Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Energyanalysis
of hydraulic
fracturing
J.SHLYAPOBERSKY
ShellDevelopmentCompany,Houston, Texas,USA
INTRODUCTION
Hydraulic
fracturing
is
increasingly
being
used
as
stimulation
Because of simpli-
fying
assumptions about hydraulic
fracturing,
these models predict
different
fracture
geometries
for identical
reservoir
and treatment
conditions (Palmer & Luiskutty 1984).
The propped fracture
length estimated using pressure build-up
tests
of treatment
pressures
energy with
required
for
539
SCALE
EFFECT
IN
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
Scale effects
are inherent
in geomechanical
problems.
Traditionally,
mathematical
theories
describing
rock behavior
have been formulated
based on analysis
of laboratory
experiments
with small rock specimens.
Legitimate
questions
arise about the applicability
of such theories
to
predict
behavior of large rock bodies,
especially
in cases when rock
characteristics
required
by the theory demonstrate
a strong dependence
on specimen size and test conditions.
Contemporary fracture
mechanics are based on Griffith's
idea that
failure
of brittle
solids
is due to microcracks
always present in real
materials.
Griffith
formulated
a crack propagation
criterion
and introduced a new material
constant,
specific
fracture
surface
energy
,
which characterizes
material
resistance
to crack growth (fracture
toughness).
Using the Griffith
energy balance, it was shown that the critical pressure
necessary
to start
propagating
a penny-shaped crack of
radius R is (Sack 1946)
p* = /(/2)''/R
(1)
bonds
when
the
crack area
crack
is
(
formed.
is
true
material
to rupture
constant
the Griffith
in creation
of the crack layer.
It was proposed (0rowan 1952; Irwin 1958) that this
dissipated
energy be added to the specific
fracture
surface energy and a
new characteristic
called
the apparent fracture
surface energy be determined from laboratory
tests
on pre-cracked
specimens using formulas
540
similar
to (1).
This apparent
fracture
surface
energy which is an
empirical
characteristic
of fracture
toughness,
is the total
energy
required
to create a unit area of the main fracture
and the crack layer
associated
with this
area.
A difficulty
in applying
this
GriffithOrowan-Irwin
theory is that the apparent
fracture
surface
energy is not
a material
constant,
but depends on the whole history
of crack layer
value.
DETERMINATION
OF FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
FROM
TREATING
PRESSURE
minifrac
and microfrac
shut-in
and flowback tests are used (Nolte 1984,
McLennan & Roegiers 1982, Warpinski
1984a).
In a shut-in
test,
the
pressure
decline
curve
has no evident
features
which would indicate
fracture
closure.
A detailed
reservoir
analysis
of the pressure falloff is thus required
to avoid a subjective
and erroneous definition
of
the closure pressure.
Different
approaches in defining
p_ from shut-in
An alter-
native
technique
to determine
the fracture
closure
pressure
is the
constant
rate
flowback
test.
The flowback
pressure
decline
curve
usually
has
two distinctive
points
which may indicate
fracture
closure.
The inflection
point A on the pressure decline curve (Figure
1) has been successfully
used to estimate the fracture
closure pressure
(Nolte 1984).
APw
pressure
through perforations:
estimated
Ap
= pW - pC
W
friction
pressure
= BHP- p - pC .If
drop (p_)
the inJeg-
high rock
may exist
in the perforated
zone
1984b)
which create
higher
than theoretically
estimated
friction
pressure
drop at
the
fracture
entrance
and,
(Warpinski
perforation
stress intensity factor Ki[Ap] maybe smaller for the real fracture
than calculated
by a hydraulic
fracture
model (Figure 3).
These two effects
of fluid
flow are difficult
to quantify.
Their
significance
in the pressure analysis
can be reduced by using shut-in
pressure data.
During the early shut-in period the pressure gradient
in
the fracture
is almost eliminated
and p
= p (small pressure drop in
If
one notices
that
()
for
given fracture
geometry is determined by the fracture
volume and the
latter
changes insignificantly
after
a short time of pressure equalization after
shut-in,
a surprizing
result is that the ISIP is a measure of
the average
fracture
propagating
pressure,
not the fracture
closure
pressure (the minimum in situ stress).
Apparent rock toughness can be
estimated by the Griffith-Sack
type equation
KlC
where
the
fracture
= p ieff
shape dimensionless
constant
(2)
is
of
the order
of
fracture
or the half
height
of a contained
fracture.
The effective
fracture
size has to be known to use Equation (2).
In microfrac
tests,
the fracture
shape is assumed to be circular
and its
radius
can be
calculated
from pressure decline
curve (modified
Nolte analysis).
In
minifrac
tests,
the fracture
is assumed to be contained in the pay zone
wth half height considered
as the effective
fracture
radius giving a
conservative
estimate
of fracture
toughness.
FIELD
EXAMPLE
1C
F = KI /E
two
othe
appearing
tests
in hydraulic
in
fracture
Table
treatments
indicate
that
is much larger
rock
toughness
results
agree
withthegeneral
trenofheapparent
fracture
surface
energy
rowth
with c%ack
size;
.
o
Z
(
for
542
10- m),
"small"
100 J/m for lab size cracks ( 10 Zm) and 10,O00 J/mZ
hydraulic
fractures
(<lOOm).
This
scale
effect
is
very
likely
to be caused by the crack layer
accompanying the hydraulic
fracture
propagation
and is clearly
seen even for small changes of
pumped volumes in Table 1.
How strong this effect can be in large
treatments
is an important practical
issue.
Some limited
data reported
in the literature
(Medlin & Fitch 1983) demonstrate tremendous increases
of post treatment
ISIP's
of more than 16MPa with
respect
to their
initial
values
which resulted
in screenouts.
It
is suggested
that
pressure screenouts be studied not only as sandout phenomena, but also
as a phenomenon of crack layer
evolution
during hydraulic
fracturing
treatments.
ENERGY
ANALYSIS
OF
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING
The analysis
of
the
fracture
propagation
process
and hydraulic
fracturing
treatment
data suggests that the rock toughness effect
is
very important
and, under certain
conditions,
may even become dominant
for fracture
growth.
Therefore,
any hydraulic
fracture
theory has to
account for at least four interacting
processes--fluid
flow, rock deformation,
rock toughness, and fluid
loss through fracture
walls to adequately
describe
hydraulic
fracture
growth and to predict
realistic
fracture
dimensions.
An approximate
theory that incorporates
the rock
toughness effect
in conventional
fracture
models is presented below for
a circular
fracture.
A circular
fracture
equilibrium
growth.
of radius
R at time
The following
t is considered
during
quasi-
fluid pumped
(qt), leak-offv_ume
(2RvCTr) (Nolte1984),and
:
is
a constant (4/3
/2)dependent
on the
(3)
total
fluid
energy .
is
th
average fracture
energy
considertions.
For
quasiequilibrium
fracture
propagation,
the
total
energy
dissipation
rate is minimized.
Three processes give the major contribution to the total
energy loss in the hydraulic
fracture;
(1) creation
surface
( .c ),
(2)
fracture
(3) viscous
width:
= rq/,d= (3/32)E'q/R,
f = (12/)t21n/()
3
(4)
c
which yields
of quasiequilibrium
an expression
for
fracture
propagation
requires
width
([)2=w2+ /w+w}
(6)
where wc
2= (16/3a)m/E',
w= (1281no/(3a))qR/E'
c
543
Solving
fracture
profile
for
plates
p(r)= Pw-(6q/)(w--)-31n(r/R)
o
can
be
calculated.
SCALING
The
LAWS
OF HYDRAULIC
presented
FRACTURING
hydraulic
fracture
dimensionless characteristics
model
allows
introduction
of
The .energy
The widthAequation
suggestsa dimensioness
eometricaparameter
k = Wc/W. Finally the materialbalancegivesdimensionless
leak-
of parameter
k1 = 2RCTV_/(q/)that is relatedto the fluid effi-
meters k
,
and k1 quantify three interactive mechanisms
betweenfour
physicalCgrockesses
involved
inhydraulic
fracturing.
Thus,
they
repre-
CONCLUS ION
The scale
effect
on fracture
toughness
is discussed
in context
of
hydraulic
fracturing.
The crack layer causes this effect
and results
in
significant
increase of fracture
toughness and treatment pressure with
crack growth.
The laboratory
fracture
toughness measurements cannot
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
author
permission
discussions
wishes
to
to publish
thank
the
management
of
Shell
Oil
Company for
and assistance
in preparing
the paper.
REFERENCES
Bakar, M., A. Chudnovsky & A. Moet 1983. The Effect of Loading History
on the Fracture Toughness of Polycarbonate.
Proc. Int. Conf. on
Fatigue in Polymers. London, GB. 81.-8.8.
Biot, M.A., L. Masse & W.L. Medlin 1982. A Two-Dimensional Theory of
Fracture Propagation.
SPE Paper 11067.
57th Annual Conference.
New
Orleans, LA. September.
544
Reserve
Univ.
Cleveland,
OH.
TX.
September.
Cleary,
Development of a Fully
Three-Dimensional
Simulator
for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic
Fracturing.
SPE Paper 11631.
Symposium on Low Permeability
Gas
Reservoirs.
Denver, CO. March.
Clifton,
R.$. & l.S. Abou-Sayed 1981.
A Variational
Approach to the
Prediction
of the Three-Dimensional
Geometry of Hydraulic
Fractures.
SPE/DOEPaper 9879.
Denver,
Reservoirs.
CO. May.
Friedman,
1972.
Fracture-Surface
Energy of
Rocks.
Int.
J. Rock, Mech. 9:757-766
Geertsma, J. & F. deKlerk 1969.
A Rapid Method of Predicting
Extent of Hydraulically
Induced Fracture.
JPT December.
Width
Fractures.
Trans.
and Extent
ASME.
J.
of Vertical
En.
Width and
Res.
Hydraulically
Tech.
101:8-19.
for
Induced
March.
Hart, C.M., D. Engl, R.P. Fleming & H.E. Morris 1984. Fracture
Diasnostics Results for the Multiwell
Experiments's Paludal Zone
Stimulation.
SPE/DOE/GRI Paper 12852. Unconventional Gas Recovery
Symposium.
Pittsburg,
PA. May.
Irwin,
G.R. 1958.
Analysis of Stresses
Crack Traversing
a Plate,
Discussion.
299-301.
Mclennan, J.D.
Instantaneous
Conference.
Medlin, W.L. &
Treatments.
CA.
October.
306-314.
Orowan, E. 1952.
Fundamentals of Brittle
Behavior in Metals.
In W. M.
Murray (ed.),
Fatigue and Fracture of Metals.
New York:
John Wiley &
Sons.
Ouchterlony,
F. 1983.
Fracture
Toughness Testing of Rock. In H. P.
Rossmanith (ed.),
Rock Fracture Mechanics.
Int.
Centre Mech. Sci.
CISM Courses & Lectures No. 275. Wien - New York:
Springer.
Palmer, I.D. & C.T. Luiskutty 1984.
Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture
Models for Highly Elongated Fractures
of Variable
Height.
Oral
Roberts Univ. Preprint.
Tulsa, OK.
Perkins,
T.K. & L.R. Kern 1961.
Width of Hydraulic
Fractures.
JPT: 937949
Warpinski,
N.R. 1984a.
Summary of Results of MWX Paludal Zone Phase I
Stimulation.
Memorandumof Record.
Sandia National Labs. January.
Warpinski,
N.R. 1984b.
MWX Paludal In Situ Stress Measurements and
Hydraulic
Fracture
Behavior.
Memorandum. Sandia National
Labs.
October.
Table 1.
Paludal
Apparent Fracture
Zone
Phase
Stimulation*
Volume
ISIP
(m3)
(MPa)
Ap
(MPa)
(HTm
Ref
K1C
)
(m)f
MPayr
22
44.2
2.8
28
12
9.7
57
45.9
4.5
41
12
15.6
47.6
6.2
46
12
21.5
114
KJ/m
2
3
7.8
14.9
qB
"1'
INJECTION
BHP pwJ5
PT
HUT - )N
ISlp
-p(
BHP
,,=DW
' PT
FLOW
BACK
ir
A B
'///////
qB'
Figure 1.
Injection
- shut-in
flowback pressure curve of typical
micro/mini
fracture
test.
Figure 2.
Bottom hole pressure
measurements and friction
drop
during fracture
test.
IP-
DISTANCE
DISTANCE
ALONG
THE FRACTURE
Figure 3.
Hypothetical
pressure profile
during injection
for (A) idea1 well-fracture
system, (B) fracture treatment.
546
and shut-in