparent fracture extension was also analyzed.
There is no indication that either the apparent breakdown pressures
or the apparent fracture-extension pressures are time dependent.
However, if the breakdown and fracture-extension pressures are
rather low, there is a tendency for the operator to pump for a longer
period of time.
Dependency of apparent breakdown pressure on depth and
orientation of hydrofracture holes
Underground openings influence the virgin stress field only to
about two diameters of the opening.

The tunnels in which the hydro-

fracturing was done are usually less than about 10 feet in diameter.
Except possibly for the 7.2-13.8-foot interval of the Ul2t.02 HF-1
hole, there is no correlation between the depth of the hydrofracture
interval and the magnitude of the breakdown pressure.
Figure 2 shows the apparent breakdown pressures of the 29 hydrofracture intervals in 10 holes as a function of the orientation of
the holes.

There is no correlation between the orientation of the

holes and the magnitude of apparent breakdown pressure.

Geologic mapping along hydrofractured holes in G tunnel (C. H.
Miller, D. R. Townsend, and G. R. Terry, written commun., Jan. 24, 1974;
C. H. Miller, G. R. Terry, and S. S. Terry, written commun., July 11,
1974) has shown that the direction of fracture propagation is independent
of the orientation of the hole.
6

orie

10 holes showing
Figure 2.-Twenty-nine hydrofracture intervals in
breakdown
apparent
the
the orientation of the holes and
pressures in the intervals.
[COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEARCHABLE TEXT]

Comparison of stresses determined by the hydrofracture

method with those determined by the overcoring method
Because the hydrofractures apparently propagate parallel to the
maximum principal compressive stress (Smax) and, therefore, normal
to the minimum principal compressive stress (Smin), then

the

instantaneous shut-in pressure in equation (1), can be equated to

Smin.

Likewise, a1 becomes Smax and equation (1) can be rewritten:

Smax-T+3 Smin-Pc

(2)

Using an average T value of 435 psi (Haimson and others, 1974,

p. 559), Smax was computed for each hydrofracture interval shown in
table 1.

These values and Smin are compared to the equivalent pre-

liminary stresses determined by the USBM (U.S. Bureau of Mines) overcore method.

These comparisons are shown in figure 3. The overcore

method has been described by Hooker and Bickel (1974) and Hooker,
Aggson, and Bickel (1974).
in the tunnel complexes.

The comparisons are grouped by proximity

The stresses determined by hydrofracture

methods at Ul2n.09 bypass and Ul2t.03 main drift are conspicuously

high and may be in error.

There are no nearby overcoming data to

support this assumption. The hydrofracture intervals were done with

dyed water and then the intervals were overmined with an Alpine Miner.
The advancing face was mapped in detail during the overmining,but no
dyed fractures were observed.

Perhaps the anomalously high "break-

down" pressures of the Ul2t.03 drift are related to the apparent

lack of liquid injection.

The other stresses, except possibly Smax

in Ul2e.06 drift determined by hydrofracture methods, compare well

with the equivalent overcore stresses.

[COULD NOT BE CONVERTED TO SEAR

TE

Figure 3.-Comparison of maximum and minimum stresses determined by the hydrofracture method with
those determined by the overcoring method.

The data summarized in figure 3 imply that good approximations

of maximum and minimum principal compressive stresses can be determined by the hydrofracture method by testing several intervals in
only one core hole.

The data of figure 3 and previously discussed

data indicate that the direction of hydrofracturing is parallel to

the maximum principal stress regardless of the orientation of the
hole.

If this is true,then the maximum principal compressive

stress (Smax) and minimum principal compressive stress (Smin) can

be computed.

Furthermore, if fracture orientation can be measured,

then the direction of Smin can be determined and the orientation

of the plane of the maximum and intermediate principal compressive
stress axes can also be determined.

REFERENCES CITED
Haimson, B. C., 1974, A simple method for estimating in situ stresses
at great depths, in Field testing and instrumentation of rock:
Am. Soc. Testing and Materials Spec. Tech. Pub. 554, p. 156-182.
Haimson, B. C., LaComb, J. W., Jones, A. H., and Green, S. J., 1974,
Deep stress measurements in tuff at the Nevada Test Site, in
Reports of current research, v. 2, pt. A of Advances in rock
mechanics:

Third Cong. Internat. Soc. Rock Mechanics, Proc.,

Denver, Colo., Sept. 1-7, 1974, Themes 1-2, p. 557-562.

Hooker,

V. E.,

Aggson,

J.

R.,

and Bickel, D.

L.,

1974,

Improvements

in the three-component borehole deformation gage and overcoring.

techniques, with an appendix on Stress relief by center hole,
by W. I. Duvall:

U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 7894, 29 p.

Hooker, V. E., and Bickel, D. L., 1974, Overcoring equipment and

techniques used in rock stress determination:

U.S. Bur. Mines

Inf. Circ. 8618, 32 p.

Obert, Leonard, and Duvall, W. I., 1967, Rock mechanics and the
design of structures in rock:
Inc., 650 p.
10

New York

John Wiley and Sons,

USGS-474-222
Area 12-43
Distribution
Defense Nuclear Agency:
Test Construction Division, FCTD-N (Attn: J. W. LaComb,
Clifford Snow), Mercury, NV
Director (Attn: SPSS, David Oakley, Eugene Sevin,
Clifton MacFarland), Washington, DC
Field Command, FCTD-T2 (Attn: Benton L. Tibbetts),
Kirtland AFB, NM
Las Vegas Liaison Office, Las Vegas, NV
U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, Nevada
Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV:
Elaine Bickerstaff, NV Technical Library (3)
E. M. Douthett (3)
M. E. Gates
D. G. Jackson (3)
R. R. Loux (3)
Roger Ray
A. J. Whitman
U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, Nevada Test
Site Support Office, Mercury, NV:
J. O. Cummings
U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, Technical
Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN: (27)

Brownlee
Bryant
Campbell
House
Olsen
Sharp
Sowder

11

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore,

CA:

J. E. Carothers
L. S. Germain
R. S. Guido
N. W. Howard
Roger Ide
A. E. Lewis
L. D. Ramspott
D. L. Springer
Technical Information Division
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Mercury, NV:
W. B. McKinnis
Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM:
J.
C.
M.
L.
W.
W.

R.
D.
L.
D.
C.
D.

Banister
Broyles
Merritt
Tyler
Vollendorf
Weart

Sandia Laboratories, Mercury, NV:

B. G. Edwards
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA:
G. H. Heilmeier
Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research
Center,

Las Vegas,

NV:

D. S. Barth (3)
Fenix & Scisson, Inc.:
Grant Bruesch, Mercury, NV
M. H. May, Las Vegas, NV
F. D. Waltman, Mercury, NV (2)
Holmes & Narver, Inc.:
R. P. Kennedy, Anaheim, CA
Library, Las Vegas, NV (2)
Resident Engineer, Mercury, NV

12

Pacifica Technology, Del Mar, CA:

Robert Bjork
G. I. Kent
R & D Associates, Santa Monica, CA:
John Lewis
Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA:
Olen Nance
Systems, Science & Software, Inc., San Diego, CA:
Charles Dismukes
Russell Duff
Terra Tek, Inc.,

Salt Lake City, UT:

Scott Butters
S. J. Green
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS:
Library
J. H. Scanlon, Jr.
William Steinriede, Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey:
Geologic Data Center, Mercury, NV (15)
Library, Denver, CO
Library, Menlo Park, CA
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA:
Chief Hydrologist, WRD (Attn:
Library
Military Geology Unit
J. C. Reed, Jr.

13

Radiohydrology Section)