3D Numerical Simulation

of Hydraulic Fracture
Closure With Application
to Minifracture Analysis
Hongren Gu, * SPE, BP IntI. Ltd., and K.H. Leung, SPE,
BP Exploration, Europe

Summary. This paper describes a

3D numerical model for the closure
of a planar, nonpropped hydraulic
fracture under uniform and layering
reservoir conditions. The model simulates "double-slope" minifracture
pressure-decline curves when the
fracture height retracts from highstress zones during closure. Application of the simulation results to minifracture analysis is discussed.

Introduction
The success of a hydraulic fracture stimulation depends largely on an accurate estimate of fluid leakoff during treatment. The
average formation leakoff coefficient can be
determined by analyzing the pressuredecline data from a mini fracture treatment.
Pressure-decline-analysis methods 1-4 are
based on a number of simplifying assumptions. The key assumptions are fracture geometry and a constant fracture area during
closure. Despite the simplifying assumptions, pressure-decline behavior in many
field observations is consistent with that indicated by analysis. Pressure-decline analysis also has been extended to include
pressure-dependent leakoff 5 and leakoff at
the interface of two formations. 6
However, the pressure-decline-analysis
theory, which is based on constant area,
does not explain some of the observed phenomena when the fracture is inside a formation with stress and permeability contrasts. In such cases, the fracture may grow
into the high-stress zones during propagation
and shrink back to the lower-stress zones
during closure. Thus, the constant-fracturearea assumption would be violated.
Nolte 2,7 has discussed the effects of fracture-height growth on closure and pressuredecline analysis.
In this paper, a 3D numerical simulation
of fracture closure is used to study the effects of in-situ stress and leakoff contrasts
on fracture closure and pressure-decline behavior. The fracture-closure mechanism is
discussed first, and the assumptions and outline of a 3D fracture-closure simulator are
presented. The simulation results then are
analyzed with the minifracture analysis technique. The different pressure-decline behaviors of a constant-area fracture and a
shrinking-height fracture are demonstrated
and explained. A minifracture analysis technique for shrinking-height fractures and the
general principle of deducing stress contrast
from pressure-decline data are discussed.

FractureClosure Mechanism
After shut-in during a minifracture treatment, wellbore pressure gradually decreases
'Now at Dowell Schlumberger.
Copyright 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers

206

as the fluid inside the fracture leaks off into

the formation. The fracture is considered
closed when the wellbore pressure drops below the minimum horizontal in-situ stress.
When pumping stops, the flow rate inside
the fracture reduces quickly, and the fluid
pressure distribution becomes more uniform
because of the reduced friction loss. Ifleakoff is small, the pressure redistribution may
increase the fluid pressure near the fracture
tip, and hence increase the stress-intensity
factor. The fracture may continue to propagate. 7-9 If leakoff is high, the pressure
drops quickly and the pressure redistribution
may not increase pressure greatly near the
fracture tip. In this case, the fracture growth
after shut-in most likely will be insignificant.
Medlin and Masse's 10 laboratory results
showed no fracture growth after shut-in.
If the fracture is inside a formation with
uniform in-situ stress, fluid pressure inside
the fracture is greater than the minimum insitu stress over most of the fracture, except
for a small region near the fracture tip.
Therefore, the fracture most likely will close
with a constant area until the pressure drops
to near the in-situ stress. Pressure-decline
data from some field observations 11 and
laboratory tests 12 agree with the prediction
of the constant -area fracture-closure theory.
On the other hand, numerical simulations
with the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN)
model show decreasing fracture penetration
during closure. 7-9 In this simulation, the
fracture penetration in a uniformly stressed
pay zone is assumed to be constant during
closure; this assumption is not verified in
this work.
If in-situ stress contrasts exist in the formation (Fig. 1), the fracture may grow into
the higher-stress zones during propagation.
After shut-in, the fluid pressure drops and
becomes more uniform. The fluid pressure
may drop below the higher in-situ stress, and
the part of the fracture in the high-stress
zone most likely will close earlier than the
part in the lower-stress zone. Also, high insitu stress often is related to shale layers,
which have a much lower permeability than
the pay-zone rock. Therefore, the fluid in
this part of the fracture flows back to the
more-permeable pay zone to leak off. This
also causes the fracture to shrink back from
March 1993 JPT

In-situ stress
distribution

Well bore
High stress zone

-Fracture front

II
II
I I

Pay zone

II
II
II

"The success of a
hydraulic fracture
stimulation depends
largely on an accurate
estimate of fluid
leakoff during
treatment."

High stress zone

Fig. 1-Fracture under stress contrast.

the high-stress zone. Thus, it is conceivable that the fracture retracts preferentially
from high-stress zones during closure.

Outline of 3D
FractureClosure Simulation
This simulation of fracture closure assumes
that the fracture has a constant surface area
during shut-in when the in-situ stress and
reservoir conditions are uniform. When insitu stress and leakoff contrasts exist, the
simulation allows the fracture height to
retract from the high-stress zones. The fracture is assumed to have a constant area once
it has shrunk back and become fully contained in the uniformly stressed pay zone.
It also is assumed that the leakoff is controlled by filter cake and is pressureindependent. The leakoff rate is expressed as

qL = CI--J (t-r). . ............... (1)

Fracture propagation during injection is
calculated with a 3D fracture simulator. 13,14 Shortly after shut-in, the fluid
pressure redistributes because of short-term
flow transients. The flow equation,
-

a [

ax

Xl

n'

b(2n'+I)ln'

2n' + 1

2(n'+ 1)ln'

---K'-lIn'----

(:Y
a [

+-

n'

=-+
at

b(2n'+ 1)ln'
2(n'+I)ln'

2n'+1

(:Y

ab

:J

---K'-lln'----

ay

Xl

+(:Yr(n'-1)/2n'

+(:Yr(n'-1)/2n'
2C

::J

, ......... (2)

--J[t-r(x,y)]

and the fracture deformation equation,

JPT March 1993

+ ~ (~) ~]dX'dY'
ay

ray'

=p(x,y)-a(x,y), ............... (3)

are solved together iteratively. The boundary condition for the flow equation is the
normal flow rate, qn =0, at the wellbore
and the fracture front. The global fluidvolume conservation holds for the balance
between the fracture-volume decrease rate
and qL and can be expressed by
ab
qLdxdy- -dxdy=O. . ..... (4)
A
A
at

To perform the simulation in the time domain, a percentage of the current fracture
volume is prescribed as the volume decrement. The time needed for fluid in the
volume decrement to leak off is calculated
from Eq. 4. After compatible fracture width
and fluid pressure are obtained through iteration for the current timestep, the fracture
volume is reduced further and the computation is carried out for the next timestep.
As a simulation proceeds, the time increment required for a convergent solution
becomes increasingly smaller, probably because the reduced fracture width causes the
discretized flow equation to become illconditioned. At the same time, the pressure
distribution inside the fracture becomes
more uniform. At the beginning of shut-in,
the ratio of average excess pressure to wellbore excess pressure, Fp, is about 0.7. As
the simulation proceeds to this stage, Fp increases to about 0.9. The flow effects are
considered less significant when Fp is close
to unity. Therefore, the flow equation is
omitted from subsequent calculations. To
proceed in the time domain, the fluid pressure is decreased by a prescribed amount,
and the fracture-deformation and volumeconservation equations are solved step by
step until the fracture closes fully.
For a simulation with stress contrast, the
fracture may grow into the high-stress zones
during propagation. After shut-in, when the
width near the fracture tip in the high-stress
zones has reduced to a small prescribed
value, that part of the fracture is considered

closed thereafter. The conductivity and

leakoff of the closed fracture are neglected
in subsequent calculations because they are
much smaller than those of the fracture that
remains open and because the filter cake
probably seals the gap. The fracture height
retracts step by step to the pay zone as the
simulation proceeds.

Simulation Results
Uniform In-Situ Stress and Leakoff. Under uniform in-situ stress and leakoff conditions, the 3D model simulates propagation
and closure of a penny-shaped fracture. The
fracture is assumed to close with a constant
area. Three different cases of leakoff coefficient, 0.01, 0.005, and 0.0005 ft/min'l>
were considered. For all cases, the plane
strain Young's modulus was 3.2x 10 6 psi,
fluid viscosity was 200 cp, injection rate was
40 bbllmin, and injection time was 10 min.
The computer-generated, wellbore-pressure-decline data for the case of the leakoff
coefficient 0.005 ft/min v, are plotted vs.
time, square root of time, and the GL function in Figs. 2 through 4. Fig. 5 shows the
p-vs.-Vt plot for leakoff coefficient 0.0005
ft/min v,. The pressure-decline curves were
analyzed then with a minifracture analysis
technique. I -4 The penny-shaped fracture
model was used in the analysis. Table 1
shows that the fracture parameters deduced
from the minifracture pressure analysis are
in good agreement with the numerical simulation. This demonstrates that the numerical
procedure used in the 3D fracture-closure
simulator is accurate.

InSitu Stress and Leakoff Contrasts. The

3D model then is used to simulate fracture
propagation and closure in a formation with
stress contrasts (Fig. 1). The fluid leakoff
is assumed to occur only in the pay zone,
and the 1eakoff area during closure does not
change.
In the simulation examples, stress contrasts, ~a, of 200, 400, and 800 psi were
used. The pay-zone height was 100 ft. Leakoff coefficients, C, of 0.005 and 0.01
ftlmin V2 were used. Other data were the
same as those used in the uniform-stress examples.
207

300

300

Increasing
Fp - - - eonstant Fp

tncreasing FP--+I-eons,ant Fp

Ol+--------r------_r-------r------~----~~

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0
TIME (min)

12.5

13.0

Fig. 2-Excess wellbore pressure vs. time for a penny-shaped

fracture, C 0.005 ftN mm .

The wellbore excess pressure after shutin is plotted vs. the GL function (Figs. 6
through 9). Two slopes corresponding to
pre- and postfracture height shrinkage can
be identified in Figs. 6, 7, and 9. Fig. 10
shows loci tracing the fracture front before
and after height shrinkage for the example
with ~a=400 psi and C= 0.005 ft/min '/'.
Before the start of shrinkage indicated in the
figures, the width near the tip is still large.
The fracture-height reduction is small even
though the simulation allows the fracture
height to reduce. The simulation generates
the first slope while the flow equation is
solved fully.
Table 2 compares the results of simulation
and pressure-decline analysis. In the pressure-decline analysis, the first slope is used
with an elliptical fracture model, whereas
the second slope is used with a PKN model
with modified fracture stiffness. *,15 The
results are discussed in detail later.

Constant Fracture Area

Pressure vs. Square Root of Time Plot.
As Fig. 5 shows the p-vs.-.Jt plot has a good
linear region for low leakoff with long
closure time, but for high-leakoff cases the
linear region is not obvious (Fig. 3).15
'Personal communication with J.P. Martins, BP Exploration
Co., Glasgow, Scotland (1988).

O+---~----.----.----r---_.----r_--_r--~
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.S
1.4
ROOT TIME (.Imln)

Fig. 3-Excess wellbore pressure vs. square root of time for a

penny-shaped fracture, C = 0.005 ft/.jli1iil.

Pressure vs. G Function Plot. The pressure-decline data also can be plotted vs. the
G function,S and the slope is
...... (5)

In Eq. 5, the product CFAAfS~ is

constant for a constant-area fracture, and
Fp is the only factor causing a deviation
from a linear relationship in the piG plot.
When Fp is constant, the pressure-decline
curve has a long linear region even for large
leakoff, as Fig. 4 shows. The nonlinear
region just after shut-in is caused by the
increasing Fp and not by fracture extension.
Similarly, a nonlinear region just after shutin is observed in the field may not only or
necessarily be caused by fracture extension. s
Therefore, plotting the decline data vs. the
G function is a better way to identify fracture-closure pressure and the slope for calculating C. Castilio S first used this plot in
pressure-decline analysis that included pressure-dependent leakoff.

Shrinking Fracture Height

In BP's Ravenspurn South gas field in the
southern North Sea, the average formation
permeabilities are from 0.5 to 3 md. The

mini fracture leakoff coefficients derived

from the plGL plots are 0.003 to 0.007
ft/min v,. Two distinct types of pressure-decline curves have been observed: one similar
to that shown in Fig. 11, which is predominantly linear, and one like the curve in Fig.
12, which is gently varying but contains two
essentially linear regions.
Similar characteristics also are seen in the
simulated pressure-decline curves. If the
reservoir condition is uniform and the fracture has a constant area during closure, the
relationship between p and the GL function
is predominantly linear (Fig. 4). If stress and
leakoff contrasts exist and the fracture height
shrinks during closure, the slopes of the
curves change like that observed in the field
(Figs. 6, 7, and 9). The departure from a
linear relationship between p and the GL
function is explained as follows.
When the fracture height retracts from the
high in-situ stress zones, the fracture stiffness will increase because of the reduction
in fracture height. The leakoff area FAAf is
constant if the leakoff outside the pay zone
is negligible. When Fp approaches a constant, Eq. 5 shows that the slope of the curve
will be controlled mainly by stiffness.
Therefore, the pressure-decline curve turns
down to reflect the increased stiffness. These
conditions also could exist in the field and

200
300

-1-

Increasing

Fp

Constant Fp
Increasing Fp

O+-----,------r-----r----~----_,--~~
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Gl

Fig. 4-Excess well bore pressure vs. G L function for pennyshaped fracture, C = 0.005 ftN min.
208

-1-

Constant Fp

O+----,----.-----r----r----.---~----._~~
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0

ROOT TIME (lmin)

Fig. 5-Excess well bore pressure vs. square root of time for
penny-shaped fracture, C = 0.0005 ft/v'min .
March 1993 JPT

TABLE 1-SIMULATION AND PRESSURE-DECLINE ANALYSIS

RESULTS FOR PENNY-SHAPED FRACTURES

Simulation
Root time"
G L function"
Simulation
Root time
G L function
Simulation
Root time
G$ function t

Fracture
Stiffness
(psl/ft s )
1.053
1.031
1.087
0.388
0.425
0.453
a.0587
0.0560
0.0548

Efficiency
(%)
7.9
8.5
8.5
16.8

16.4
16.4
73_3
72.0
72.0

Radius

~
82
83
82
114
112
110

Leakoff
Coefficient
(ft.I.J min)

d.01*
0.01007
0.01'04
0.005*
0.00503
0.0052

218

a.0005*

220

0.00047
0.00048

218

"In principle, it is
possible to deduce
some information
about the stress
contrast by analyzing
the change of fracture
stiffness from the
pressure-decline data."

'From prl)$$ure-decline analYSis with p.vs.-Vt plot

'From prllSsure-decline analysis with p.vs.-G L fl,lnotiOn plot.
t From pressur&-decline analysis with p-vs.-G. function plot.
; Input for the numericsl simulations.

lead to the pressure-decline behavior shown

in Fig. 12. Thus, a linear relationship between p and the GL function can be interpreted as a fracture closing with a constant
area; an increasing slope (in absolute magnitude) can be seen as a fracture closing with
a decreasing height, possibly because of
stress and leakoff contrasts.
Identification of Fracture-Height Change.
The p-vs.-..fi curve does not help much in
identifying fracture-height change. Fig. 3 is
the simulated pressure-decline curve with
constant area, whereas Fig. 13 is the
simulated curve with shrinking height. Comparison of these two curves shows no characteristic difference.
When plotting the simulated pressuredecline data vs. the GL function, we can see
a distinct difference in the pressure response
caused by height change (Figs. 4 and 7). A
straight line indicates a constant fracture
area, and an increasing slope in absolute
magnitude indicates a shrinking height.
Therefore, plotting p vs. the GL function is
a useful technique for identifying the difference in pressure-decline behavior from
height change. If the height change is caused
by in-situ stress contrasts, this identification
also implies the existence of stress contrasts.
However, the following situation is an exception.

If the stress contrast is very high, the frac- cients, provided that the appropriate fracture does not grow much into the high-stress . ture model and fracture height are used in
zones during propagation. During closure, the analysis.
If the fracture height at the wellbore bethe reduction in fracture height and the increase in stiffness are insignificant. Hence, fore shrinkage is known and the half-height
the pressure-decline behavior is similar to is used as the minor axis of an elliptical fracthat of a constant-area fracture (Fig. 8). In ture, good results can be obtained with the
such cases, the in-situ stress contrast cannot first slope and an elliptical-fracture model.
Indeed, the derived fracture length and
be detected by the p/GL function plot.
leakoff coefficient from the first slope are
Pressure-Decline Analysis for Shrinking very close to the simulation values (Table 2).
Height. When a fracture has a constant area For the second slope, the pay-zone height
during closure, the slope of the pressure- and a PKN model with modified stiffdecline curve can be identified easily and ness, *,15
used in the pressure-decline analysis to deE'E(k)
termine fracture stiffness and leakoff coeffiS = - - , ................... (6)
cient. When a fracture height shrinks during
7rh 2 L
closure, the slope of the decline curve
changes. As Nolte 2 discussed, for fracture were used.
In Eq. 6 E(k) is the elliptical integral of
with height growth, the pressure-decline
analysis can be performed during the latter the second kind, and
part of closure instead of during the initial
k 2 = 1-O.25h2/L2.
part. As a numerical experiment, the simu3D numerical simulations have demonlated pressure-decline curves have been analyzed to confirm Nolte's conclusion and to strated that, for short fractures, Eq. 6 gives
make use further of the initial slope in closer fracture stiffness than a conventional
PKN model. For L ~ h, Eq. 6 gives the same
pressure-decline analysis.
The curve has two nearly linear portions, fracture stiffness as a conventional PKN
one before and one after the fracture height model. The pressure-decline analysis results
shrinks (Figs. 6, 7, and 9). Both slopes can based on the second slope and the PKN
be used to derive accurate leakoff coeffi- model with modified stiffness in Table 2
350

300

~
S250

~
Zl200

~
~

150

~ 100

_Second slope

__ Second
slope

50
End of shrinkage - O+-----.----,-----r----.-----.----.--~.,
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
GL

End of shrinkageO+------,-------r------r------r------~-0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1

GL

Fig. 6-Excess well bore pressure vs. GL function for stresscontrast case, 40-=200 pSi, C=0.005 ftl.Jmin.
JPT March 1993

Fig. 7-Excess wellbore pressure vs. G L function for stresscontrast case, 40-=400 psi, C=0.005 ftNmln.
209

350

400

.;;;

.9 300
-

Start of shrinkage

l!!::>

!I!::>

tJ)
tJ)

Ul
Ul

250

tr

II!a.
l!!

Q.

150

-'
w

til

-'

:;:

Ul
<IJ

100

<IJ
<IJ

200

tr

50

w
0
xw

End of shrinkage - -

O~-------.--------~-------r------~~~

0.0

0.1

0.2
GL

0.3

0.4

150

100
50
End of shrinkage

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

GL

Fig. 8-Excess wellbore pressure vs. G L function for stresscontrast case, .:1 a = 800 psi, C=0.005 ft/~min.

show good agreement with the simulation

parameters.
Fp =0.9 was used in the analysis. This
was the value found in the simulations.
Nolte 1.2 suggested values around 0.9 for
the Khristianovich-Geertsma-de Klerk and
penny-shaped models. When the PKN
model with modified stiffness is used for
short fractures, 0.9 also seems to be an appropriate value for Fp.
In field applications, the fracture height
before shrinking, which depends on the
amount of growth into the high-stress zones,
is difficult to determine. The fracture height
after shrinking most likely will be the same
as the pay-zone height, which can be determined from logs. Therefore, the second
slope can be used with more confidence than
the first slope in the pressure-decline analysis. Also, the second slope should be used
to identify the fracture-closure pressure, as
Fig. 12 shows.

Deduction of Stress Contrast

When the fracture height shrinks during
closure, the plot of pressure-decline data vs.
the GL function will depart from the ideal
straight-line relationship. Two linear regions
on the data often can be identified. The slope
of the pressure-decline curve is directly'

Fig. 9-Excess wellbore pressure vs. G L function for stresscontrast case, .:1a = 400 pSi, C = 0.01 ft/~ min .

proportional to the fracture stiffness, which

is related to dimensions hand L. In principle, it is possible to deduce some information about the stress contrast by analyzing
the change of fracture stiffness from the
pressure-decline data.
The authors 15 have demonstrated a simple model to deduce stress contrast from the
double-slope pressure-decline data. The
model assumes (1) that the fracture height
is controlled mainly by the in-situ stress contrast according to the equilibrium-fracture
theory, (2) that the in-situ stress contrast is
symmetric, and (3) that the fracture-length
penetration and leakoff area remain constant. Further work is required to incorporate more-complicated stress conditions
into the analysis. Also, if the fracture
penetration decreases or the leakoff area
changes, corrections may be required for the
latter slope. 7 However, the concept of
deducing in-situ stress contrast by analyzing
pressure-decline data should be pursued
further.

Conclusions
This study developed a 3D numerical simulator for fracture closure. By analyzing the
simulation-generated pressure-decline
curves, we can make the following conclusions.

100

1. For high 1eakoff and short fractureclosure time p-vs.-.ft, the p-vs.-GL function plot has a more obvious linear region
than the dpl.ftplot. This former plot is easier to use to determine the slope for 1eakoff
coefficient calculation.
2. The p-vs.-GL function plot can be
used to identify the fracture-height change
during closure. It has changing slopes, and
two linear regions on the curve often can be
identified for a fracture height that shrinks
from zones with moderately high in-situ
stress.
3. Both slopes of the two linear regions
on a p-vs.-GL function plot both can be
used to calculate the leakoff coefficient,
provided the correct fracture height and fracture model are used in the pressure-decline
analysis. The second slope should be used
with the fracture height after shrinkage,
which is likely to be the pay-zone height in
field applications.
4. "It is possible to deduce in-situ stress
contrast by analyzing pressure-decline
data. " Further work is required to develop
the concept for field applications.

Nomenclature
Af

= total fracture surface area,

L2, ft2

8000
Before

------~ge

------

5O~----------------~"~~Af~lffi----~~~~'
Shrinkage

,;

>-

~ 7500

i'"
'"~

7000

M!

~
w

~ 6500

-100+----------,---------.----------r---------.
200
150
o
100
50
X(m

Fig. 10-Fracture-front contours before and after shrinkage for

stress-contrast case, .:1a=400 psi, C=0.005 ftNmin.
210

6000+-------,-------,-------,-------,-_

0.5

1.5

1.0

2.0

GL

Fig. ii-Field measurement of minifracture pressure deCline,

constant slope.
March 1993 JPT

TABLE 2-SIMULATION AND PRESSURE-DECLINE ANALYSIS

RESULTS FOR IN-SITU STRESS AND LEAKOFF-CONTRAST EXAMPLES

Height (ft)
Efficiency Length
Before
After
(%)
~ Shrinkage Shrinkage
~
200
250
100
30.2
185
250
32.0
167
100
32.0
160
Stress
Contrast

Simulation
First slope'
Second slope"
Simulation
First slope'
Second slope"

400

Simulation
Second slope"

800

Simulation
First slope'
Second slope"

400

C
(ftN min)
O.005t
0.00501
0.00507

185

100

25.8
26.2
26.2

176

O.005t
0.00499
0.00496

118

100
100

23.4
22.7

190
185

O.005t
0.00497

151
151

100

12.0
12.8
12.8

113
124
101

O.01t
0.0093
0.0105

176
176

100

100

182

"It is possible to
deduce in-situ stress
contrast by analyzing
pressure-decline data."

'Pressure-decUne analysis resutt with the lirst slope and the elUptical-lracture model.
"Pressure-decline analysis resutt with the second slope and the PKN model with modified stiffness.
t Input lor the numerical simulations.

b = fracture width, L, ft
C = leakoff coefficient, Lit y, ,

Acknowledgments
We thank the management of BP Exploration and BP Research for permission to publish this paper . We also thank J .P. Martins,
A.H. Carr, and M.R. Jackson ofBP Exploration and N. C. Last of BP Research for
useful discussions and appreciate the assistance from C.H. Yew at the U. of Texas
at Austin.

p = fluid pressure, m/Lt2, psi

ji = average excess pressure,
m/Lt2, psi

ft/min \I,

e = fluid efficiency at end of

injection
E = (k)=elliptical integral of the
second kind
E' = plane strain Young's modulus,
m/Lt 2 , psi
FA = ratio of leakoff area to total
fracture area
Fp = ratio of average excess
pressure to well bore excess
pressure
G = shear modulus of formation,
m/Lt2, psi
GL = Nolte's leakoff function,2
fluid-loss dominated
Gs = Nolte's leakoff function, 2
fracture storage dominated
h = fracture height, L, ft
k = (1-0.25 h 2 /0) y,
K' = power-law fluid consistency,
Ibf-sec n '/ft2

L = half-fracture length, L, ft
n' = power-law fluid exponent

qL = leakoff rate per unit area, Lit,

ft/min

qn = normal flow rate per unit

area, Lit, ft/min
r = [( x-x')2 +(y_y')2] y" L
S = fracture stiffness=djildV,
miL 4t 2 , psi/ft3
t = time or elapsed time after
shut-in, t, minutes
tD = dimensionless shut-in time,

References
1. Nolte, K.G.: "Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing Pressure Decline,"
paper SPE 8341 presented at the 1979 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
2. Nolte, K.G.: "A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With Application to
Three Models," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 57183; Trans., AIME, 284.
3. Nolte, K.G.: "Principles for Fracture Design
Based on Pressure Analysis," SPEPE (Feb.
\988) 22-30; Trans., AIME, 285.
4. Martins, J.P. and Harper, T.R.: "Mini-Frac
Pressure-Decline Analysis for Fractures
Evolving From Long Perforated Intervals and
Unaffected by Confining Strata, " paper SPE

tlto
to = injection time, t, minutes
V = fracture volume, L3, ft3
x,y = coordinates on fracture

surface, L, ft
x ',y' = integration variables, L, ft

= Poisson's ratio
a = in-situ stress, m/Lt 2 , psi
da = in-situ stress contrast, m/Lt2,
psi
7 = leakoff beginning time, t,
minutes
p.

(To Page 255)

350
";;

:;

II!::J

(/)
(/)

300
250

Second Slope
_ Fracture Closure

a:
n.

II!

200

150

..J

~
~

w
xw

100

()

50

a
0.0

~+------------r-----------.----------~
o
0.5
1.5
1.0
GL

Fig. 12-Field measurement of minifracture pressure decline,

double slope.
JPT March 1993

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

ROOT TIME (,Imin)

Fig. 13-Excess wellbore pressure vs. square root of time for

stress-contrast case, da=400 psi, C=O.005 ftNmin.
211

3D Numerical
Simulation of Hydraulic
Fracture Closure With
Application to
Minifracture Analysis
(From Page 211)

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

13869 presented at the 1985 SPEIDOE Symposium on Low Permeability Reservoirs,

Denver, May 19-22.
Castillo, J.L.: "Modified Fracture-PressureDecline Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff, " paper SPE 16417 presented at
the 1987 SPEIDOE Symposium on Low Permeability Reservoirs, Denver, May 18-20.
Moschovidis, Z.A.: "Interpretation of Pressure Decline for Minifracture Treatments Initiated at the Interface of Two Formations,"
SPEPE (Feb. 1990) 45-51; Trans., AIME,
289.
Nolte, K.G.: "Fracturing-Pressure Analysis
for Nonideal Behavior," JPT (Feb. 1991)
210-18.
Kemp, L.F.: "Study of Nordgren's Equation
of Hydraulic Fracturing," SPEPE (Aug.
1990) 311-13.
Nolte, K.G.: "Fluid Flow Considerations in
Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 18537
presented at the 1988 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting in Charleston, WV (Nov.).
Medlin, W.L. and Masse, L.: "Laboratory
Experiments in Fracture Propagation," SPEJ
(June 1984) 256-68.
Shlyapobersky, J. et al.: "Field Determination of Fracturing Parameters for Overpressure Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 18195 presented at the 1988
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.

JPT March 1993

12. Gu, H.: "Laboratory Fracturing Test Confirmation of Minifrac Analysis Technique, "
unpublished work at BP Research (1990).
13. Gu, H. and Yew, C.H.: "Finite Element Solution of a Boundary Integral Equation for
Mode I Embedded Three-Dimensional Fractures," IntI. J. Num. Meth. Eng. (July 1988)
26, 1525-40.
14. Gu, H.: "A Study of Propagation of Hydraulically Induced Fractures," PhD dissertation,
U. of Texas, Austin (1987).
15. Gu, H. and Leung, K.H.: "Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic
Fracture Closure With Application to Minifrac Analysis, " paper SPE 20657 presented
at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.

Sl Metric Conversion Factors

bbl
cp
ft
ft'
psi

x \.589873
x \.0'
x 3.048*

x 2.831 685
x 6.894757

E-01 = m'
E+OO = mPas
E-Ol = m
E-02 = m'
E+OO = kPa

'Conversion factor is exact.

Provenance
Original SPE manuscript, Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic
Fracture Closure With Application to
Minifrac Analysis, received for review
Sept. 2, 1990. Revised manuscript received
March 12, 1992. Paper accepted for publication July 23, 1992. Paper (SPE 20657)
first presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.

Authors

Gu

Leung

Hongran Gu, a senior development engineer at Dowell Schlumberger In Tul

sa, previOUsly worked at the BP Sunbury
Research Centre in hydrauHc fracturing
simulation, anatysls, and design. He
holds an MS degree from Xian Jlaotong
U. and a PhD degree from the U. of
Texas, both In engineering mechanics.
K. Hong Leung Is a well-test analyst at
BP Exploration, Europe. He has 5 years'
experience in developing fracture sima
ulators, fracture-treatment deSign, and
fractured well-test analysis. He holds
MS and PhD degrees In civil engineerIng from the U. of Wales.

JPT

255