(L
fm
) if Lf<L
fm
Pfp = ............ (15)
fp (L
f
) if
In the absence of a more fundamental un-
derstanding of the process, Eq. 15 provides a smooth
transition between reopening and further
propagation. However, if complete healing takes
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
INJECTION
WELL
6
5
4
3
2
I
I 2
I 2
RESERVOIR GRID
T
3 4 5 6
FRACTURE GRID
4
-i
Fig. 2 - Computational grid.
7
NX' 6
NY' 5
--
place (such as in oil sands) or if the fracture surface
energy mostly represents the incomplete penetration
with high-viscosity fluids, it is more appropriate to
calculate the reopening in the same manner as the
initial fracture.
According to this model, L
j
and Pja are mutually
exclusive variables in a fashion similar to saturation
pressure and gas saturation in variable bubble-point
problems or temperature and steam saturation in
thermal problems.
The second strong coupling exists between the heat
transfer equations (Eqs. 8 and 9), which is due to the
surface heat transfer. As shown previously for a
simpler formulation,
3
the heat transfer equations
become essentially uncoupled if hh =0.
Numerical Model
Numerical solution of the equations formulated
earlier is a difficult problem. First, the large contrast
between the volume of the fracture and the res,ervoir
requires very stable techniques even for stationary
fractures.
37
Here the problem is compounded by
changes in fracture volume (e.g., Vj-O during
fracture closure). Second, one must be able to resolve
the fracture propagation between grid points (i.e., on
a subgrid scale) to be able to simulate practical
problems with a reasonable grid. The following
discussion addresses these questions.
General Description
Eqs. 5, 6, 8, and 9 are solved by the finite difference
technique on the grid shown schematically in Fig. 2.
The fracture equations are discretized using a spatial
grid in the x direction that is identical to the reservoir
grid. The numerical technique that allows use of such
a grid is discussed in more detail later .
The reservoir equations are discretized using the
standard technique
38
(five-point finite difference
formula in space and backward time approximation).
Because the various phases of the simulated process
take place on very different time scales, the model
has the capability of varying the implicitness of the
DECEMBER 1980
......
/'
/'
......
,/
"-
,/
....... ,/
"-
.;-
/' .....
,/
"-
/'
"
/'
"
/' "-
PI:
/'
"
/'
" "-
PHI X /'
CJ
XI+ I/2 XItl
Fig. 3 - Weighting of leakoff at the fracture tip.
flow equations from IMPES to simultaneous
solution with linearized implicit transmissibilities
38
during the run time.
The flow equations for the fracture always are
solved simultaneously, and because of the form (Eq.
7), fully implicit treatment with respect to Sfj does
not require iteration.
The handling ofthe boundary condition (Eq. 10) is
a direct extension of the treatment described pre-
viously2 for single-phase flow, with details given in
Appendix A. However, the fluid-loss terms, Q"
now depend on the saturation either in the
in the formation, depending on the direction of flow.
It has been found that this dependence can be treated
explicitly with respect to Sf' but not to Sfl' Ac-
cordingly, the model solves the equations in the
following sequence.
1. Iterate between the reservoir pressure equation
and the fracture flow equations until the propagation
conditions and Eqs. 13 and 14 are satisfied. The
iterative scheme used is a direct extension of the
method described previously.
2
2. Solve for the saturations Sf. (This step is not
required if the simultaneous solution method is
used.)
3. Solve the energy equations by iterating between
Eqs. 8 and 9, as described in Appendix A.
The resulting model has been found to be stable
for all problems tried so far, including high leakoff
(water flood) and heat-trans fer-dominated (steam-
fracture) problems. The solution of the flow
equations converges in two or three interations for
low-leakoff problems typical of stimulation treat-
ments and in five to eight iterations for difficult
applications. The heat transfer equations require two
or three iterations for most problems. The overall
efficiency of the model, thus, is comparable with
conventional reservoir simulators.
Resolntion of Fracture Tip Between Grid Points
The ability to obtain smooth solutions for leakoff
and propagation rate with reasonably coarse spacing
491
TABLE 1 - DATA FOR SINGLEPHASE
TEST PROBLEM
P, = 2,500 psia
Pi = 2,000 psia
w = 0.01 ft
h=100ft
<p = 0.1
Qi/2= 50 STBID(% well)
p. = 1 cp
kx=k
y
= 2md
CR+C,= 10-
5
1/psia
fly = 50ft
fly = 25ft
fly = 10 ft
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
t(doys)
Fig. 4 - Propagation rate for finite difference weights with
= 100 ft and variable
500
400
0
//
tl ,,/
-:-:::::- . -
///
$.
/.
;}
;'1 -- fly = 50ft
/
-- fly = 25 ft
,
_.-
fly = 10 ft
fJ.
r
/
300
200
100
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
t(days)
Fig. 5 - Propagation rate for Chapeau weights with
= 100 ft and variable
492
of grid points is the key to the development of an
efficient simulator. This aspect can be studied most
conveniently in a single-phase situation. For a
fracture tip beween I and 1+ 1 (Fig. 3), the three
formulas for distributing the leakoff between I and
1+ 1 are derived in Appendix B. These formulas have
been tested on a simplified single-phase version of the
model with a fracture of constant width and constant
pressure P f' The data, characteristic of a high leakoff
problem, are in Table 1. Fig. 4 shows the fracture
length as a function of time for the finite difference
weighting (Eq. B-1). The grid size in the direction of
fracture was fixed to ax= 100 ft and the y-direction
grid size next to the fracture LlY was varied. The
uneven fracture propagation rate seen in Fig. 4 is
intensified with decreasing LlY; this procedure is
clearly unacceptable even for an almost square grid.
Fig. 5 presents the same result for the "Chapeau"
weighting (Eq. B-3), which gives some improvement.
In testing the procedure (Eq. B-4), it has been found
that slightly better results are obtained if the
correcting term is applied only to b (Le., in Eq. B-
4b). The results using this formula are shown in Fig.
6. The solution with the grid ratio of 1: 10 is fairly
smooth. The method is stable even for a grid ratio of
1: 100, although the fluctuations as well as truncation
errors are large. This is expected since we have fixed
the grid in the direction of the moving boundary.
Truncation Errors
The results shown in Figs. 4 through 6 indicate the
sensitivity of results to the LlY/ ax ratio. Figs. 7
through 9 shows the space truncation errors ex-
pressed in dimensionless coordinates and L fD
(defined in the next section). The data are as in Table
1 except for the injection rate, which corresponds to
dimensionless rate QD = 10
4
. Fig. 7 shows that
decreasing LlY with fixed ax decreases the
500
/' /
)
/.
",' /
_/
V ///
/
. ,.,-
///
-- fly = 50ft
J
-- fly = 10 ft
fl{-
-.- fly = 1ft
il;
//
400
300
200
100
/
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
t(days)
Fig. 6 - Propagation rate with the final weighting with
= 100 ft and variable
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
propagation rate and eventually leads to breakdown.
The errors are approximately O(.ly) until a grid ratio
of about 1: 10. Fig. 8 shows that with fixed .ly, the
answers change little with decreasing .ix; therefore,
refining the grid so that .ly / .ix > 1 is not necessary.
These two results indicate that grid ratios close to one
are optimal. Fig. 9 gives the results for a fixed ratio
.ly/.ix=O.5 and .ix ranging from 25 to 200 ft,
showing very small sensitivity even for a very coarse
grid. Although the results to date are limited, they
indicate that the space truncation errors depend
mainly on the grid ratio and remain small as long as
the grid next to the fracture is approximately square.
This testing was done with k x = kyo When k x -;e. k ,
our experience indicates that the grid should be
smaller in the direction of smaller permeability, but
this has not yet been quantified.
It also should be noted that the results presented
here are for conditions dominated by leakoff (fluid
efficiency3! less than 1070). In situations where leak-
off is less important, truncation errors decrease
correspondingly and the preceding rule does not
apply. For low-Ieakoff applications, our tests indi-
cate that .ly should be smaller for accurate simula-
tion of heat transfer and cleanup (.ly = 1 to 5 ft).
Time truncation errors can be controlled ef-
fectively by limiting the change in the fracture length
over a time step .ltL j. It has been found that to
obtain smooth solutions, .ltL j must be limited to a
fraction of a block size:
.ltLj:5(O.l +O.25).ix.
This constraint on time-step size has been found
sufficient for controlling the time truncation errors.
Generalized Carter's Propagation Model
The analytical solution of fracture propagation
widely used for fracture design is that of Carter. 39
This solution is based on the assumption of one-
dimensional fluid flow perpendicular to the fracture
face. While this is a good assumption for low-leak off
situations (for which the formula originally was
developed), it has been shown
2
that very large errors
may result when applying this formula to leakoff-
dominated problems. Here, we quantify this
statement and present a generalized formula derived
from simulation results, which will apply over the
full range of conditions.
Consider a fracture of constant width w
propagating at a constant fracture pressure P j in an
infinite reservoir with uniform initial pressure Pi. If
the injection rate for half fracture is Qi' the asymp-
totic form of Carter's solution is
1
LjD = ........................ (16)
where
2C
w
DECEMBER !980
LID
o
o
I
o
o
Fig. 7 - Truncation error for fixed .:lx and /.:lx 1.
/"
00: 10
4
V
k)( "ky
tJ.y "50ft
lUi: =25
..... .,;:-:
V
/'
10 20 30 40 .0 60 70 80
Fig. 8 - Truncation error for fixed and variable .:lx.
.--J
0
0
.10
4
r:s:: 25ft
kx =ky
t:.yltJ.'1.. ".5
"."-<'0 ....
o tu."50ft
6 in: =100ft
+ l!.x=200f
.....+...-0
10 20
'0
40 '0 60 70 80
Fig. 9 - Truncation errors with fixed grid ratios.
493
5
2
5
60 10
Fig. 10 - Comparison of calculated fracture propagation
with Carter's model.
.75
.5
70
Fig. 11 - Fracture propagation in an isotropic reservoir.
0
V
----
----
---
1/
krs'TT
8 DYSART
6
tV
4
//
2
1/
0
V
10
Fig. 12 - Comparison of calculated heat transfer with
analytical models.
494
and C is the leakoff coefficient. In the case when
leakoff is controlled by formation permeability, Cis
given by!
[
(c +C )k]V,
C= (Pj-Pi) R 7riJ, j .......... (17)
In dimensionless form, leakoff can be characterized
by dimensionless injection rate QD = Q il (hC
2
) or
equivalent dimensionless leakoff coefficient CD =
C.../Qilh = lI.../QD . At fixed QD' the numerical
solutions of fracture propagation approach Carter's
solution (Eq. 16) when kxlk)'-O, as shown by
Hagoort et al.
2
for QD = 10
4
. Fig. 10 show similar
results for QD = 2 X 10
4
. In these results, QD was
computed using k in Eq. 17 and kx was varied. The
deviation from Carter's solution decreases as QD
increases. This effect is quantified in Fig. 11, which
shows the convergence of calculated fracture
propagation to Carter's model for fixed kxlky = 1 as
QD is increased. Inspection of Figs. 10 and 11 reveals
that all computed fracture lengths grow as
for sufficiently large but the dimensiOnless
fracture growth rate R depends on QD and kxlk ,as
opposed to the constant value in Eq. 15. Therefore,
the following general formula was developed from
the simulated results.
LjD =R( QD,kxlk
y
) ................. (18)
where
1
R = 2-ni7r exp[ -a( QD) (kxlky) n(QD)], .... (19)
a(QD) =42,400QD -1.177
and
n (QD) = 1.949-0.137 In QD' ........... (20)
Note that R - 1I(2-ni7r) for QD - 00 and/or kxlky
- .0, as required. Eq. 19 was developed by curve-
fitting data in the range shown in Figs. 10 and 11 and
can be considered valid for QD > 5 X 10
3
and kxlky
< 5.
Eq. 18 can be used for fracture design calculations
for high leak off in the same way as the original
method, and it will have the same limitations given
by the assumptions on fracture shape and fracturing
pressures. It also can be used to estimate errors in-
volved in the use of Carter's formula (Eq. 15). The
case when the fluid loss is controlled by filter cake
rather than by formation permeability could be
analyzed in the same fashion, but these are usually
applications with low leakoff, where the correction
will be small and the simple leakoff law does not
apply.20
Example Applications
Heat Transfer From Fractures
Sinclair
3
! compared the existing methods for calcula-
tion of heat transfer from a fracture. He charac-
terizes leakoff in terms of fluid efficiency (defined as
the volume of fracture divided by the total injected
volume at the end of injection). At low fluid ef-
ficiency, the temperature in the fracture remains
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
I.O,----,------y---,--:""::::----::::::F=::::::==-J
II ..
5.55
1.0
Fig. 13 - Sensitivity of heat transfer to coefficient hh'
close to injection temperature T
j
and, with increasing
efficiency temperature along the fracture, tends
exponentially to the reservoir temperature T,. The
numerical results obtained with this model are
compared with the methods of Whitsitt and Dysart
29
and Wheeler
30
in Fig. 12. The data shown in Table 2
were chosen to give approximately 10070 fluid ef-
ficiency at 30 minutes of injection at 10 bbllmin to
compare with data for Fig. 2 of Sinclair. 31 The
results are shown in terms of dimensionless tem-
perature T D = (T - T,) I ( T
j
- T,) vs. dimensionless
distance xl L j. The numerical solution gives faster
heat-up at the entrance than both analytical models
and falls between the two toward the fracture tip.
These differences are mainly due to coupled leakoff
calculation as opposed to assumed leakoff
distribution (constant for Wheeler and linearly in-
creasing for Whitsitt and Dysart). The second aspect
not included in the analytical models is the influence
of the heat transfer coefficient on the fracture face.
While the results in Fig. 12 correspond to hh = 00 to
be consistent with the methods compared, filter-cake
additives and foams may cause additional heat
resistance. Fig. 13 shows that the variation of
temperature profiles with decreasing hh may be an
important design consideration. Note that the model
predicts no heat-up for hh - 0, in agreement with
theory.
3
MHF Treatment
As an example of a low leakoff application, the data
of Holditch et al.
40
have been used in the simulator
to predict MHF treatment performance. Since these
authors used the design method of Geertsma and de
Klerk,
8
which does not require information on in-
situ stresses, we have investigated the influence of the
effective stress ratio Ra on fracture propagation. We
define this ratio by
Ra= (aH-Olp)/(av-Olp).
Therefore, R a is a measure of horizontal stress that
may not be known prior to treatment. The data for
the runs are summarized in Table 3. The model has
been enhanced to handle fracture height h j different
from formation thickness h. The results dIsplayed in
DECEMBER 1980
TABLE 2 - DATA FOR HEAT TRANSFER PROBLEM
Rock Data
aV = 1,600 psia
Ru = 0.4
ex = 0.9
v = 0.25
at = 100 psia
"y = 5.4 Ibm/5
2
Fluid Data
Po = 62.4 Ibm/cu ft
Pw = 63.0 Ibm/cu ft
/lo =/lw = 1 cp
co=c
w
= 3x10-
6
1/psia
k,w = Sw
k,o = 1- Sw
Heat Transfer Oat a
(pCp) R =43 Btu/cu ftoF Tj=100F
T,=200F Ax =A
y
=36 Btu/cu ftoFD
C
vo
=C
pw
=1 BtullbmoF
Miscellaneous
h=100ft
cp = 0.2
kx =ky =17 md
i=3,600 STB (% well)
Depth = 2,000 ft
TABLE 3 - DATA FOR MHF TREATMENT
Rock Data
a
v
=11,200psia
ex=0.9
v=0.25
at =400 psi a
E=2.5 x 10
6
psia
"y = 60 Ibm/5
2
Fluid Data
PWSTC = 62.4 Ibm/cu ft
Pg
STC
= 0.048 Ibm/cu ft
/lw=187.cp
/lg =0.024 cp
Reservoir Data
cp=0.08
kx =ky =0.02 md
n=100ft
h,=300ft
pj = 7,500 psi a
Reservoir depth = 14,000 ft
Lx = Ly = 2,640 ft
Heat Transfer Data
Ax = Ay = 25 Btu/ft FD h h = 10 Btu/o Fsq ftD
(PCp)R =35 Btu/cu ftoF Tj=120F
C
Vg
= 1 BtullbmoF T, =300F
C
vw
=0.5 BtullbmoF Aob =20 Btu/ftoFD
C
rg
=10-
4
11"F (pCp)Ob =38 Btu/cu ftoF
C
rw
=5x10-
4
1/oF
Injection/Production Data
i=9,000STB/D(% well) L,pIL,=0.825
V,p I V, = 0.1 Pw' = 2,500 psia
k, =50,000 md
Rate during fracture closure Ow = 10,000 STB/D
P
(psia)
415
415
1,215
2,015
3,015
5,000
7,000
9,000
11,000
~
0.9985
0.9985
0.9955
0.9925
0.9890
0.9815
0.9740
0.9665
0.9580
~
0.0510
0.0510
0.0169
0.0100
0.00677
0.00447
0.00356
0.00312
0.00273
495
TABLE 4 - MHF TREATMENT PREDICTIONS
Holditch et al.
4o This Work
Treatment
Volume w Lf
Ru =0.25 Ru =0.35 Ru =0.45 Ru =0.55
.k
I
(gal)
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
(in.)
0.207
0.221
0.236
0.249
0.263
0.275
1(40),')
~ ~
513 0.226
564 0.239
620 0.248
673 0.258
725 0.268
774 0.278
Fig. 14 - Production performance after MHF treatment.
Table 4 were obtained with a relatively coarse grid
(.::lx= 100 ft, Lly=20 ft at the fracture face);
nevertheless, they show great sensitivity of the results
to the magnitude of horizontal stress. This effect is
due to the variation of fracture pressure, which
affects leakoff. Although the present treatment of
leakoff is biased toward resident fluid viscosity when
Lly is large, the run with R a = 0.25 actually gave a
longer fracture than the compared work (this may be
due to the high leakoff coefficient used by these
authors). More accurate treatment of leak off, where
it is controlled by filter cake or fracture-fluid
viscosity, requires different treatment of trans-
missibilitiies "j\ in leakoff formulas (Eq. A-6). This
problem, as well as proppant transport, is being
addressed in current research.
20
It is worth noting
that the effect of confining stress on fracture length
shown here is hidden in the conventional fracture
design in the calculation of the leakoff coefficient.
To see the cleanup behavior of the well, a second
series of simulation runs was performed with a
refined grid (.::lx= 50 ft and Lly = 2 ft). The predic-
tions of production performance after a 50,OOO-gal
job for stress conditions Ra =0.35 is shown in Fig.
14. At the end of the fracture job, the well im-
mediately is turned on production against a fixed
bottomhole pressure of 2,500 psia. Propping was
simulated by assigning k{ and propped fracture
volume Vfp as a fraction 0 the original volume. Fig.
14 shows th gas and water production rates (scaled
to the injection rate during fracture job) when the
well is flowed back. In Simulation A, it was assumed
that the viscosity of the fracture fluid does not
change. In Simulation B it was assumed that the
496
~
573
635
700
759
810
856
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0.204 465 0.187 383 0.170 328
0.213 511 0.196 415 0.176 354
0.221 554 0.199 453 0.183 378
0.229 594 0.205 424 0.191 401
0.236 632 0.211 513 0.196 424
0.242 669 0.218 539 0.200 446
TABLE 5 - FRACTURING FLUID VISCOSITY
T
(OF)
96
132
168
205
241
277
313
/J-w
(cp)
187
137.8
25.6
9.08
2.57
1.00
1.00
viscosity of the fluid will be degraded with time; this
was simulated by temperature-dependent /J-w, as
shown in Table 5. According to Fig. 14, practically
no fluid is recovered in Case A, while there is con-
siderable cleanup and a slightly better gas rate in
Case B. The total fluid recovered in Case B after 1
year of production is 42070 of volume injected. In
general, the post facture performance is also sensitive
to relative permeabilities and capillary pressure.
These effects are particularly strong for a fracture
occuring in thermal recovery processes. However,
because of the different nature of these applications,
the results are not reported here.
Summary
A numerical model of the fracturing process has been
developed that takes into account fracture
mechanics, flow, and heat transfer in the fracture
and in the reservoir. The following are the main
results of the work to date.
1. The numerical technique developed results in an
efficient simulator that is applicable to a wide range
of problems. Smooth solutions for fracture
propagation can be obtained with a relatively coarse
grid.
2. The truncation errors for high-Ieakoff ap-
plications are minimized for Lly/.::lx::::: 1 even with a
coarse grid. A finer grid next to the fracture may be
required in applications involving high saturation
gradients and heat transfer (usually stimulation
treatments).
3. A generalization of Carter's propagation
formula for large leakoff has been developed. This
formula reduces to Carter's model for low leakoff
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
and can be used for fracture design for a wide range
of leakoff and in anisotropic reservoirs.
4. The examples demonstrate the utility of the
model for optimization and "investigation of sen-
sitivity to various parameters in the design of
fracturing treatments.
The model presented here currently is being im-
proved in several aspects with the aim of developing a
comprehensive tool for stimulation treatments.
20
In
particular, it is felt that future effort should be
directed at a more rigorous treatment of fracture
mechanics.
Nomenclature
Af =
Ape
Be = Ub
e
CF
C
m
CR
eve
f=
E=
h
h
f
hh
He
Hfi
H
40ss
HlosSob
i, ie
k
f
kX,k
y
fracture cross-sectional area
poroelastic constant
fluid formation volume factors
fluid compressibility
rock matrix compressibility
rock bulk compressibility
specific heat at constant volume
fraction of grid interval
penetrated by fracture tip
Young's modulus
formation thickness
fracture height
heat transfer coefficient
fluid specific enthalpies
enthalpy of source
enthalpy of loss fluid
heat loss to overburden/base rock
injection rates
fracture permeability
permeabilities in x and y direc-
tions
L f = fracture half-length
Mf = mass of fluid in the fracture
P = reservoir pressure
P f = pressure in the fracture
P fi initiation pressure
P fo pressure in the fracture at the
Pfoc
Pfp
qe
DECEMBER 1980
well bore
opening/ closure pressure
propagation pressure
source/sink term accounting for
injection/production wells and
leakoff
fluid loss to the formation at the
fracture face per unit area
injection rate for half fracture
(Carter's model)
total loss for half fracture
generalized propagation rate In
Carter's model
effective stress ratio
saturation
temperature
temperature in the fracture
fracture surface temperature
w
superficial (Darcy) flow velocity
of phase fin the fracture
Darcy velocities in the reservoir
internal energies
specific volume
fracture volume
propped fracture volume
fracture width
work
Chapeau basis function at Node I
Biot's constant
thermal conductivities of
saturated sand (formation)
effective (mean) viscosity of fluid
mixture
P-e = fluid viscosities
p = Poisson's ratio
Pe fluid densities
fluid densities at standard
conditions
heat capacity of the rock
horizontal stress
initial horizontal stress (in the
absence of overburden and
pore pressure)
overburden (vertical) stress
tensile strength
porosity
Acknowledgment
I acknowledge Intercomp Resource Development
and Engineering Ltd. for supporting this work and
for permission to publish this paper.
References
I. Howard, G.c. and Fast, C.R.: "Hydraulic Fracturing,"
Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas
(1970) 2.
2. Hagoort, J., Weatherhill, B.D., and Settari, A.: "Modeling
the Propagation of Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic Frac-
tures," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1980) 293-303.
3. Settari, A. and Raisbeck, J .M.: "Fracture Mechanics Analysis
in In-Situ Oil Sands Recovery," J. Cdn. Pet Tech. (April-June
1979) 85-94.
4. Abou-Sayed, A.S., Brechtel, C.E., and Clifton, R.J.: "In-
Situ Stress Determination by Hydrofracturing: A Fracture
Mechanics Approach," J. Geophys. Research (June 1978)
2851-2862.
5. Brown, D.W., Smith, M.C., and Potter, R.M.: "A New
Method for Extracting Energy from 'Dry' Geothermal
Reservoirs," Report LA-DC-72-1157, Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (July 1973).
6. Ernst, P.L.: "A Hydraulic Fracturing Technique for Dry, Hot
Rock Experiments in a Single Borehole," paper SPE 6897
presented at the SPE 52nd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12,1977.
7. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: "Widths of Hydraulic Frac-
tures," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1961) 937-949; Trans., AIME,
222.
8. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F.: "A Rapid Method of
Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced
Fractures," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1969) 1571-1581; Trans.,
AIME,255.
9. Daneshy, A.A.: "On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic
Fractures," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1973) 83-97; Trans., AIME,
255.
497
10. Geertsma, J. and Haafkens, R.: "A Comparison of the
Theories to Predict Width and Extent of Vertical,
Hydraulically Induced Fractures," J. Energy Resources Tech.
(March 1979) 8-19.
I!. Nordgren, R.P.: "Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1972) 306-314; Trans.,
AIME,253.
12. Gringarten, A.L., Ramey, H.J., and Raghavan, R.: "Un-
steady-State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a
Single Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture," (Aug. 1974)
347-360; Trans., AIME, 257.
13. Uraiet, A., Raghavan, R., and Thomas, G.W.: "Deter-
mination of the Orientation of a Vertical Fracture by In-
terference Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1977) 73-80; Trans.,
AIME,263.
14. Cinco-L., Heber, Samaniego-F., V., and Dominguez, A.:
"Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug.
1978) 253-264.
15. Dowdle, W.P. and Hyde, P.V.: "Well Test Analysis of
Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells," paper SPE 6437
presented at the SPE 52nd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
16. Holditch, S.A.: "Factors Affecting Water Blocking and Gas
Flow From Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells," J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1979) 1515-1524.
17. Gidley, J.L., Mutti, D.M., Nierode, D.E., and Kehn, D.M.:
"Stimulation of Low-Permeability Gas Formations by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing - A Study of Well Per-
formance," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1979) 525-531.
18. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.:
"Evaluation and Performance Prediction of Low-
Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic
Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1979) 362-372; Trans.,
AIME,267.
19. Jennings, A. Jr., Darden, W., Wenzel, R., Shrut, R., and
Foster, J.: "Massive Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eastern
United States," paper SPE 6866 presented at the SPE 52nd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-
12,1977.
20. Settari, A. and Price, H.S.: "Simulation of Hydraulic
Fracturing in Low-Permeability Reservoirs," paper
SPE/DOE 8939 presented at the Joint SPE/DOE Symposium
on Low-Permeability Reservoirs, Pittsburgh, May 18-21,
1980.
21. Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: Fundamentals oj Rock
Mechanics, second edition, Chapman and Hall, London
(1976).
22. Van Der Knaap, W.: "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Porous
Media," Trans., AIME (1959) 216179-187.
23. Haimson, B.c. and Tharp, T.M.: "Stresses Around
Boreholes in Bilinear Elastic Rock," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April
1974) 145-151.
24. Barenblatt, GJ.: "The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium
Cracks in Brittle Fracture," Advances in Applied Mechanics
(1962) 7,55-129.
25. England, A.H. and Green, A.E.: "Some Two-Dimensional
Punch and Crack Problems in Classical Elasticity," Proc.,
Cambridge Phil. Soc., England (1963) 59, 489-500.
26. Simonson, E.R., Abou-Sayed, A.S., and Clifton, R.J.:
"Containment of Massive Hydraulic Fractures," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. (Feb. 1978) 27-32.
27. Daneshy, A.A.: "Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Layered
Formations," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1978) 33-41.
28. Hanson, M.E., Anderson, G.D., Shaffer, R.J., Emerson,
D.O., Heard, H.C., and Haimson, B.D.: "Theoretical and
Experimental Research on Hydraulic Fracturing," Preprint
UCRL-80969, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore,
CA(l978).
29. Whitsitt, N.F. and Dysart, G.R.: "The Effect of Temperature
on Stimulation Design," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1970) 493-502;
Trans., AI ME, 249.
30. Wheeler, J.A.: "Analytical Calculations of Heat Transfer
From Fractures," paper SPE 2494 presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 13-15, 1969.
31. Sinclair, A.R.: "Heat Transfer Effects in Deep Well Frac-
turing," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1484-1492; Trans., AIME,
251.
498
32. Harrington, L.J., Hannah, R.R., and Beirute, R.: "Post
Fracturing Temperature Recovery and Its Implication for
Stimulation Design," paper SPE 7560 presented at the SPE
53rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 1-4,1978.
33. Closmann, P.J. and Phocas, D.M.: "Thermal Stresses Near a
Heated Fracture in Transversely Isotropic Oil Shale," Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1978) 59-74; Trans., AIME, 265.
34. Hagoort, J.: "Hydraulic Fracturing Pressures in Permeable
Layers," paper SPE 7110, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas (1978).
35. Haimson, B. and Fairhurst, C.: "Hydraulic Fracturing in
Porous-Permeable Materials," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1969) 811-
817. .
36. Geertsma, J.: "The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on
Volumetric Changes of Porous Rocks," Trans., AIME (1957)
210,331-340.
37. Coats, K.H.: "Geothermal Reservoir Modeling," paper SPE
6892 presented at the SPE 52nd Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12,1977.
38. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation,
Applied Science Publishers, London (1979).
39. Carter, R.D.: "Derivation of the General Equation for
Estimating the Extent of the Fractured Area," Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1957) 261-268.
40. Holditch, S.A., Jennings, J.W., Neuse, S.H., and Wyman,
R.E.: "The Optimization of Well Spacing and Fracture
Length in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs," paper SPE
7496 presented at the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4, 1978.
APPENDIX A
Description of the Numerical Model
The reservoir flow equations can be written as 38
.:1
x
I +.:1
y
TY
I
.:1
y
<l>Z/ I
V
= ij-.:1t (<i>b
e
S
e
) +Qeij' ... ........ (A-I)
where
.:1
x
TXe.:1x<l>e == TXei+ Yz .:1
x
<l>ei+ Yz
- TX
fi
_ Yz .:1
x
<l>ei- Yz ,
and
.:1x <l>ei+Yz ==Pei+l -Pfi-)'ei+Yz(Zi+l -Zi)'
If the fracture tip is between i = 1 and i = 1 + 1, the
flow in the fracture is discretized as
1
(.:1x TFe.:1x<l>if) i - QGoss, i = M.:1 t (VjbifSif) i'
i= 1, ... ,1, ......................... (A-2)
and the right side is expanded as
.:1
t
(VjbifSif) i == [Sifbif.:1
t
V
j
+ Sif VJ + l.:1
t
bif
+ (V
j
b
if
)n+l.:1
t
Sif]i' ............ (A-3)
where
I
E
i=1
is determined from the fracture geometry (Eq. 4) for
any L j and P j. The term .:1
t
V
ji
is usually dominant in
Eq. A-3.
The treatment of the fluid loss Qe, is analogous
. 2 loss
to the smgle-phase case.
Qe,=WF
ei
(Pft,-pzt
1
) i=I, ... ,1+1, .. (A-4)
loss, I ,
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
where WF
fi
is a coefficient that includes transmissi-
bility and weighting factors. If we define transmissi-
bilityas
.::lx"i+ Yz
TLi+ V2 =4 hk
yi
+ V2,1' ......... (A-5)
.t1YI+Yz
where
.::lx"i+ V2 =xi+ I -Xi' .t1YI + V2 = Y2 - YI'
then
WFfl Y2;\fl TLI + V2'
and
WFfI +
1
;\fIbTL 1+ Yz. . ............ (A-6)
The weighting factors a and b are functions of as
elaborated in Appendix B. The mobilities Af are
dependent on the direction of flow. If the flow is
from the reservoir to the fracture, then
- (krf)
Ac= --
I p-pB
f
i I'
If the flow is from the fracture to the reservoir,
;\Pi = (Sfjbpr Am) i'
where Am = (krolP-o + krwlP-w) i,l is the total
mobility in the reservoir point adjacent to the
fracture.
The iterative procedure to satisfy Eqs. A-I and A-2
is a direct extension of the method described for
single-phase flow.
2
If we now define
1+1
Qloss = E QOIOSS,i + Q Wloss,i = QOloss + Q Wloss'
i=1
and
I
M
j
= E (SojbojVj ) i + (SwjbwjVj) i
i=1
E M oji + E Mwji=Moj+Mwj'
i i
then solution of Eq. A-2 will satisfy
M(ip-Q&os)=.t1t(Mfj), f=o,w,
and
M(i - QlosS> =.t1
t
(M
j
). . .............. (A-7)
Then the iterative procedure described earlier
2
can be
used to satisfy simultaneously Eqs. A-I and A-7 and
the constraining equations on L
j
and p/. During
iteration, TFn and Qn are treated impiIcitly with
(: (loss
respect to Sf! in the usual linearized fashion. 36
Eq. 8 is dlscretized in a conventional manner36:
DECEMBER 1980
= [.t1t ( bePfsTcSfUe)
+(l-) (PC
p
)R.t1
t
TJ
+ QoijHoi + QwijHwi' ............ (A-8)
where
Qex . = i+ Yo2 J .
1+ Y2.J '
are the interblock flows obtained from solution of
Eq. A-I. Similarly, if we define
Qfjj+Y2 =
the heat transfer in the fracture is
1
-hhhWFH.(Tji.-T
I
)= -
1 1 I, .t1t
. ( E H?pfsTC.t1tMifi+PfsTCM'fll.t1tUf)'
f
i= 1, ... , I, ....................... (A-9)
where WFH
i
is a weighting factor analogous to WF
i
,
such that WFH
i
=.::lx"i for the interior points and
WRF
I
=a.::lx"/+V2 and WFH
I
+
I
=b.::lx"/+V2'
APPENDIXB
Derivation of Weighting Formula
at Fracture Tip
Consider a fracture tip between I and 1+ 1 according
to Fig. 3. If we denote leakoff distribution q (x),
then the total leakoff between I and 1+ 1 may be
assigned to both points:
rLI rLI - ap
Q=jq(x)=-j Aay
Xl Xl
=QI+QI+I'
In a finite difference treatment, QI and QI + 1 will be
assigned in proportion to penetrated distance - i.e.,
rXl+ y,
QI= j q(x),
If we use this in Eq. A-6, assuming that q(x) is
constant, the following weighting coefficients result:
a=j, b=O forf$, Yz,
and
a= Yz, b=f- Y2 forf?:. Y2,
wheref=:" (Lf.-xI) I (xl+ 1 - xI) is the dimensionless
penetratIOn distance.
Let us now assume that the reservoir equations are
solved using Chapeau variational approximation.
Then the source terms associated with equations for
Nodes I and 1+1 will be
499
QI = f
l
+
1W
lq(X)dX=.1.xl+ Y2 ~ { 1 - j)qdJ,
and
Xl 0
r
XI
+ I rf
Ql+l = J Wl+
1
q(x)dx=.1.xl+
Y2
J JqdJ.
~ 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
Again assuming that q is constant, this leads to the
weighting
a=J-J
2
12, b=J
2
12 .................. (B-3)
used in previous work.
2
Note that according to Eq.
'B-3, the point 1+1 will experience injection as soon
as the fracture tip extends past I, while in Eq. B-1 the
influence will not be felt until it extends past the
block boundary x 1+ Y2
Because of large pressure gradients at the fracture
tip, the assumption of constant ap / ay is a rather poor
one. Let us, therefore, assume linear variation of
reservoir pressure Pi in Eq. A-4 between grid points.
Then,
ilp(x) =Pf-P(x) =b.PI-opJ,
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Dec.
15, 1978. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 14, 1980. Revised manuscript
received Aug. 26, 1980. Paper (SPE 7693) first presented at the SPE Fifth
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, held in Denver, Feb. 1-2, 1979.
500
where b.PI=Pf-PI and oP=Pl+l -PI' Integrating
Eq. B-2 with q(x) - b.p gives
a=J- J ~ - !I ( J ~ - ~ ), .......... (B-4a)
and
b
= J2 + ~ (J
2
_ J3 ) .
2 ilpI+l 2 3
.......... (B-4b)
Eq. B-4 is the same as Eq. B-3 except for the last
term, which represents correction for pressure
gradients at the fracture tip.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI m
3
Btu x 1.055 056 E+OO kJ
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pas
cu ft x 2.831 685 E-02 m
3
of
CF - 32)/1.8 C
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
gal x 3.785 412 E+OO dm
3
in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
Ibm x 4.535 924 E-Ol kg
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
sq ft x 9.290 304* E-02 m
2
Conversion factor is exact.
JPT
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL