Improvements in Simulation of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
James R. Gilman, SPE, Marathon Oil Co.
Hossein Kazemi, SPE, Marathon Oil Co.
Abstract
Simulation of multi phase flow in heterogeneous two-
porosity reservoirs such as naturally fractured systems is
a difficult problem. In the last severa] years much prog-
ress has been made in this area. This paper focuses on
the practical aspects of that technology. It describes a
stable, flexible, fully implicit, finite-difference simulator
in heterogeneous, two-porosity reservoirs. Flow rates
and wellbore pressures are solved simultaneously along
with fracture and matrix fluid saturations and pressures
at all grid points. Hydrodynamic pressure gradient is
maintained at formation perforations in the weUbore.
The simulator is accurate enough to match analytical
solutions to single-phase problems. The equations have
been extended to include polymer flooding and tracer
transport with nine-point connection for determining
severe local channel.ing and directional tendencies. It is
shown that the two-porosity model presented in this
paper will produce essentially the same answers as the
common single-porosity model of a highly hetero-
geneous system but with a substantial reduction of com-
puting time. In addition, this paper describes in detail
several two-porosity parameters not fully discussed in
previous publications.
Introduction
Naturally fmctured reservoir simulators are developed to
simulate fluid flow in systems in which fractures are in-
terconnected and provide the main flow path to injection
and production wells. The fractures have high
permeability and low storage volume; the reservoir rock
(matrix blocks) has low permeability and high storage
volume. The idealization of assuming one porosity as the
0197·7520/83/0081·0511$00.25
Copyrj9ht HISS Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
AUGUST 1983
continuum can apply to many heterogeneous systems
where one porosity provides the main path for fluid flow
and the other porosity acts as a source. Throughout this
paper, the fracture should be thought of as the continuum
and the matrix perceived as the adjacent sources or sinks.
For single-phase flow of a gas or liquid, fluid com-
pression and viscous forces control fluid movement.
Gmvity and capillary forces are not pertinent. Several
single-phase idealizations that produce essentially the
same pmctical engineering answers are discussed in the
literature. 13 Fig. 1 shows a model with both vertical and
horizontal fractures. Separate nodes arc used for fracture
and matrix. For this case, 77 nodes are used to model the
system. Fig. 2 also shows a model that allows vertical
and horizontal fractures. However, this model requires
far fewer nodes because areas in which the matrix blocks
behave similarly are grouped in a single node. Each
gridblock may contain many matrix blocks. The matrix
blocks act as sources that feed into the fractures in a
gridblock. The fractures can be thought of as a system of
connected pipes. This model was proposed by Warren
and Root. I
The boundary conditions used can make a dramatic
difference in simulation results. Generally, we assume
that only the fractures produce into the wellbore and are
the path of fluid flow from one gridblock to the next.
For multiphase flow, three forces must be properly ac-
counted for-viscous, gravity, and capillary. In this
case, we might require that the matrix blocks be further
divided into gridblocks to obtain better definition of
saturation distribution 4 (Fig. 3). However, this will lead
to additional work and may not be required. Kazemi et
al. 5 extended the Warren-Root model to multiphase
systems to account for capillary and gravity forces. Their
695
 finite-difference equations for two-phase (oil/water)
flow are the following.
For fractures,

.6. [Ta.r(.6.p af-g af.iD f)] - T ama

Matrix . [(Paf-g "'fDf)-(P",ma -g",maDma)] +qa
Fracture
= Vb At
L.l
(cbS",) . •••••••••••••••••••••••• (1)
.6.t B", f

For matrix,

Fig. 1-Fracture-matrix block mode/.

=:;.6. t (::"') ...................... (2)

rna
Terms in the equations are defined in Eqs. 3 through 5
and in the Nomenclature. Eq. 3 is the x-direction trans-
missibility for Cartesian coordinates. The y and z direc-
tional transmissibilities are similarly defined.
y
T",jX=0.001l27(kk m cb) (.6. .6.Z) ......... (3)
{t", B", f Lh
Matrix
Fracture T",ma =0.001127 k ma Lh.6.y.6.z(1[W (~ )
{tB rna
___- Grid Block
Boundary +(1-W) (:~)) . . ................ (4)

(1=4( ~+ 1 +~) .................... (5)

Fig. 2-Double-porosity block mode/. Lx Lz
In Eq. 4 an upstream weighting factor, w, is used so
that mobility is evaluated in the direction that flow is
coming from. w is 1.0 if flow is from matrix to fracture
and is 0.0 if flow is from fracture to matrix. L.n Lv, and
L z are the dimensions of a cubical matrix block. The
variable, (1, is a property of the system 1,5,6 and is
discussed further in a later section.
For k in {tm 2 , {t in Pa' s, length in meters, and
pressure in kPa, the coefficients in Eqs. 3 and 4 should
be 0.000536. For three-phase systems, two additional
equations are needed to describe gas-phase flow. These
--+9~ Matrix equations and many additional details are shown in
Refs. 6 and 7.
Rossen 8 used a conventional black-oil numerical
simulator to model the fracture network flow, then added
source terms to simulate flow from the matrix blocks.
Rossen replaced the matrix flow term in Eq. I by em-
pirical expressions. DeSwaan' s approach 9 was to
replace the matrix flow term in Eq. 1 by

[ -Nimb J( e -(t-lJ)iT, (as ,,:r1dO)d()J , ............ (6)

71 0

Fig. 3-Multiphase block mode/.

where Nimb is the total oil recoverable by imbibition and
71 is the time for 63 % of the N imb'
Thomas et al. in an excellent paper6 discussed a fully
implicit, three-phase, two-porosity simulator similar to

696 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 ,., I . "+
~ ~~
.. , . . ';.
i
: :: I,: :

.
. '}'.....
-H;-'-
, .
, ,
-]-
,'.. '
u --
t"t- -H+
"I -[ r.:.
I-":"';~"":"';";
l>< j1
+
~. VI
-
,
I
·1- tff ,,;-
I
j..I
-'" r-
I
R-;l
~ ~'"
..
II
1 til
Itt
I

x y
~'
.1 ;j., .",vr T'
J'-N It
1- IT,-
I
I
l'j
!
jl ,
i.f'
)' ~
I ~
~
l

!'f J !'\; i I;!

:1 R',"~ I :
:~r-J'17 Nj itj;' ++ ~ - j,' t']
l j,I R{-
W f411 "[y
~l-.:
.1
I j .'I... -~.-
t~
',

L..-_ _ _ -+y L......-----.x

= Fracture Flow Channels • Grid Points = Fracture Flow Channels • Grid Points
--- - -Grid Boundaries 0 Matrix Blocks ----- Grid Boundaries 0 Matrix Block

Fig. 4-Five-point finite-difference grid. Fig. 5-Nine-point finite-difference grid.

ours. We have developed a two-phase (oil/water) Sof=l-S wf , ........................... (7)

simulator also using a fully implicit formulation, but in
addition we included strong coupling at the wellbore, Soma=l-S wma , ......................... (8)
nine-point connection, adaptations for pressure transient
testing, water coning, tracer transport, and polymer Pof=Pwf+P(f' ......................... (9)
flooding. We also describe several two-porosity param-
eters not fully discussed before. and

Flow Equations Poma=Pwma+Pcma . .................... (10)

Our numerical simulator was developed for two-phase
(oil/water) flow in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Kazemi's extension of the Warren-Root model to
multi phase flow was used as the basis of the simulator.
Fortwo-phase water/oil flow, Eqs. 1 and 2 apply. These
equations account for gravity, capillary, and viscous
forces between matrix and fracture.
The fracture equations are identical to those for a
single-porosity system if the matrix term is omitted.
Therefore, the simulator can represent a two-phase
single-porosity system if Tma equals zero.
Cartesian (x,y,z) or radial (r,Z) coordinates are includ-
ed in the model. To account for directional tendencies
other than in the x or y direction, we have included an
option for flow in the diagonal directions in the xy plane.
To achieve this, the conventional five-point finite dif-
ference in the xy plane had to be extended to a special
nine-point formulation. This nine-point formulation,
which we call the "nine-point connection," has the
following characteristics.
1. It is a conservative formulation.
2. The permeabilities in the diagonal direction are in-
dependent of those in the x and y directions.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the differences between the five-
and nine-point finite-difference grids.
The number of unknowns in Eqs. I and 2 can be
reduced by the use of the following relationships.
If Eqs. 7 through 10 are substituted in the four relation-
ships represented by Eqs. 1 and 2, there will be four
equations and five unknowns: fracture and matrix water
pressure, fracture and matrix water saturation, and
wellbore flow rate.
To solve the system of equations implicitly, one addi-
tional relation is required-the well bore constraint. The
well sink (source) term in Eq. 1 is the wellbore produc-
tion (injection) rate for a particular node. The wellbore
flow rate can be represented in terms of pressure drop at
the well:
qa =Aexw(Paf-Pbh)' ..................... (11)
For radial flow into the wellbore we have used the coef-
ficient Aexw as given by Eq. 12. This equation is a more
accurate version of the coefficient normally used \0 and
assumes pseudo steady state between the first node and
the wellbore.
(0.001 127) (21l");:lz ke (k)
J1~
r1) ai'
( 2 2 ) In ( - - V2+S
rl -r w rw
. ................................ (12)
ke is the effective formation permeability and is

AUGUST 1983 697

discussed under Two-Porosity System Parameters.
Again, the 0.001127 conversion will be different in SI . [(1-w)!wcma +W!w(1]
units. The proper form to use for Cartesian coordinates
has been discussed elsewhere. II, 12 When Eq. 11 is used
along with the reservoir flow equations, wellbore
pressure is the fifth unknown being solved.
Our model allows for two different well bore con-
straints. One option is to specify total wellbore flow rate,
in which case Eq. 13 applies.

qT= ~ (~qaJ+Ca aPbh ) , ..•••....... (13) '(O.OOI).1 t a] . ......................... (18)

a / at
For matrix:
where I represents the producing interval, and the second
term is wellbore storage. Alternatively, wellbore
pressure could be specified.
(T wmal!vma)(Pw)[(1-w)!wcma +W!wcf]
For the single-phase case, there are only three equa-
. [(Pwj-gwjDj)-(Pwt/la -gwmaDma]
tions and three unknowns. Saturation of the single phase
is 1.0, and capillary pressure and relative permeabilities
are not pertinent.
Many terms in the coefficients are functions of the
primary variables, and thus the equations are nonlinear.

Initial and Boundary Conditions

To solve the difference equations, initial and boundary
conditions must be specified. Initially, saturations and
pressures are calculated by using an initialization pro-
cedure based on capillary-pressure data, water/oil con-
tact data, and fluid-pressure gradients. This initialization
ensures that the system is at capillary/gravity equilibrium
at time zero.
For times greater than zero, boundary conditions must
be specified. For the wellbore, the simulator allows for
two conditions-either constant total wellbore rate or
constant wellbore pressure.
For the reservoir outer boundaries, four conditions can
be specified in the model-constant-influx, constant-
pressure, no-flow, or pot-aquifer boundaries. These can
be represented as
Since the equations are written at surface conditions,
the water density terms must be at standard conditions.
Water-flow terms are identical to those defined earlier,
so T wma is again evaluated from upstream (fracture or
matrix) mobility. The only additional unknowns in-
troduced by Eqs. 18 and 19 are the weight fractions of
the chemical in the fracture and in the matrix. Dilute
solution approximation is assumed. The equations can be
solved sequentially after the oil and water equations
because all the other terms will be known. Equilibrium
adsorption is assumed and is a function of concentration.
For polymer we also allow water viscosity to increase
with concentration and to decrease with increasing shear
rate. Polymer resistance factors for oil and water are
functions of the amount of polymer adsorbed or retained.

apajl C, ...................... (14)

Fully Implicit Formulation
Taj~~ ~=b The equations are solved by the Newton-Raphson
method,6,13-16 given as
Pft'; I
~=b
= C, ...................... (15)
aR f
- (ax) ox=Rf(x) , ....................... (20)
Taft'; I
~=b
= 0, ...................... (16)
where
and
OX=X f + 1 . . ........................... (21)
apft';
q~ =(dl)aq-
at
I
~=b
........... (17)
The partial derivative in Eq. 20 is a Jacobian matrix
and represents the partial derivative of all residuals with
In Eqs. 14 through 17, ~ represents the spatial coordinate respect to every unknown in the system. However, the
and b the system boundary. five-point (or nine-point) finite-difference expansion
results in the residual equations for a given node being
Chemical Transport Equations dependent on only the unknowns of that node and im-
mediately surrounding nodes. Therefore, the resulting
For cases in which the water phase may carry a chemical
matrix is banded and very sparse. For nodes connected
such as a tracer or polymer, two additional equations are
to a well, the residuals will also be a function of wellbore
needed to describe chemical flow in the fracture and
pressure or flow rates.
matrix. For fracture:
If the finite-difference equations are written in residual
form, the following form results, with i, j, and k
representing node locations.

698 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 Ri,j,k =Axi,j,k-I +BXi,j-I,k + Dx i-I.j,k +E:Xi,j,k
+FXi+ I,j,k +HXi,j+ I,k +JXi,},k+I' ...... (22)

For nine-point connection, 17 the residuals are also func-

tions of the diagonally connected nodes in the xy plane.
Therefore, the residual becomes

R 9pl =Rs pt +MXi-l,j-I,k + PX i-l,j+ I,k

+ Qx i+ I.j-I.k +SXi+ I,j+ l,k. . ......... (23)

The terms in Eqs. 22 and 23 represent matrices or vec-

tors; some typical ones are defined as

Xi.j,k , ................. (24)

°Pwma

i,J,k

Fig. 6-Twenty-seven node grid system.

, .................. (25)
Rwma

i,J,k

and apbhi,j

Ai,j,k= aRali.j.k
apbh i.;
. . ............... (27)

ORW!;,j.k oR "'/;'j,k oRw!;I,}.'I. oRII'fk

·'\1,

OP"JiI._1
1•./. oS"Ji/ ../. 1.1 OP'''IIlU'/ ../.'1.-1 OSII'IIlU' '1.-1
't/'

oRo!;';,k oR olk
/,}. oR (!Ii,}.i. oRq/i,j,k

OP"Jik_1
I.). OSlIfk_1
/,./. aplI'1I/£/''.j.'1.-1 as 1I'lIliti,/.k-1

aR wmak
I,).
aRwma1,./.'1. aR II 'lIlo'1..1.'I. aR II'1I/a,1..1.'I. For each wellbore equation, the following terms relate
the well bore residual to fracture and matrix unknowns as
op w!;,j.k_1 oS >lii';,k" I °PII'lIla i,;.k_1 oS 1I'lIla i.j,k-1 well as to wellbore pressure.
aR omai,j.k aRoma,f,j.'I. aR ollla r.}.
, 'I. aR m/ul1,./.
, 'I.
aR",. aR",., aRwI.} aR II ·, ]
apW!;k_1 oSlIii1..1. I.-I ap willa i.j.k" I as II'// lit i,;,k-I K - 1../ 1 •.1
I.)
f.},
i,J,k- [ 0 as
'P llii.j.k wfi,;.k ap lI'IIUI;.j.k

............................... (28)
................................ (26)
and
The B, D, E, F, H, J, M, P, Q, and S matrices are similar
to the A matrix but have different subscripts as shown in
L i,} = ----''- . . .......................... (29)
Eqs. 22 and 23. OPbh iJ
For nodes connected to a well bore , the following vec-
tor is needed to couple the fracture and matrix residual
equations to the wellbore pressure when flow rates are The resulting form of the set of simultaneous equations
specified. for a 27-node system (Fig. 6) is shown in Fig. 7.

AUGUST 1983 699

 Well Well
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2
E, I, H, F, J, X, R,

~ E2 12 H2 F2 J2 X2 R.
,... E3 H3 F3 J3 X3 R3

4 B. E. I. H. F. X. R.
Bs A" Es IS Hs Fs Xs Rs

~ Ae Ee H6 F. Xe As
B, E, I, F, X, R,

~ As Ee 16 F. X8 As
9 Be At f.., Fg Xg Rg

10 0'0 ElO 1'0 H,o F,o X,o R,o

11 0" A" E" I" Hll Fll X" Rll

12 0,2 A'2 E'2 H'2 F'2 x,. R'2
13 0'3 B'3 E'3 1'3 H'3 F'3 X'3 R'3
14 0,. B,. A,. E,. I,. H,. F,. X,. R,.

15 D,s B,s A,s E,s H,s F,s X,S R,s

16 0,. B'6 E,. I,. F,o J,. X,s R,o

17 0" B'7 A" E" I" F" J" X,7 R17

18 0'8 B'8 A,S E,s F'8 J'8 X'S R,s
19 0'9 E'9 I,. H'9 X,g R'9
20 0 20 A20 ~ 120 ~ X20

21 O2, A2, E.!, H2, X2,

22 0 22 ~2 E.!2 122 H22 X22

23 0.3 ~3 ~3 E.!3 123 H23 X23

24 O2• ~. A2• E.!. H2•

25 0 25 ~s E.!s 12S
26 026 ~ ~ e.s 126

27 O2, ~, A2, E.!7

Wei I K, K2 K3 L,
1
Wei I K,s K" K'8 ~
2

Fig. 7-Equation form for 27-node grid system.

Chemical Transport Formulation Equations Solved

Chemical tmnsport equations are not solved in the fully The geneml solution scheme is to calculate the residual
implicit Newton-Raphson form, but are solved sequen- vector, R, and Jacobian matrix, aRlax. at iteration level
tially after all other unknowns are solved. As with the e, then solve for ox as is defined in Eq. 21. The solution
previous finite-difference expansion, a set of at iteration H I is then given by
simultaneous equations of the form of Eqs. 22 and 23
results. X f + 1 =xf +oxf . .......................... (31)
The unknowns represented by x are

[
IW(i 1 . . ................... (30)
For an acceptable solution, xl'+ I must approach xl'.
Therefore, itemtion is required until ox < E -an arbi-
Iwcma i.}.k tmrily assigned convergence limit. We normally use an E
of 0.001 psi (l.45 X 10 -4 kPa) for pressure solution
Since adsorption is a function of concentration, an and 0.0001 (fmction) for saturations.
iterative scheme is required. Note that the coefficient In solving the system of simultaneous equations, five
matrices A, B, etc., are now only 2x2 matrices instead equations for each node (fracture and matrix equations
of 4 x4. The resistance factors to the water and oil for each phase and a mte equation) may be written, and
phases and the water viscosity are calculated by using then the five unknowns at each node may be solved.
concentration at the previous timestep. However, all nodes do not contain wellbores. We used a
700 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 Well Well
2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2
E' , I', JK, H, F, X, R,

A', E', I', H, F, x, R,

JK3 A3 E', H3 F3 X3 R3

B. E. I. H. F. X. R.

Bs As Es I, Hs Fs Xs Rs
6 Be As Es He F. X. As
B7 E7 11 F7 X7 R7

Be As Es Ie Fe X8 R.

Bg Ag Es Fg Xg As
10 D,o i Ew I,D H,o F,o X'D R,o

11 D" An E" In H" Fll Xll Rn

12 D" A12 E" H" F" X" R"
13 D'3 B'3 E13 1'3 H'3 F'3 X'3 R13
14 D,. B,. A,. E,. I,. H,. F,. X,. R,.

15 D,s B,s A,s E" H,s F,s x,~ R,s

16 D'6 B,. E"6 1"6 JK'6 F'6 X'6 R,s

17 D" B" A'17 E"7 1'17 F" X17 R"

18 D,. B'8 JK, A"8 E"8 F'8 X'8 R,.
19 D'9 E'9 1'9 H'9 X'9
20 D,o A,o E,o I,D H,o X,o

21 D21 A21 E" H21 X" R21

22 D" s" E" 122 H'2 X,, R"

23 D'3 B'3 A'3 E,3 123 H" X'3 R'3

24 D,. s,. A,. E,. H,. X,. R2•

25 D,s s's E'5 1,5 X'5 A,s

26 D'6 S,6 A,s E'6 1'6 X'8 R,e

27 D'7 S,7 A27 E'1 X27 R"

Wei I K, K, L, RW,
K3 XW,
1
Wei I L, XW, RW
2 K'6 K17 K,s

Fig. a-Equation form after partial elimination,

greatly reduced number of equations by writing only four the 4x4 submatrix E, Eq. 22, to two fracture unknowns
flow equations for each node and one additional equation per node. This is very important for computation speed
for each well. and to increase the practical size of systems that can be
The resulting form of the equations for the 27 -node solved.
two-well system in Fig. 6 is shown in Fig. 7, The After solutions have been obtained for water satura-
well bore equations are placed after the fracture and tions and pressures, the chemical transport equations are
matrix equations and thus appear outside the normal solved for chemical weight fractions.
banded structure found in most reservoir simulators. Again, a partial-elimination scheme can be used to
With this form, an efficient band-structure Gauss eliminate matrix weight fraction from the fracture equa-
elimination cannot be used. tion. Then, an efficient Gauss elimination is used on a
However, the L terms in Fig. 7 are used to eliminate reduced system that has only one unknown per
the J terms by partial elimination. A band structure with node-the fracture weight fraction of chemical. The
the same bandwidth found in conventional finite- solution is then used to obtain the weight fraction of
difference simulators gives the results shown in the up- chemical in the matrix blocks.
per left portion of the coefficient matrix (Fig. 8). This
banded block of the coefficient matrix is solved first. Two-Porosity System Parameters
That solution is then used to solve for the wellbore Most data required to evaluate the matrix transmissibility
unknowns from the lower part of the coefficient matrix. term in Eq. 4 are similar to the data used in other reser-
The technique is still fully implicit. voir simulators and can be obtained from routine core
The number of equations to be solved by Gauss and fluid analyses. Similar data are required to describe
elimination is further reduced by partial eliminations 6 in the fractures, and many authors have described measure-
AUGUST 1983 701

1.0
~ U
:.0
'"
cu
§
cu
a.
cu
>
:;
a;
a:
Water Saturation
Fig. 9-Relative permeability.
ment of fractured reservoir properties. 18 Some clarifica-
tion of required data is presented here.
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to measure ac-
curately fracture relative-permeability curves for a reser-
voir. Assuming that all other data are known, the curves
could be determined by being adjusted to history-match
field data. For flow in a bundle of tubes, a relative-
permeability curve has been measured for which relative
permeability is equal to phase saturation 19 (Fig. 9). This
is probably the best curve to use as a starting point. Both
phases should be mobile for the entire range of satura-
tions for the fractures. Matrix relative permeability
would be that measured on an unfractured core. Fig. 9
shows an example curve. As previously mentioned,
upstream relative permeability is used for flow between
matrix and fractures in this simulator. Other authors have
used different methods. 6
Fracture capillary pressure is also difficult to measure.
The capillary pressure would be near zero for most
water-saturation values, but to maintain gravity/capillary
equilibrium, the maximum capillary pressure in the
matrix and fracture must be set equal. An example of a
fracture capillary-pressure curve is shown in Fig. 10.
Matrix capillary-pressure curves are those measured on
un fractured core samples (Fig. 10). The difference be-
tween fracture and matrix capillary pressures represents
the imbibition driving force. Imbibition is often a major
mechanism of recovery in fractured reservoirs. Imbibi-
tion curves are required for oil-recovery calculation;
drainage curves are needed for initialization.
In naturally fractured systems, the correct fracture
permeability to be used is
702
14~----~----~------r-----'------,
10
8
iii
a.
a.
6
4
0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation
Fig. 10-Capillary pressure.
ke
k j = - , .............................. (32)
cPj
where ke is the effective permeability measured by the
slope of a pressure-buildup curve. Eq. 32 can be derived
as follows for one set of normal fractures. If the fractures
can be equivalently represented by a series of horizontal
parallel fractures with a width b and vertical spacing Lma
+ b (where Lma represents matrix block edge length),
the effective permeability of the formation would be
(kt )b+(k ma )Lma
--::..--------. . .................. (33)
Lma+ b
Assuming that surface fracture porosity equals volume
fracture porosity, and that b is much less than L ma' Eq.
33 becomes
ke =kj cPj+k ma , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (34)
where cPt represents fracture volume divided by total
reservoir volume. Since kma (the permeability measured
on unfractured cores) is normally much smaller than k e ,
Eq. 32 is valid. Eq. 32 would still be valid for additional
sets of orthogonal fractures. The b used in Eq. 33 is just
an apparent fracture width and is not likely to be the true
value in the field.
Another equation that has been used to approximate
fracture permeability is - Poiseuille' slaw, which, for
permeability of two parallel flat plates, is
k p =54X10 9 bi ' ........................ (35)
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

2.04'
''''4---100'---+''1 I+-
r
100'
FRACTURE
NODES
- -------,'
MATRIX
NODES
Fig. 11-Vertical single-porosity grid.
for kp in millidarcies and bp in inches. The coefficient is
83.7x 10 9 for kin p,m 2 and b p in meters. If the value of
b from Eq. 33 is used in Poiseuille's law, an incorrect
fracture permeability would normally result since it is
just an apparent fracture width. It is obvious that
Poiseuille's law is not a linear equation. A I-in.
(0.025-m) fracture would not have the same flow capaci-
ty as 100 O.OI-in. (0.00025-m) fractures. For a I-in.
(0.025-m) fracture, the permeability would be 54 x 10 9
md (54 X 10 6 p,m), and the flow capacity, kph, would be
4.5x10 9 md-ft (1.35x10 6 p,m 2 ·m). For O.oI-in.
(0.00025-m) fractures, kph would be 4.5 x 10 5 md-ft
(1.35X10 2 p,m 2 ·m). Thus, the many small fractures
have I/lO,OOOth the flow capacity of the I-in. (0.025-m)
fracture.
An actual reservoir has a wider range of fracture sizes.
The idealization of an equivalent fracture set for model-
ing is correct if the correct permeability is used. Since ke
(not b) is a property of the system, the correct width to
use in Poiseuille' s law is
,----;;;:- Ike
bp=....;~ ='\j 54X109<Pf' .......... (36)
where one could assume that
2: bp=b ............................. (37)
However, neither b p nor b is an exact representation of
the fractures in a reservoir.
An equation identical to Eq. 35 can be obtained from
Hele Shaw models.
The fractures, without consideration of the rest of the
reservoir, would have a porosity of 1.0 (i.e., they are en-
tirely void of rock). However, fracture porosity is de-
fined as fracture volume divided by total volume:
AUGUST 1983
14-102.04' -+'-----..
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
FRACTURE
MATRIX
t
NODES
Fig. 12-Vertical two-porosity grid.
Vf
<Pf=- . ............................... (38)
VT
Total volume is the volume of un fractured rock plus the
volume of the fractures. Matrix porosity is also defined
with respect to total reservoir volume. Therefore, matrix
porosity is not the same as unfractured core porosity
measured in the laboratory:
<Pma=<Pcore(l-<Pf)' ...................... (39)
The definition of (1 (Eq. 5) can be derived from a con-
servative finite-difference expansion for flow between
fractures and cubical matrix blocks. For fractures in
three dimensions, Eq. 5 would give the apparent matrix
block size. For flow in one or two dimensions, the cor-
responding L terms are deleted. Other authors have
presented different equations for (1.1,5,6 If there is a frac-
ture along only one side of the matrix block for one-
dimensional (ID) systems, the coefficient in Eq. 5 is
2.0. For field scale models, the value of (1 is a property
of the system and for uniformly fractured media would
be independent of gridblock size. The "correct" value
of a does not depend on the assumption of matrix block
shape. Eq. 5 is used only to deduce an apparent matrix
block size, L, from the value of (1. If matrix block shape
were known exactly, then the value of a could be
calculated from Eq. 5 as shown in Example 1. Note that
k e, <Pf' and a are properties of the system; kf , b, andL ma
are only apparent values that define a model equivalent
to the true system.
Within a given gridblock, the height at which the
equations are evaluated may not be the same for the frac-
tures and matrix. For a given gridblock, the fractures
could be anywhere between the top of the block and the
bottom. The term K!{ relates the depth of matrix, D lila'
703
 TABLE 1-DATA FOR VERTICAL GRID. SINGLE- to the depth of the fractures. D f, expressed by Eq. 40
AND DOUBLE-POROSITY MODELS' and accounts for gravity forces between fracture and
matrix.
Single Double
Porosity Porosity
525 (160) 525 (160)
Dma =Df+~·Kg . ....................... (40)
0woc. ft (m)
P woc • psi (kPa) 1,700 (11 721) 1,700 (11 721)
AX, ft (m) 102.04 (31.10) Kg can range from -0.5 to +0.5.
AX" ft (m) 100 (30.5) All flow from node to node and into wells must be
AX 2 , ft (m) 2.04 (0.62) through the fractures. Eq. 12 was developed by assum-
Ay. ft (m) 100 (30.5) 100 (30.5)
10 (3.1) 10 (3.1)
ing radial flow into the wellbore; but. depending on frac-
AZ'_10. ft (m)
k ma • md 100 ture orientation. flow into the wellbore may be ID in the
k x , md 100 x, y, or z direction. Therefore, the equation used to
k zf , md 100,000 calculate well-pressure drop or flow rate may require
k z " md 0
modification for these cases.
k Z2 ' md 100.000
<P, 0.02 Example l-Single- vs. Two-Porosity
<Pma 0.1392
<P, 0.142
Systems
<1>2 1.0 To verify the accuracy of the assumptions used in
Of, 0.0 developing our two-porosity fonnulation, single- and
Oms, 0.0 two-porosity models were compared for both vertical
0, 0.0 and horizontal systems. Conventional simulators are
a, sq ft (m2) 0.0002
qt. STBID (stock-tank called single-porosity systems because each node has on-
m 3 /d) 500 (79.5) 500 (79.5) ly one porosity associated with it and therefore separate
'Water influx based on constant-pressure boundaries. Fluid properties are
nodes are needed for matrix and fractures (Fig. 11). For
the same as given in Table 3. Capillary pressure and relative permeabilities the single-porosity fonnulation, the fracture nodes have
are shown in Figs. 9 and, O.
a porosity of 1.0, and the porosity of the matrix nodes
equals the unftactured core porosity of 0.142. For the
two-porosity system, each node has two porosities
assigned to it-one each for fracture and matrix (Fig.
12). The two porosities assigned to each node are ex-
pressed by Eqs. 38 and 39, yielding a fracture porosity of
TABLE 2-PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING DATA
2 % and matrix porosity of 13.92 %. Because the fracture
Owoc' ft (m) 586 (179) is along only one side of the matrix block, (J is equal to
Pi' psi (kPa) 1,646 (11 349) two divided by (Lx)2. Table 1 lists all data used. As
p., cp (Pa· s) 0.8 (0.0008) shown in Fig. 13, both fonnulations produce the same
P. Ibm/cu ft (kg/m 3 ) 6204 (1000)
0.34 (0.104)
answers. In this example, twice as many nodes are re-
{w' ft (m)
Drainage area, acres (m2) 2,560 (1004 x 10 6 ) quired for the single-porosity case as for the two-porosity
C¢f. pSi-' (Pa-') 3x10- 6 (4.35 x 10-- 1°) system. Note that both the "conventional" single-
C ,,;ma' psi -1 (Pa -1 ) 3x10-- 6 (4.35x10- 10 ) porosity model and the two-porosity model give exactly
Net pay, ft (m) 210 (64) the same infonnation in this case because there is one
kXf' md 1,000
k ma • md 1.0 matrix block per gridblock. Each model still has 40
<P cor. 0.142 unknowns.
<l>ma 0.1392 If the matrix blocks were broken down further into
<l>f 0.02 several gridblocks with a conventional simulator, satura-
IJ, ft -2 (m -2) 0.0016 (0.0172)
tion distributions could be found for the matrix blocks.
kg 0.0
Bw (0 psi) 1.0 However, the work required may not justify the addi-
Cwo pSi-' (Pa-') 3.5 x 10 -6 (5.08 x 10 -10) tional infonnation obtained. In a reservoir that may con-
qt, STBID (stock-tank m 3 /d), tain thousands of matrix blocks, a single-porosity model
drawdown 100 (15.90)
would be impractical because of the many nodes and re-
Buildup o quired computing time. Comparisons for a similar
horizontal model are not included, but results are again
identical for the two models.
Example 2-Pressure Transient Testing
The fully implicit fonnulation makes the simulator very
stable computationally. With proper selection of
timestep size and grid spacing it can also be very ac-
curate. This simulator can therefore be used to match
pressure transient test results.
A single-phase radial system using data in Table 2 was
compared with the analytical solution for an infinite-
acting system. The analytical solution is given in Refs. 1
and 2. To eliminate boundary effects, a drainage area of
2,560 acres (1.04 x 10 7 m 2 ) was used in the model. Fig.

704 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

14 compares the buildup curve with the analytical solu- TABLE3-TRACER INJECTION DATA*
tion. The results are nearly identical. The shape factor is
constant for all nodes because we are assuming a Pi' psi (kPa) 1,650 (11 376)
"'W' cp (Pa·s) 0.8 (0,0008)
uniformly fractured system in which radial flow applies. 40 (0.040)
"'0' cp (Pa·s)
We don't need to assume anything else about the shape P W ' Ibm/cu ft (kg/m3) 62.4 (1000)
or distribution of the fractures. Po' Ibm/cu ft (kg/m 3 ) 58 (930)
To increase the model's versatility, skin factors, co' psi - 1 (Pa -1 ) 1.5 x 10 -5 (2.18 x 10 -9)
c W' psi -1 (Pa -1 ) 3.5x10- 6 (5.08x10- 10 )
wellbore storage, and exponential time step distribution
<Prna 0.1392
were included for more complicated pressure-test <P, 0.02
simulations. k ma , md 18,6
Example 3-Nine-Point Connection k" md 55,000
SW( 0.01
With Tracer
SW~i 0.08
An inverted five-spot system was simulated by using q;nj' STB/D (stock-tank m 3 ) 2,960 (470.6)
finite-difference grids of the form shown in Figs. 4 and 5 f wC,inj' Ibm/lbm (kg/kg) 0.25 (0.25)
to study the effect of nine-point connection with tracer t inj , day 0.02
PM' psi (kPa)** 1,620 (11 170)
transport. The tracer response of the four producers at 215 (65.5)
h, ft (m)
the comers of a uniformly fractured five-spot system is (J, ft -2 (m -2) 0.0016 (0.0172)
shown in Fig. 15 for the data in Table 3. The tracer Well spacing, acres (m2) 10 (4069)
response for an unfractured reservoir with the same total ·Capillary·pressure curves and relative-permeability curves are shown in Figs.
porosity and effective permeability is also shown. Fig. 9 and 10,
•• BHP was specified for production wells,
15 also shows the tracer penetration in a matrix block
near a producer for the fractured system. The tracer
response when fracture permeability near Well 1 was
reduced from 55,000 md to 1,000 md to simulate
nonuniform fracture distribution is shown in Fig. 16.
Polymer flooding examples have not been included 6000 600
here for brevity's sake.
Conclusions 5000
./
500
/'
Development and testing of our strongly coupled, two- )"

porosity numerical simulator led to the following 4000 /' 400

III ./' a:
./
conclusions. I- 0
1. The fully implicit formulation permits use of large
(/)
3000 ./
o/f 300 ~
/'

timesteps without stability problems and provides ex- r

/'

./
cellent material balances. 2000 / 200
./ = Two-Porosity
2. Strong coupling at the wellbore permits hydrostatic
pressure gradient to be maintained at formation perfora- 1000 /
/
/
/
.0 Single-Porosity
100
/
tions and provides for interlayer well bore flow. /'
/

3. The model can handle severe reservoir hetero- 0

0
-'" 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
1400 1600
geneity. t, days
4. Partial elimination of matrix and well terms before
Gaussian elimination results in a large increase in speed Fig. 13-Single· vs. two-porosity model prediction for vertical
with no loss of accuracy. system.
5. Processor time per time step is greater than that of a
semi-implicit formulation, but total processor time is
reduced because of the ability to use large timesteps.
1646
6. Solution of only the fracture equations can be used I'

to simulate single-porosity systems. iii

1644
7. Tracer transport and nine-point connection can be i
i
used to determine severe local channeling and directional 1642 i i
i
effects.
8. The two-porosity formulation can apply to many 'in i
a. 1640 - i
heterogeneous formulations where one porosity (e.g., ~ i
fractures and/or high-permeability channels) provides a. 1638 r- i
the main path for fluid flow and a second porosity acts as i o Analytical
1636 • Numerical
a source or sink term.
i
9. The Warren-and-Root-type model is computa- 1634 i
tionally less expensive than a conventional model that
1632 I I. I.
uses separate nodes for matrix and fractures, and in most
105 104 103 102 10
cases will give essentially the same information.
Unsteady-state multi phase flow between matrix and frac- + 61
tures is properly accounted for, but unsteady-state flow 6t
within individual matrix blocks cannot be simulated with
Fig. 14-Pressure buildup prediction vs. analytical solution,
our model.

AUGUST 1983 705

 130
U"f"m~
130

110 110
'J
3 4
90

E E
0-
0- 70
0-
n
50

30

10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
DAYS AFTER INJECTION DAYS AFTER INJECTION

Fig. 15-Tracer response for five- and nine-point finite Fig. 16-Tracer response in a heterogeneous system.
difference.

Nomenclature P coefficient submatrix for i-I, j + I

a = adsorption, mg/g of rock unknowns in nine-point connection
A = coefficient for wellbore flow equation; coef- Pc oil/water system capillary pressure, psi
ficient submatrix for k - 1 unknowns (kPa)
b = width of fracture, ft (m) q = producing interval flow rate, STB/D (stock-
B = coefficient submatrix for I unknowns tank m 3 /d)
B formation volume factor, RB/STB (res q, = total wellbore flow rate, STB/D (stock-tank
m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ) m 3 /d)
C = constant Q coefficient submatrix for i + I, I
D = depth of gridblock, ft (m); coefficient sub- unknowns in nine-point connection
matrix for i-I unknowns r = node radius, ft (m)
E = main diagonal coefficient sub matrix rl = outer radius of first node, ft (m)
Iv = accessible PV, fraction rw = wellbore radius, ft (m)
I we chemical weight fraction in fluid, lbmllbm fl.r gridblock dimension in r direction (radial
(kg/kg) coordinates), ft (m)
F coefficient submatrix for i + I unknowns
R = residual equation for Newton-Raphson form
g = fluid gradient, psi/ft (kPa/m)
s skin factor, dimensionless
h = formation thickness, ft (m)
S saturation; coefficient submatrix for i + 1,
H = coefficient submatrix for j + 1 unknowns j + 1 unknowns in nine-point connection
I = coefficient submatrix for k+ I unknowns t = time, days
J = coefficient sub matrix for wellbore pressure fl.t = timestep size, days
effect on fracture equations
T = fluid transmissibility, STBID-psi (stock-tank
k permeability, md m 3 /d' kPa)
ke effective formation permeability, md V = volume, STB (stock-tank m 3 )
kr = relative permeability, fraction x primary variable vector
K = coefficient submatrix for primary variable fl.x gridblock dimension in x direction, ft (m)
effect on wellbore equation
fl.y gridblock dimension in y direction, ft (m)
Kg = coefficient of gravity between matrix and
fl.z gridblock dimension in z direction, ft (m)
fractures, dimensionless
L coefficient submatrix for well bore pressure
o = change in the value of primary variables
during an iteration
effect on wellbore equation
fl. = finite-difference operator
L = length of matrix block edges, ft (m)
fl., = value at time n+ 1 minus value at time n
M = coefficient submatrix for i-I, 1
unknowns in nine-point connection E convergence limit for Newton-Raphson
Nimh = total oil recoverable by imbibition, STB
o = time integration variable
(stock-tank m 3 ) fJ. fluid viscosity. cp (Pa' s)
p fluid pressure, psi (kPa) p density, Ibm/cu ft (kg/m3)

706 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 fracture spacing parameter, ft -2 (m -2) (Dec. 1969) 451-62: Trails .. AIME. 246.
3. Najurieta. H.L: "Inierference and Pulse Testing in Unifonnly
time for 63 % of Nimh Frdctured Reservoirs, .. paper SPE 8283 presented at the 1979 SPE
porosity, fraction Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Las Vegas, Sept.
23-26.
fluid potential, psi (kPa) 4. Kazemi, H. and Merrill. LS.: "Numerical Simulatiorl' of Water
w upstream weighting factor Imbibition in Fractured Cores." Soc. Pet. Ellg. J. (June 1979)
175-82.
Subscripts 5. Kazemi. H. et al.: "Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs." Soc. Pet. Ellg. J. (Dec. 1976)
aq = aquifer property 317-26.
6. Thomas. L.K .. Dixon. T.N .. and Pierson. R.G.: "fractured
b boundary property, base value, bulk Reservoir Simulation." Soc. Pet. Ellg. J. (Feb. 1983) 42-54.
property 7. Gilman, J.R. and Kazemi. H.: "Improvements in Simulation of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs." paper SPE 10511 presented at
bh wellbore bottomhole property the 1982 Reservoir Simulation Symposium. New Orleans. Jan.
c chemical component index 31-Feb. 3.
core unfractured core property 8. Rossen. R.H.: "Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
with Semi-Implicit Source Terms." Soc. Pel. Ellg. 1. (June 1977)
f = fracture 201-10.
g = gas phase 9. de Swaan. A.: "Theory of Waterflooding in Fractured Reser-
voirs." Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (April 1978) 117-22,
= x- or r-direction node counter 10. Craft. B.C. and Hawkins. M,F.: Applied PetroleulI/ R!'S('I'l'IIir
j = y-direction node counter Engineering. Prentice-Hall Inc .. Englewood Cliffs. NJ (1959)
287-88.
k = z-direction node counter II. Peaceman. D.W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in
I = perforation location Numerical Reservoir Simulation With Nonsquarc Grid Blocks and
Anisotropic Permeability," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1983) 531-43.
rna matrix 12. Kuniansky. J. and Hillestad. J.G.: "Reservoir Simulation Using
node node property Bottom-Hole Pressure Boundary Conditions." Soc. Pel. Eng. 1.
o = oil phase (Dec. 1980) 473-86.
13. Aziz, K. and Settari. A.: PetroleulIl Reserl'llir Sill/Illation. Ap-
p Poiseuille' s law property plied Science Publishers. London (1979) 100-04.
r = radial flow property 14. Aug. A.D.K. et al.: "Techniques for Fully Implicit Reservoir
Simulation." paper SPE 9302 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual
rk = rock property Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas. Sept. 21-24.
t = time 15. Trimble. R.H. and McDonald. A.E.: "A Strongly Coupled. fully
Implicit. Three-Dimensional. Three-Phase Well Coning Model."
T= total system property Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1981) 454-58.
w= water phase 16. Bansal. P.P. el al.: "A Strongly Coupled. Fully Implicit. Three-
Dimensional. Three-Phase Reservoir Simulator... paper SPE 8329
w = wellbore presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
x = x-direction flow property hibition, Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26.
y = y-direction flow property 17. Yanosik. 1.L. and McCracken. T.A.: "A Nine-Point. Finite-
Difference Reservoir Simulator for Realistic Prediction of Adverse
z z-direction flow property Mobility Ratio Displacements." Soc. Pet. Ellg. 1. (Aug. 1979)
a water and oil phases 253-62.
18. van Poollen. H.K. and Aguilera, R.: Natl/mlll' Fmcll/red Reser-
~ spatial dimension voirs, Petroleum Publishing Co .. Tulsa (1980).
1> rock property 19. Fait. I.: "Network Model of Porous Media. II-Dynamic Prop-
erties of a Single Size Tube Network," 1. Pet. Tech. (July 1956)
Superscripts 144-59: TrailS .. AIME. 207.

f = iteration level SI Metric Conversion Factors

n previous time level bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m)
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Acknowledgment psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
We thank the management at Marathon Oil Co., Denver
Research Center, for permission to publish this paper. 'Conversion factor is exact SPEJ
References
I. Warren. J.E. and Root. PJ.: "The Behavior of Naturally Frac-
tured Reservoirs." Soc. Pel. Eng. J. (Sept. 1963) 245-55: Trans ..
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Oct. 14, 1981
AIME,228. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 10, 1982. Revised manuscript received March 7,
2. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured t983. Paper (SPE 10511) first presented at the 1982 SPE Reservoir Simulation Sym-
Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution." Soc. Pel. Eng. J. posium held in New Orleans, Jan. 31 ..·Feb. 3

AUGUST 1983 707