HYFRANC3D

A three dimensional
hydraulic fracture
analysis code

Version 1
User's Guide and Menu Reference
April 15, 1999

1 INTRODUCTION
This document is a user's guide for the hydraulic fracture simulator HYFRANC3D, a
FRacture ANalysis Code for 3 Dimensional simulation of hydraulic fracturing. It
describes how to use the program and some of the concepts behind the program for
performing hydraulic fracture analysis. This assumes that the user is already familiar with
FRANC3D, the basis of HYFRANC3D. Information for FRANC3D can be obtained
from the other FRANC3D reference documentation (www.cfg.cornell.edu/software/).
The theory behind the coupled fluid flow - fracture propagation is available in several
publications.
2 MENU REFERENCE
This section describes the additional menus that are added to FRANC3D for hydraulic
fracture. The first is Write HyFSys File, which is available from the Read/Write
Analysis Files (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Read/Write Analysis Files Menu.

2.1 Write .hyf File
The Write HyFSys File menu (Figure 2) is used to set fluid flow boundary conditions and
to write the .hyf file, which contains the finite element data, boundary condition, and fluid
and material properties.

Figure 2. Write .hyf File menu.

Set Leakoff Coefficient

Set the leakoff coefficient for a region. The user is prompted to select a region of
the model. Pick a point on the screen that falls within the region, rotate the
model, and then pick a second point along the displayed line such that the
intersection point falls in the region. When a valid point in a region is defined, a
dialog box is displayed (Figure 3), which allows the user to set the Carter leakoff
coefficient. A coefficient of 0.0 implies an impermeable rock formation. This is
the default for all regions of the model.

Figure 3. Carter leakoff coefficient dialog box.

Set Initial Boundary Conditions
Set the fluid type and properties, the flow rate boundary conditions, closure
pressure and crack type. These parameters must be set for the initial model (initial
crack model), but do not have to be set for subsequent models (steps of
propagation). A submenu is presented first (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Set Initial Boundary Conditions submenu.

set closure, fluid & crack type
The user is prompted to pick a point on the crack surface (on any face of the crack
surface). After picking a point on a crack surface, select FINISH. A dialog box
(Figure 5) is displayed that allows the user to set the closure pressure, fluid
properties, crack type and initial crack size for that particular crack. If there are
multiple cracks, these parameters must be set for each crack.

Figure 5. Initial boundary conditions dialog box.

The fluid type is either Newtonian or power-law. At this stage, Newtonian fluid is
the only supported fluid type due to the analytical crack front solution. Beware of
the unit of viscosity; it must be consistent with the unit of Youngs modulus, flow
rate, and other properties and boundary conditions.
Two different initial crack types are supported, radial or slot. These types
correspond to the two-dimensional radial and KGD types of hydraulic fracture
geometry. The hydraulic fracture solution procedure requires an initial estimate of
pressure and crack opening displacement to provide a starting point for the
iterative solution procedure for the first time stage only (initial crack model). This
solution is provided by an analytical estimate. The radius of the radial crack or
the length and height of the slot crack must be entered.
Finally, the closure stress must be entered. This is the far-field stress normal to
the crack surface and is only used for the initial analytical solution in order to
compute initial fluid pressure and crack opening displacement.
define point flow rates
The user is prompted to pick a point on the crack surface. After picking a point
on the crack surface, select FINISH. The user is then prompted to pick vertices
on the crack where point flow boundary conditions exist. Select FINISH when
all the points are chosen. A dialog box (Figure 6) is displayed that allows the user
to set the flow rate. Note that we only allow one flow rate boundary condition to
be specified for each crack. The total flow rate specified for the crack is then
equally split between the selected vertices.

Figure 6. Flow rate boundary condition dialog box

define edge flow rates

The user is prompted to pick a point on the crack surface. After picking a point
on the crack surface, select FINISH. The user is then prompted to pick edges on
the crack where flow boundary conditions exist. Select FINISH when all the
edges are chosen. A dialog box (Figure 6) is displayed that allows the user to set
the flow rate. Note that we only allow one flow rate boundary condition to be
specified for each crack. The total flow rate specified for the crack is then split
between the selected edges according to the length of each edge.
Write .hyf File
Write the finite element data, initial boundary conditions, fluid properties, and
crack type to a .hyf file. The finite elements correspond to the boundary element
surface mesh. Essentially, a shell element is assumed to exist between the two
crack surfaces and the shell elements have a direct correspondence with boundary
elements on the crack surface. A file selector box is presented (Figure 7). Enter
the file name in the Filename: text entry field and select Accept. The .hyf
extension is added automatically if you do not type it.
Create Extra Flex Sets
The user is presented with an additional menu (Figure 8). The extra flex sets are
used to provide far-field loading that can be modified during the fluid flow
simulations. The usual static far field loading that is applied in FRANC3D cannot
be modified after the elastic boundary element solution. The procedure requires
that the user Open a Flex Set File and then select model faces to be added to the
flex set. The faces in a flex set are subjected to the same load. Any number of
these flex sets can be created. The file must be closed by selecting Close Flex Set
File after adding all the required faces.

Figure 7. File selector dialog box.

Figure 8. Create Extra Flex Sets menu.

2.2 Hydraulic Fracture
The second menu that is added to FRANC3D is the Hydraulic Fracture menu, which is
available from the Visualize/Analyze Results menu. This menu (Figure 9) is used to
read in the .hyf file, build up the shell finite element model, solve the coupled fluid flow structure equations, view the response information, propagate the hydraulic fracture(s),
and save the final equilibrium solution for the model.

Figure 9. Hydraulic Fracture menu.

Build Model From File
Read the shell finite element data along with the initial boundary conditions, fluid
properties, and crack type from the .hyf file. A file selector box showing all the
.hyf files is presented. The user must select the appropriate .hyf file. The .flex
file produced by BES must exist in the same directory. The .flex file is read the
first time; a .infl file, which combines all the flex solutions on the crack surface, is
then written automatically. This file is a binary file that compresses the data
making it much faster to read for subsequent solution trials. If this model is
solved again later, the .infl file is read instead of the .flex file. Note that the .infl
file is binary and cannot be transported to other computer platforms. For the
initial crack model (i.e., the first model before any propagation occurs), a dialog
box is presented (Figure 10), which allows the user to set the parameters for
solving the coupled fluid flow - structure equations.

Figure 10. Hydraulic fracture simulation parameters dialog box.

Set Solve Parameters
A dialog box similar to that shown in Figure 10 is presented, which allows the
user to adjust the parameters that are used to control the solution process, such as
tolerances and relaxation factors. The parameters in this dialog box can be
adjusted to improve the iterative non-linear solution.
The flow rate as defined in the .hyf file can be altered by selecting the all cracks
use toggle button and setting a new value under flow rate. The fluid type can be
altered in a similar manner. The next set of parameters controls the solution
tolerance and convergence criteria.
During the iterative solution, the crack opening displacement (cod) is computed.
The solution has converged when the difference in cod between the current and
previous iterations is less than the prescribed tolerance. The true solution is
controlled by the global mass balance also, i.e., the volume of fluid flowing into
the crack must equal the volume of the crack opening. The solution is converged
when the global mass balance is less than the prescribed tolerance.
Part of the solution is the time, which controls the volume of fluid pumped into
the crack. The pumping time must be altered to achieve convergence for the
current crack configuration. Because the solution is highly non-linear, we need to
control the rate at which we alter the time step. This is done using the global time
step relaxation factor. In addition, the initial starting time can be altered so that
the solution converges more rapidly.

The maximum number of iterations controls how long the solution is allowed to
iterate. This number is based on the global mass balance iterations. Within each
of these iterations, we iterate on cod as well. This maximum number can be
increased on the terminal window if the solution appears to be converging and the
maximum is exceeded.
The remaining two parameters control the solution in the case of leakoff. We
solve for leakoff using the one-dimensional empirical leakoff coefficient. To
improve the solution procedure, we ramp up the leakoff starting from zero leakoff
and ending at the proper solution. The user controls the number of steps and the
rate at which the leakoff is ramped-up.
Solve Current Model
Solve the set of coupled fluid flow and structural equations. The iterative process
is displayed on the terminal window as the solution proceeds. The user can
monitor the convergence (or lack of convergence). If the solution process
converges within the specified number of iterations, the iterations terminate and
control is passed back to the user. At this stage, the user can examine the results,
save the solved model, and/or propagate the crack. If the solution does not
converge, the user can increase the allowable number of iterations and/or modify
the parameters in the dialog box that control the iterative solution procedure.
Display Response Info
A submenu is presented (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Display Response submenu.

Global equilibrium
Prints to the terminal window the global equilibrium parameters such as total
crack volume and total fluid volume.
Crack equilibrium
Prints to the terminal window the equilibrium data for a specific crack. The user
is prompted to select the crack by picking a point on the crack surface.
Color contours
Presents a new window for displaying contours. The user is prompted to enter an
initial magnification factor for displaying the color contours on the deformed

crack surfaces. A new window is then presented. This window is similar to the
Deformation/Contour window in FRANC3D. However, only the crack surface(s)
are displayed by default. The deformed surfaces and color contours can only be
shown for the crack surfaces.
Line plots
Presents a new window for displaying data in x-y form. The user is prompted to
pick lines on the crack surface. Multiple lines can be given by picking the first
point and last point of the lines until the user selects FINISH. A new window is
presented showing the line(s) on the model surface and the user can then select the
response value to be plotted. The normalized length of the lines is plotted on the
x-axis while the data is plotted on the y-axis. This window is similar to the Line
Plot window in FRANC3D.
Point response
Displays response data for a surface point. The user is prompted to select a point
on the crack surface. The data is printed on the terminal window.
Node response
Displays response data for a node on the crack. The user is prompted to select a
node on the crack surface. The data is printed on the terminal window.
Write and Read .besout File
A submenu is presented (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Write and Read .besout File submenu.

write and read .besout file
Writes out the .besout file then reads it back in; see the next two submenu entries.
These two steps are necessary for crack propagation and to determine global
displacements combining both far field loading and fluid pressure in the crack.
write .besout file
Prompts the user to select the .flex file. The influence matrices are combined with
the equilibrium fluid pressures and the equilibrium displacements in the entire
model are determined. The user is then prompted to enter the .besout file name in
the file selector box. The displacements and tractions are then written to the
.besout file.
read .besout file
Prompts the user to select the .besout file; the data is read in as it would be if the
user selected Read BES File from the Read/Write Analysis Files menu.

Advance Crack Front

Once the coupled fluid flow solution is found, the crack can be advanced to create
the geometry of the next time stage. A submenu is presented (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Advance Crack Front submenu.

stress intensity factors
Prompts the user to select a point on the crack front and then presents a dialog box
(Figure 14). The dialog box allows the user to select parameters for displaying the
stress intensity factors. See the FRANC3D Menu and Dialog reference for further
details.

Figure 14. The Stress Intensity Factors dialog box.

show new front points
Prompts the user to select a point on the crack front and then presents a dialog box
(Figure 15a,b). The dialog box allows the user to select the crack growth
direction model and the maximum extension. See the FRANC3D Menu and
Dialog reference for further details.

Figure 15a. The Crack Propagation Models dialog box.

Figure 15b. The Crack Extension Models dialog box.

fit polynomial to front
Prompts the user to select a point on the crack front and then presents a dialog box
(Figure 16). The dialog box allows the user to fit the new crack front points with
a polynomial to smooth the new crack front points. See the FRANC3D Menu and
Dialog reference for further details.

Figure 16. The Polynomial Fitted Data dialog box.

propagate crack
Prompts the user to select a point on the crack front. The crack is then
propagated.
Write/Read .hyd File
A .hyd file contains nodal widths, pressures, fluid speeds and crack advance data
associated with the equilibrium solution and the crack advance. A submenu is
presented (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Write/Read .hyd File submenu.

write current model
Prompts the user to save the current solved model (after propagating the crack) to
a file so that it can be used to solve the next model (step of propagation). A file
selector box is presented; enter the file name in the text entry box. It is important
that this file be saved after propagating the crack because part of the solution is
the crack front advance. The amount of crack front advance is required to solve

the fluid flow - structure equations in the subsequent model. The advance, fluid
or crack front speed, and time step must be consistent.
read solved model
Reads a previously saved solved model to use as the initial solution for the current
model. A file selector box is presented; select the appropriate .hyd file. A solved
model must read into HYFRANC3D before solving for the second and subsequent
models where the crack has been propagated.
Apply Constant Pressure
A constant pressure is applied to the crack surfaces. This feature allows the user
to quickly check to see if the model and starting fluid pressure are reasonable. An
initial constant pressure is applied to all nodes of the crack. The resulting crack
opening displacements are then computed. The results can be viewed using the
features described above.
Delete All Models
Delete the models and free the associated memory. This feature is only needed if
the user is examining a number of different models with HYFRANC3D in a
single session.

3 Example Simulation Steps

This section is designed to give a brief overview of the series of steps that are required in
order to do a hydraulic fracture simulation using HYFRANC3D.
1. Create the model with an initial crack and boundary conditions and then save the
HYFRANC3D (.fys) file.
2. Write the .bes file from the Read/Write Analysis Files menu.
3. Write the .hyf file. Select Write .hyf File from the Read/Write Analysis Files menu.
Set the leakoff coefficient, set the initial boundary conditions, and then Write the .hyf
File.
4. From the terminal window, start BES running:
> runbes ocqr quad flex file_name &
where ocqr is the out-of-core QR solver, flex and quad tells BES to create the influence
matrices, file_name is the .bes file name without the .bes extension. The & runs the job in
the background.
5. When BES is finished running (check the .q.out file to monitor the progress), you will
have a .flex file. Assuming that HYFRANC3D is running and the model is available,
from HYFRANC3D, select the Hydraulic Fracture menu button from the
Visualize/Analyze Results menu.

6. Select Build Model From File and then select the .hyf file from the list. The .flex file
is read automatically and the binary .infl file created. The .infl file combines all the .flex
matrices into a single matrix.
7. For this first model (the initial crack), a dialog box is presented that allows you to
adjust the solution parameters. If you don't know what the parameters should be, just
select Accept. For subsequent propagation steps model, see step 13.
8. Select Solve Current Model. The iterative solution process is started; monitor the
progress on the terminal window. The key is to try to get both the mass balance and the
speed error terms to converge. The mass balance error should converge toward 0.0. The
speed error should converge to zero, but might go from positive to negative. If this
happens, a message is printed to the terminal window and you are asked if you want to
iterate further. The solution actually gets worse if you continue to iterate even if the mass
balance error continues to decrease. Type in "n" to stop the iterations. If the solution
does not converge, see the Solution Procedure section below.
9. You can Display the Response Info to make sure the solution is reasonable.
10. Write and Read the .beset file next. This combines the fluid pressure with the
influence matrices along with the far field loading induced displacements and tractions to
produce the global equilibrium displacements and tractions. These values are then
written to a .beset file. This file can then be read in again, which is the same as Read
BES File from the Read/Write Analysis Files menu. You need to read in the .beset file
to advance the crack.
11. You can now Advance the Crack Front based on the stress intensity factors and the
crack front or fluid speed. The stress intensity factors are determined using displacement
correlation. The mode I stress intensity factor is then scaled down to equal Kic. (Note
that this scaling is debatable.) The direction of propagation is based on the mode I and II
stress intensity factors. The crack extension is based on the speed. The user supplies a
maximum extension. The extension at points along the crack front is scaled based on the
relative speeds. The new crack front points are then fitted with a polynomial and the
crack is then propagated. You must perform these steps manually in the given order.
12. The solved model must be saved after propagating even if you already saved it after
the solution converged; this is because the subsequent iterative process for the next crack
step requires the amount of extension along the crack front. Select the Write/Read .hyd
File menu button, select write curent model and save the .hyd file.
13. If you are dealing with the second (or later models), you must read the solved model
of the previous step before building the current model. This provides the solution of the
previous time stage necessary to solve for the current time stage (mass balance). You
should select read solved model and read in the .hyd file before going back to Step 6.

4 Solution Procedure
This section describes in more detail the actual solution procedure and methods for
obtaining convergence for cases where the convergence is difficult to achieve.
Hydraulic fracture propagation is a non-linear, time-dependent, moving boundary
problem that involves simultaneous satisfaction of solid deformation, fluid flow and
fracture mechanics. Following the discretization in both time and space, the solution
consists of a series of "snapshots" that correspond to unique instances in time and crack
shape.
The essential boundary condition consists of fluid injection sources, either point or line
sources. The natural boundary condition is the speed at the crack front, actually the fluid
speed at the boundary between the near-crack front and the bulk of the fracture.
Two approaches can be followed to obtain the next term in such a series: one can either
fix the time step and look for the corresponding geometry, or fix the geometry and look
for the corresponding time. Although the first approach is more intuitive, the latter
scheme was chosen as it minimizes the amount of computation. Note that the crack
initiation process is not modeled; rather a model with an initial starting crack is the
beginning point for the simulation.
4.1 Computing the Solution for a Particular Model
The special case of the initial solution for the starting crack will be detailed in section 4.2.
For subsequent time stages (actually fracture geometry stages), it is assumed that the
*
solution at the previous time stage t n is known. It consists of crack geometry (tn ) ,
crack volume Vol(tn ) , a set of nodal cod widths w j (t n ) , a set of nodal pressures p j (t n ) ,
and a set of nodal crack front speeds V (t ) . Assuming the geometry of the current
j

model was computed from the previous solution, the process that leads to the solution of
the current model has been separated into subsections.

4.1.1. Meshing and Updating Information

Crack propagation involves a change in the model geometry. The mesh that is attached to
the crack surface is merely a mathematical representation of the true geometry. For a
*
*
given stage of fracture propagation, the previous, (tn ) , and current, (t n +1 ) , fracture
geometries are known. The current fracture surface contains the previous surface plus
some new surface representing the propagation. A mesh is attached to the geometry
surface; in general, the mesh on the portion of the current fracture surface that was the
previous fracture surface can remain fixed or can be modified (to reduce the number of
elements for example).

The mesh on the crack surface is constrained by the fact that a boundary between the
near-front region of the crack and the bulk of the fracture surface must exist. The nearfront region is governed by the analytical linear elastic hydraulic fracture (LEHF)
equations (SCR Geomechanics Group, 1994). It is necessary to keep track of the element
edges that form this boundary along with the orthogonal distance between the crack front
and the boundary. The near-front analytical solution implicitly provides for a fluid lag
and a singular pressure distribution without having to perform prohibitive discretization
of the crack front region.
The set of nodal widths and pressures from the previous solution must be mapped onto
the mesh of the current fracture. This is a trivial procedure if the mesh has remained
fixed. If the mesh has been modified, the nodal widths and pressures for the new mesh
must be interpolated from the previous mesh. These procedures are implemented in
HYFRANC3D and are invoked automatically when reading in the propagated crack
models.

4.1.2 Computation of the Flexibility Matrix

*

Given the fracture geometry (t n +1 ) , the elastic properties of the model, and the
corresponding boundary conditions, BES is used to compute the flexibility matrix. (The
flexibility matrix is a set of resulting displacements and tractions for the body assuming a
unit traction load on a node of the crack surface.) Using the flexibility matrix, one can
convert the nodal pressures inside the fracture into nodal fracture widths. This reflects
the influence of the geometry of the fracture, the geometry of the model, the elastic
properties of the model, and the boundary conditions on the model. The computation of
the elastic flexibility matrix is by far the most time consuming part of the analysis and
guided the earlier choice of fixing the geometry instead of the time.

4.1.3 Iterative Solution of the Fluid Flow

The results from the previous time stage, t n , are used as starting values for the solution
process. Given an initial set of values for crack opening displacement, fluid pressure and
crack front speed, the iterative scheme proceeds at two levels. First, the set of nonlinear
equations describing the fluid flow inside the fracture coupled to the structural response
of the model is solved in an iterative manner. Once convergence is achieved based on the
crack opening displacements, the global mass balance and the crack front speeds are
considered in the following way to determine the absolute time corresponding to the
current geometry. The total volume of fluid injected should be equal to the volume of the
fracture minus the volume of fluid that has leaked away into the formation. Also, the
fluid speed at each point of the crack front should equal the crack propagation speed, i.e.
the crack advance divided by the time step. Note that, within the framework used here,
these two relationships both express satisfaction of global mass balance. If these two
relationships are not satisfied, the time step is adjusted and the fluid flow equation is

solved iteratively again. This process continues until the solution has converged on both
the nodal values and the time, therefore satisfying both elasticity and fluid flow.

4.1.4 Fracture Propagation

Before a crack can be propagated, the total model displacements must be determined.
This is done by combining the displacements due to the far-field applied loading with the
displacements produced by the fluid pressurization in the fracture.
The process of propagating a crack in FRANC3D has been described elsewhere. The
only difference in this case is that the crack is propagated using an ad-hoc propagation
criterion for hydraulic fracturing. (More research is needed in this area.)
The local extension of the fracture propagation along the crack front is proportional to the
speed of the fluid at that point. It is scaled by a maximum propagation length L0 (input
by the user) so that the point where the maximum speed is attained is propagated by L0 .
Indeed, a reasonable value for L0 will depend on the model and crack geometry as well as
the desired accuracy but, because of the linear interpolation in time, should not be greater
than 10% of the fracture penetration into the formation.
The direction of fracture propagation at each point is determined according to the
maximum circumferential stress criterion. The criterion is evaluated at discrete points
along the front in a plane normal to the crack front tangent (Figure 8). The angle is
computed using the mode I and II stress intensity factors K1 and K2 . Quasi-static
propagation of the fracture requires that the mode I stress intensity factor be equal to the
fracture toughness of the rock K1 c at each point. The assumption underlying the special
solution used here at the fracture front is that, although not explicitly taken into account, a
fluid lag would exist and automatically adjusts its length to satisfy this condition.
Therefore, (x) is taken to satisfy:
K1 c sin( (x)) + K2 (x)(3cos( (x)) 1) = 0
Once the crack has been propagated, the model can be remeshed for the next stage of
analysis.

4.2 Special Case for the First Time Stage

As described in the previous section, the solution process requires the results of a
previous step. This is achieved for the first model through approximate analytical
solutions. These solutions are used to produce the complete description of a "dummy"
crack that is smaller than the initial crack, which is then considered as the previous model
by the iterative solver. This provides the initial values to be used for the real fracture
geometry, and the solution scheme then proceeds as described above.
Two solutions have been developed covering most initial crack geometries in hydraulic
fracturing, one for a slot crack and one for a penny-shaped crack (or radial crack). The

main assumption behind these solutions is that the pressure profile near the crack front is
governed by a singular field and that the resulting stress intensity factor is zero. This
allows one to obtain a pressure profile from which all other quantities are derived. These
solutions, therefore, produce time, crack opening displacements, crack front speeds and
fluid pressure inside the crack as a function of fracture extension, elastic parameters, and
pumping parameters.

4.2.1 Initial Solution for a Radial Crack

We start with the following pressure profile for a radial crack

P(r ) = c + 3.72 Ph
1 3

L1
R

13

Ph

L1

13

where c is the stress acting normal to the fracture

E
surface, R is the fracture radius, is the distance from the fracture tip, v is the fracture
speed, is the viscosity, and E is the effective modulus. At the wellbore ( = R ), this
gives a pressure Pw equal to
with Ph = 3

E and L1 =

Pw = c + 1.89E

23

13

R
To keep the initial solution simple, consider a width profile w(r) resulting from a
constant pressure profile of value Pw
w( r) = wo 1

r
R

wo =

8 Pw R
=Q t
3

Assuming a constant flow rate Q , we can eliminate the speed in favor of the flow rate to
get
v = 0.0962 Q

34

14

R5 4

This provides us with the speed at the near-crack front boundary and an initial pressure
distribution on the crack surface. Using the flexibility (influence) matrix, we can
compute the equilibrium crack opening displacement. The dummy crack is smaller
than the actual crack. We can compute the pseudo-crack advance to arrive at the actual
crack front geometry. All data necessary to start the iterative solution procedure for the
actual crack geometry are thus provided.

4.2.1 Initial Solution for a Slot (KGD) Crack

We start with the following pressure profile for a slot crack

E 2 v
P ( ) = c +
3

6 2 1

1
1

L3 x 3
where c is the stress acting normal to the fracture surface, L is the fracture length, is
the distance from the fracture tip, v is the fracture speed. At the wellbore ( = L ), this
gives a pressure Pw equal to

Pw = c + 1.179 E

L
Assuming a constant flow rate Q , one can derive an expression for fracture length as a
function of time
L(t ) = 0.656Q0

from which the crack front speed is obtained

v = 0.354Q0

The rest of the solution follows that for the radial crack.

4.2.3 Initial Solution Convergence

Depending on the model, the first solution may not converge to the desired accuracy in
terms of mass balance error and fluid - crack speed error. The convergence is often
improved by reducing the time step relaxation factor to a very small value. This will
increase the number of iterations required.
In general, the iterative solution converges better from an over-pressurized condition. By
starting from a larger initial time step, we can over-pressurize the crack. We then relax
the time step to converge to the correct solution. There are times when the mass balance
error is still large, but the crack front - fluid speed error changes from positive to
negative. The over-pressurized condition produces a positive error in speed. If the speed
error changes to negative, the solution becomes incorrect even though the mass balance
error continues to decrease; i.e., it is converging to the wrong solution.

4 Tutorial Example
This section provides a step by step tutorial guide for modeling a radial type hydraulic
fracture in 3D from an uncased wellbore. The modeling procedures to create the initial
model, place the initial crack, and apply static boundary conditions will not be described.
If the user is unfamiliar with these topics, he/she should follow through the FRANC3D
tutorial and learn how to use FRANC3D first.
The initial crack modeling including the crack is shown in Figure 18. We are using
symmetry conditions and modeling a half-radial crack from an uncased wellbore. The
material properties consist of Youngs modulus = 7.5e6 psi and Poissons ratio=0.25.
The fracture toughness is 700 psi. The far field loading consists of uniform pressures of
9090 psi parallel to the wellbore, 10100 psi perpendicular to the crack surface, and 12820
psi parallel to the crack. The wellbore pressure is 10500 psi. The initial crack radius is
10 inches. The closure stress is 10100 psi. The fluid viscosity is 0.0001 cP. The flow
rate along the crack mouth is 0.2 bpm; this is applied to the edges of the crack mouth.
This data is written to the .hyf file.

Figure 18. Initial model of radial crack.

The .fys and .bes files are written from HYFRANC3D. BES is used to perform the
elastic analysis and produces a .flex file containing the base solution for the far field
loading and the influence matrices for the unit tractions on the crack surface. The BES

solution for this model requires about half an hour on a DEC ALPHA workstation. (This
mesh is much coarser than would normally be used for an actual simulation).
Once BES has finished, we read the .fys file into HYFRANC3D. We proceed to the
Hydraulic Fracture menu and select Build Model From File. We select the proper .hyf
for this model (it should have been written previously). HYFRANC3D reads the .hyf file
and the corresponding .flex file. Once finished, the solution parameter dialog box is
displayed. To begin, just select Accept on this dialog and proceed to Solve Current
Model. The iteration steps are displayed on the terminal window and should be similar to
the following information. (Only the final set of iterations starting from the time step
prior to negative speed error is shown.)
Decreasing starting time factor 0.0188639 to 0.017149.
Time step set to: 0.039861; Speed at one node: 50.1743
COD Iteration #1
COD Error (target = 0.001 ): 0.0137515
COD Iteration #2
COD Error (target = 0.001 ): 0.000891194
Mass balance error: 0.367349.
Crack/fluid speed error: 0.10807.
Starting iterations from last solution.
Time step set to: 0.0478333; Speed at one node: 41.8119
COD Iteration #1
COD Error (target = 0.001 ): 0.0253502
COD Iteration #2
COD Error (target = 0.001 ): 0.00128419
COD Iteration #3
COD Error (target = 0.001 ): 2.94335e-05
Global Iteration #1
Mass Balance Error (target = 0.01 ): 0.331611
Crack/Fluid Speed Error : -0.196452
Speed error is -0.196452 and mass balance error is 0.331611.
Do you want to continue iterating (y/n) :n
Global mass balance convergence achieved - system solved

The speed error changes from 0.10807 to -0.196452 in one set of iterations. The mass
balance error is 0.331611. This is clearly not a very good solution. We can improve on
this by adjusting the relaxation factor in the dialog box. Select Set Solve Parameters to
view the dialog box. Set the global time step relaxation factor to 0.001, set the
maximum number of iterations to 500, and then select Accept. Select Solve Current
Model to obtain the equilibrium solution again. This time, the solution procedure takes a
lot longer to converge. After 349 global iterations, the speed error is reduced to a value
of -0.00016398. The mass balance error is 0.35311. It is not possible to achieve a good
mass balance in this case. The starting solution is not good enough; the mass balance
error should decrease significantly for the subsequent steps of propagation because we
start from better starting solutions.

The next step is to Write/Read the .besout file. You can display the response information
first if desired. HYFRANC3D reads the .flex file again, combines the base solution due
to the far field loading along with the fluid pressure and influence matrices to produce the
equilibrium displacements and tractions which are stored in the .besout file. The .besout
file is read as soon at it is written so that we can proceed to propagate the crack.
Select the Advance Crack Front menu button and then select stress intensity factors. Pick
the crack front and the Stress Intensity Factors dialog is displayed. Select Accept. You
can keep or destroy the plots that are displayed. The next step is to calculate the new
crack front points. Select show new front points from the submenu. In the dialog boxes
(Figure 15a,b) set the extension to 2 and select Accept. You are prompted to enter a
tolerance on the terminal window for partial propagation (this is temporary). Enter 0.001
and press the Return key. The new points for the new crack front are displayed. Fit a
polynomial to these points by selecting the proper submenu entry; a single third order
polynomial is appropriate. Finally, propagate the crack. The crack should be propagated
for you. It will have to be meshed, but we will do that after saving the solution. Select
Write/Read .hyd Files and select write current model. Save the data using the default
file name.
Now, subdivide the edges and mesh the surfaces. You can use a similar mesh to that for
step 1. Save the HYFRANC3D model (.fys) file, save the BES input (.bes) file, and save
the .hyf file. Note that you do not have to reset any far-field boundary conditions. The
previous solution (.hyd file for step 1) provides most of the necessary fluid flow boundary
condition data and fluid properties for step 2. The flow rate boundary conditions must be
reapplied to the crack mouth edges, however.
Perform the BES analysis using the same command as for step 1, but change the file
name to that for step 2. The solution requires a little longer than step 1 because of the
additional crack surface elements. Once the .flex file is generated, proceed with reading
the model back into HYFRANC3D. Then proceed to the Hydraulic Fracture menu.
This time, we need to read in the .hyd file for the previous step before reading the current
model .hyf file. Select Write/Read .hyd Files and select read solved model. Select the
.hyd file for step 1.
Now, select Build Model From File and select the .hyf file for step 2. The .flex file is
read in along with the .hyf file and a .infl file is written. Once the model has been read in,
proceed to solve it using the default parameters. From this initial solution, decide on the
relaxation factor and maximum number of iterations and resolve. In this case, a
relaxation factor or 0.01 and maximum number of iterations of 500 should suffice. The
final converged solution after 174 global iterations has a speed error of -0.00088 and a
mass balance error of 0.0802. This is a vast improvement from the initial solution. The
error could be reduced somewhat by reducing the relaxation factor and performing more
iterations. For this tutorial, the solution is adequate. The mass balance error should
continue to decrease with each step if the amount of propagation is not too large.
The user is encouraged to continue the simulation on his/her own. The response
information can be examined at each step or at the end of the simulations. The user can

read in all the solved models in succession and then display animated sequences of
images showing the evolving crack and the fluid pressures or crack opening
displacements at each step of propagation. For instance, Figure 19 shows the pressure
contours on the crack surface for step 2.

Figure 19. Fluid pressure contours on the deformed crack surfaces for step 2.

5.0 Bibliography
Abass, H.H., Hedayati, S. and Meadows, D.L. (1996) Nonplanar fracture propagation from a horizontal
wellbore: experimental study, SPEPE, August, p. 133-137.
Advani, S.H., Lee, T.S. and Lee, J.K., (1990) Three dimensional modeling of hydraulic fractures in layered
media: Finite element formulations, J. Energy Res. Tech., 112, p. 1-18.
Bahat, D. (1991) Tecton-fractography. Springer-Verlag Publishers.
Barree, R.D. (1983) A practical numerical simulator for three-dimensional hydraulic fracture propagation
in heterogeneous media, SPE Paper 12273, SPE Symp. Reservoir Simulation, San Francisco, Nov. 1518.
Baumgart, B.G. (1975) A polyhedron representation for computer vision, AFIPS Proc., 44, p. 589-596.
Behrmann, L.A. and Elbel, J.L. (1991) Effect of perforations on fracture initiation, JPT, May, p. 608-615.
Carter, B.J., Ingraffea, A.R. and Bittencourt, T.N. (1993) Topology-Controlled Modeling of Linear and
Non-Linear 3D-Crack Propagation in Geomaterials, in "Fracture of Brittle Disordered Materials:
Concrete, Rock and Ceramics," Proc. IUTAM Conf., Brisbane, Australia, E&FN Spon Publishers, p.
301-318.
Carter, B.J., Wawrzynek, P.A., Ingraffea, A.R. and Morales, H. (1994) Effect of casing on hydraulic
fracture from horizontal wellbores, 1st North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Austin, TX,
June, p. 185-192.

Carter, B.J., Chen, C-S., Ingraffea, A.R., and Wawrzynek, P.A. (1997) Recent advances in 3D
computational fracture mechanics, invited Lecture for the Ninth International Conference on Fracture,
Sydney, April, 1997.
Carter, R.D. (1957) Derivation of the general equation for estimating the extent of the fractured area,
Appendix to "Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture Extension", by Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.,
Drilling and Production Practices, API, p. 261-270.
Clark, J. B., (1949) A hydraulic process for increasing the productivity of wells, Trans. AIME 186, p. 1.
Clifton, R. J., and Abou-Sayed, A.S., (1979) On the computation of the three-dimensional geometry of
hydraulic fractures, SPE Paper 7943.
Desroches, J. and Thiercelin, M., (1993) Modelling the propagation and closure of micro-hydraulic
fractures, Int. J. of Rock Mech. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, p. 1231-1234.
Emermann, S.H., Turcotte, D.L. and Spence, D.A., (1986) Transport of magma and hydrothermal solutions
by laminar and turbulent fluid fracture, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 41, p. 249-259.
Gardner, D.C., (1992) High fracturing pressures for shales and which tip effects may be responsible, Proc.
67th SPE Annual Tech. Conf. and Exhib., Washington, DC, p. 879-893.
Geertsma, J., (1989) Two-dimensional fracture propagation models, in "Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing", Monograph Series, 12, SPE, Richardson, TX, p. 81-94.
Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F. (1969) A rapid method of predicting width and extent of hydraulically
induced fractures, JPT, p.1571-1581.
Germanovich, L.N., Carter, B.J., Dyskin, A.V., Ingraffea, A.R. and Lee, K.K., (1996) Mechanics of 3D
crack growth in compression, in "Tools and Techniques in Rock Mechanics", 2nd North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium, NARMS'96, Montreal, Canada, June, p. 1151-1160.
Gu, H. and Leung, K.H. (1993) 3D numerical simulation of hydraulic fracture closure with application to
minifracture analysis, JPT, March, p. 206-211.
Hallam, S.D. and Last, N.C. (1991) Geometry of hydraulic fractures from modestly deviated wellbores,
JPT, June, p. 742-748.
Hoffmann, C.M. (1989) Geometric and Solid Modeling: An Introduction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,
Inc., San Mateo, California.
Howard, G. C., and Fast, C. R., (1970) Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series, 2, SPE, Richardson, TX.
Ingraffea, A.R., Carter, B.J. and Wawrzynek, P.A., (1995) Application of computational fracture
mechanics to repair of large concrete structures, in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, 3,
Edited by Folker Wittmann, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Fracture Mech. of Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS2),
Zurich, Switzerland, AEDIFICATIO Publishers.
Jeffrey, R.G., (1989) The combined effects of fluid lag and fracture toughness on hydraulic fracture
propagation, Proc. Joint Rocky Mountains Regional Meeting and Low Permeability Reservoir
Symposium, Denver, CO, p. 269-276.
Johnson, E. and Cleary, M.P. (1991) Implications of recent laboratory experimental results for hydraulic
fractures, Proc. Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symp., Denver,
CO, p. 413-428.
Khristianovic, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P. (1955) Formation of vertical fractures by means of highly viscous
fluid. Proc. 4th World Petroleum Congress, Rome, Paper 3, p. 579-586.
Lam, K.Y., Cleary, M.P. and Barr, D.T. (1986) A complete three dimensional simulator for analysis and
design of hydraulic fracturing, SPE Paper 15266.
Lenoach, B. (1995) Hydraulic fracture modelling based on analytical near-tip solutions, in "Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics", Edited by: Siriwardane& Zaman, Balkema Publishers, p.
1597-1602.
Lutz, E.E (1991) Numerical Methods for Hypersingular and Near-Singular Boundary Integrals in Fracture
Mechanics, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
Mntyl, M. (1988) An Introduction to Solid Modeling. Computer Science Press, Rockville, Maryland.
Martha, L.F. (1989) A Topological and Geometrical Modeling Approach to Numerical Discretization and
Arbitrary Fracture Simulation in Three-Dimensions, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
Martha, L.F., Wawrzynek, P.A. and Ingraffea, A.R. (1993) Arbitrary crack representation using solid
modeling, Engineering with Computers, 9, p. 63-82.
Medlin, W.L. and Fitch, J.L, (1983) Abnormal treating pressures in MHF treatments, Proc. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Fransisco, CA.
Mendelsohn, D. A., (1984a) A review of hydraulic fracture modeling - I: General concepts, 2D models,
motivation for 3D modeling, J. Energy Res. Tech., 106, p. 369-376.

Mendelsohn, D. A., (1984b) A review of hydraulic fracture modeling - II: 3D modeling and vertical growth
in layered rock, J. Energy Res. Tech., 106, p. 543-553.
Morales, R.H. (1989) Microcomputer analysis of hydraulic fracture behavior with a pseudo-three
dimensional simulator, SPEPE, Feb., p. 69-74.
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L. and Wahl, H.A. (1988) Stress-intensity factor and fracture cross-sectional shape
predictions from a three-dimensional model for hydraulically induced fractures, JPT, Oct., p. 13291342.
Mortenson, M.E. (1985) Geometric Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Nordgren, R.P. (1972) Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. SPEJ, p. 306-314, Aug.
Ong, S.H. and Roegiers, J-C. (1996) Fracture initiation from inclined wellbores in anisotropic formations,
JPT, July, p. 612-619.
Palmer, I.D. and Veatch R.W., (1990) Abnormally high fracturing pressures in step rate tests, SPE
Production Engineering, p. 315-323.
Papanastasiou, P. and Thiercelin, M. (1993) Influence of inelastic rock behaviour in hydraulic fracturing,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, p. 1241-1247.
de Pater, C.J., Weijers, L., Savic, M., Wolf, K.A.A, van den Hoek, P.J. and Barr, D.T. (1994) Experimental
study of non-linear effects in hydraulic fracture propagation, SPE Production and Facilities, 9, p. 239246.
de Pater, C.J., Desroches, J., Groenenboom, J. and Weijers, L. (1996) Physical and numerical modeling of
hydraulic fracture closure, SPE Production and Facilities, May, p. 122-127.
de Pater (1996) Personal Communication.
Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R. (1961) Widths of hydraulic fractures. J. Petrol. Technol., p. 937-949, Sept.
Potyondy, D.O. (1993) A software framework for simulating curvilinear crack growth in pressurized thin
shells. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Potyondy, D.O., Wawrzynek, P.A. and Ingraffea, A.R. (1995) An algorithm to generate quadrilateral or
triangular element surface meshes in arbitrary domains with applications to crack propagation, Int. J.
Numer. Meth. in Engng., 38, p. 2677-2701.
SCR Geomechanics Group, (1993) On the modelling of near tip processes in hydraulic fractures, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, p. 1127-1134.
SCR Geomechanics Group, (1994) The crack tip region in hydraulic fracturing, Proc. Royal Society,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Series A, 447, p. 39-48.
Settari, A. and Cleary, M.P. (1986) Development and testing of a pseudo-three-dimensional model of
hydraulic fracture geometry, SPE, Trans. AIME, 281, p.449-466.
Shah, K., Carter, B.J. and Ingraffea, A.R. (1997) Simulation of hydrofracturing in a parallel computing
environment, 36th U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., Columbia Univ., NY, Special Volume of the Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
Shlyapobersky, J., Wong, G.K. and Walhaug, W.W., (1988) Overpressure calibrated design of hydraulic
fracture stimulations, Proc. SPE Annual Tech. Conf. and Exhib., Houston, TX, p. 133-148.
Shlyapobersky, J., Walhaug, W.W., Sheffield, R.E. and Huckabee, P.T. (1988) Field determination of
fracturing parameters for overpressure calibrated design of hydraulic fracturing, Proc. 63rd Annual
Tech. Conf. and Exhib., Houston, TX, SPE Paper 18195.
Spence, D.A. and Sharp, P., (1985) Self-similar solutions for elastodynaic cavity flow, Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A, 400, p. 289-313.
Soliman, M.Y., Hunt, J.L. and Azari, M. (1996) Fracturing horizontal wells in gas reservoirs, SPE Paper
35260, Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo, TX.
Sousa, J.L.S., Carter, B.J., Ingraffea, A. R., (1993) Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracture using
Newtonian and power-law fluids, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, p. 1265-1271.
Touboul, E., Ben-Naceur, K. and Thiercelin, M. (1986) Variational methods in the simulation of threedimensional fracture propagation, 27th US Rock Mech. Symp., p. 659-668.
Vandamme, L., Jeffrey, R.G., Curran, J.H., (1988) Pressure distribution in three-dimensional hydraulic
fractures, SPE Production Engineering, 3, p. 181-186.
van den Hoek, P.J., van den Berg, J.T.M. and Shlyapobersky, J. (1993) Theoretical and experimental
investigation of rock dilatancy near the tip of a propagating hydraulic fracture, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30, p. 1261-1264.
Warpinski, N.R., (1985) Measurement of width and pressure in a propagating hydraulic fracture, SPEJ,
Feb., p. 46-54.

Warpinski, N.R., Moschovidis, Z.A., Parker, C.D. and Abou-Sayed, I.S. (1994) Comparison study of
hydraulic fracturing modelsTest case: GRI staged filed experiment No. 3, SPE Production & Facilities,
Feb., p. 7-16.
Wawrzynek, P.A. (1991) Discrete modeling of crack propagation: theoretical aspects and implementation
issues in two and three dimensions, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
Wawrzynek, P.A. and Ingraffea, A.R. (1987a) Interactive finite element analysis of fracture processes: an
integrated approach, Theor & Appl Fract Mech, 8, p. 137-150.
Wawrzynek, P.A. and Ingraffea, A.R. (1987b) An edge-based data structure for two-dimensional finite
element analysis, Engin. with Comp., 3, p. 13-20.
Weijers, L. and de Pater, C.J. (1992) Fracture reorientation in model tests, SPE Paper 23790, Formation
Damage Control Conference, Lafayette.
Weijers, L. (1995) The near-wellbore geometry of hydraulic fractures initiated from horizontal and
deviated wells, Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
Weiler, K. (1985) Edge-based data structures for solid modeling in curved-surface environments, IEEE
Comp. Graph & Appl., 5, p. 21-40.
Weiler, K. (1986) Topological Structures for Geometric Modeling, Ph.D. Dissertation, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, Univ. Microfilms Intl., Ann Arbor, MI.
Yew, C.H. and Li, Y. (1988) Fracturing of a deviated well, SPEPE, Nov, p. 429-437.