Hydraulic Fracturing

Short Course,
Texas A&M University
College Station
2005
Fracture Design
Fracture Dimensions
Fracture Modeling
Peter P. Valk

Fracture Design

Fracture
Design
2

Source: Economides and Nolte: Reservoir Stimulation 3rd Ed.

Frac Design Goals

Fracture
Design
3

Well or Reservoir Stimulation?

Near wellbore region and/or bulk
reservoir?
Acceleration versus increasing reserve?
Low permeability
Medium permeability
High permeability

Coupling of goals
Frac&pack
Fracture
Design
4

Hydraulic Fracturing Design and

Evaluation
Why do we create a propped fracture?
How do we achieve our goals?
Data gathering
Design
Execution
Evaluation
Fracture
Design
5

Fractured Well Performance

Relation of morphology to performance
Streamline view
Flow regimes, Productivity Index, Pseudosteady state Productivity Index, skin and
equivalent wellbore radius

Fracture
Design
6

Well- Fracture Orientation

MATCH
Vertical well - Vertical fracture
Horizontal well longitudinal fracture

MISMATCH (Choke effect)

Horizontal well with a transverse vertical fracture
Vertical well intersecting a horizontal fracture

Fracture
Design
7

Principle of least resistance

Least Principal Stress

Horizontal fracture
Fracture
Design
8

Least Principal Stress

Vertical fracture

Mismatch (Choked fracture)

Typical mismatch situations:
Horizontal well with a transverse vertical
fracture
Vertical well intersecting a horizontal
fracture

Fracture
Design
9

Vertical Fracture - Vertical well

Bypass damage
Original skin disappears

Change streamlines
Radial flow disappears
Wellbore radius is not a factor
any more

Increased PI can be utilized

Fracture
Design
10

p or q

q J post p

Longitudinal Vertical Fracture Horizontal well

Can it be done?
H,min
H,min
Fracture
Design
11

xf

H,max

Transverse Vertical Fractures Horizontal Well

Hydraulic Fracture

H,max

Radial
converging
flow in frac
Fracture
Design
12

H,max
D
xf

H,min

Fracture Morphology
source: Economides at al.: Petroleum Well Construction

Fracture
Design
13

Main questions
Which wellbore-fracture orientation is favorable?
Which can be done?
How large should the treatment be?
What part of the proppant will reach the pay?
Width and length (optimum dimensions)?
How can it be realized?

Fracture
Design
14

Prod Eng 101

Transient vs Pseudo-steady state
Productivity Index
Skin

Fracture
Design
15

Pseudo-steady state Productivity

Index

q Jp
Production rate is proportional to drawdown, defined as average
pressure in the reservoir minus wellbore flowing pressure

Circular:

2kh
J D p
q
B
JD

Fracture
Design
16

1
re 3
s
ln
rw 4

Drawdown

Dimensionless
Productivity Index

Hawkins formula
k

rs

s
1 ln
rw
ks

ks
Damage
penetration
distance

Fracture
Design
17

rw

rs

Exercise 1
Calculate the skin factor due to radial damage if

rs

Wellbore radius

0.328 ft

Permeability impairment

k
5 folds
ks
0.5 ft

Damage penetration

Solution of Exercise 1

rs
s
1 ln
rw
ks
Fracture
Design
18

rs 0.828 ft
0.828
s 5 1 ln[
] 3.7
0.328

Note that any "consistent" system of units is OK.

Exercise 2
Assume pseudo-steady state and drainage radius r e = 2980 ft in
Exercise 1. What portion of the pressure drawdown is lost in the
skin zone? What is the damage ratio? What is the flow efficiency?
Solution 2
The fraction of pressure drawdown in the skin zone is given by (Since we
deal only with ratios, we do not have to convert units.):

3.7
2980
ln[
] 0.75 3.7
0.328

0.31

Therefore 31 % of the pressure drawdown is not utilized because of the near

wellbore damage.
The damage ratio is DR = 31 %
Fracture
Design
19

The flow efficiency is FE = 69 %.

Exercise 3
Assume that the well of Exercise 2 has been matrix acidized and the
original permeability has been restored in the skin zone.
What will be the folds of increase in the Productivity Index?
(What will be the folds of increase in production rate assuming the
pressure drawdown is the same before and after the treatment?)
Solution 3
We can assume that the skin after the acidizing
treatment becomes zero. Then the folds of
increase is:
Folds of Increase :

Fracture
Design
20

r
ln[ e ] 0.75 s
rw
FOI
r
ln[ e ] 0.75
rw

2980
3.7

0.328
1.44
2980
0.75 ln
0.328

0.75 ln

The Productivity Index increase is 44 % ,

therefore the production increase is 44 % .

Exercise 4
Assume that the well of Exercise 2 has been fracture treated
and a negative pseudo skin factor has been created: sf = -5.
What will be the folds of increase in the Productivity Index
with respect to the damaged well?
Solution 4
The ratio of Productivity Indices after and before the
treatment is
2980
] 0.75 3.7
FOI 0.328
3.6
2980
ln[
] 0.75 5
0.328
ln[

Fracture
Design
21

The Productivity Index will increase 260 % .

Fully penetrating vertical fracture:

Relating Performance to Dimensions
wp

2Vfp

Fracture
Design
22

2xf

Dimensionless fracture conductivity

2 xf

w
Dimensionless
fracture conductivity

Fracture
Design
23

C fD

kf w
kx f

fracture conductivity
no name

Accounting for PI: sf and f and rw

q Jp

sf is pseudo skin factor used after the treatment

to describe the productivity

2kh
2kh
1

J D
J

B ln[ re ] 0.75 s f B
rw

Fracture
Design
24

JD is a function of what?
half-length,
dimensionless fracture conductivity
Drainage radius, re
sf is a function of what?
half-length,
dimensionless fracture conductivity
wellbore radius, rw

Pseudo-skin, equivalent radius, f-factor

J

2kh

re
B ln 0.472 s f
rw

or

2kh

re
B ln 0.472
r 'w

Prats

f (C fD )
2kh

J
B

Fracture
Design
25

xf
0.472re
ln
s f ln
xf
rw

2kh

0.472re
ln
f
xf

Cinco-Ley

Notation
rw

wellbore radius, m (or ft)

r'w

Prats equivalent wellbore radius due to fracture,

m (or ft)

f s f ln

Fracture
Design
26

xf
rw

Cinco-Ley-Samanieggo factor, dimensionless

sf

the pseudo skin factor due to fracture,

dimensionless

rw
xf

Prats' dimensionless (equivalent) wellbore

radius

But JD is the best

Example
Assume rw = 0.3 ft and A= 40 acre

,
w

r , ft

7
-4
36
Fracture
Design
27

Dimensionless Productivity Index, s f

and f and rw
JD

1
re
ln 0.472 s f
rw

or

JD

1
re
ln 0.472
r 'w

Prats

f (C fD )

1
1
JD

0.472re
xf
0.472re
ln
f

ln
s f ln
xf
xf
rw

Cinco-Ley
Fracture
Design
28

Penetration Ratio
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
Proppant Number
Ix

2x f

C fD

xe

y e = xe

kf w

2 xf

kx f

xe

N prop
Fracture
Design
29

4k f V f,prop,1 wing
kVres

2k f V f,prop,2 wing
kVres

(I x )2C fD

The following models, graphs and

correlations are valid for low to
moderate Proppant Number, Nprop
OK, so what IS the Proppant Number?
The weighted ratio of propped fracture volume to
reservoir volume. The weight is 2k f/k .
A more rigorous definition will be given later.
The following models are valid for Nprop <=0.1 ! (The
case when the boundaries do not distort the
streamline structure (with respect to lower proppant
numbers.)
Fracture
Design
30

Prats' Dimensionless Wellbore Radius

1.0
rw'
0.5
xf

'
w

r
x f 0.1
rw'
0.25 C fD
xf

0.01
0.1
Fracture
Design
31

1.0
C fD

kf w
kx f

10

100

Cinco-Ley and Samaniego graph

f (CfD)= sf + ln(xf/rw)
4

1.65-0.328u+0.116u 2
f (C fD )
1+0.18u+0.064u 2+0.005u 3
where u ln C fD

1
use f = ln(2) for CfD > 1000
0
Fracture
Design
32

0.1

10

CfD

100

1000

Infinite or finite conductivity fracture

Note that after CfD > 100 (or 30), nothing happens
with f.
Infinite conductivity fracture.
Definition: finite conductivity fracture is a not infinite
conductivity fracture (CfD < 100 or 30)
(Other concept: uniform flux fracture, we will learn
later.)

Fracture
Design
33

Proppant Number Various ways to look at it

N prop I C fD
2
x

Nprop= const means

fixed proppant
volume

N prop

Fracture
Design
34

4k f x f w
2
e

kx

4k f V1 wing , propped
2
e

kx h
2k f V2 wing , propped
kVreservoir

Fig 1: JD vs CfD (moderate Nprop)

Fracture
Design
35

Fig 2: JD vs CfD (large Nprop)

Fracture
Design
36

OPTIMIZATION

Fracture
Design
37

Optimal length and width

Struggle for propped volume: w and xf
2Vfp = 2h wp xf

V fp hw p x f

C fD
Fracture
Design
38

k f wp
kx f

2Vfp = 2h wp xf

V fp k f

1/ 2

C fDV fp k

1/ 2

xf

C hk
fD

wp

hk f

The Key Parameter is the

Proppant Number
0.5

Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

X e=Y e

Ye
0.4

Ix =1

2Xf

Medium perm

0.1

Xe

0.06

0.03

0.3
0.01
0.006

High perm
Frac&Pack

0.003
0.001

0.2

0.0006
0.0003
N prop=0.0001

-4

10

Fracture
Design
39

-3

10

-2

-1

10
10
10
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

10

10

The Key Parameter is the

Proppant Number
2.0

Dimensionless Productivity Index, JD

X e=Y e

Ye

Ix=1
100

2Xf

1.5

60

Xe

30

10

Low perm
Massive HF

1.0
3

1
0.6
0.3

0.5

Medium perm

N prop =0.1

0.1

10

100

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Fracture
Design
40

1000

Let us read the optimum from the JD

Figures!
dimensionless fracture conductivity
(for smaller Nprop)
penetration ratio
(for larger Nprop)
Fracture
Design
41

Optimum for low and moderate

Proppant Number
0.5
X e=Y e

Dimensionless Productivity Index, J

Ix=1

Ye
0.4

2Xf

0.1

Xe

0.06

0.03

0.3
0.01
0.006
0.003
0.001

0.2

0.0006
0.0003
Nprop =0.0001

-4

10

Fracture
Design
42

-3

10

-2

-1

10
10
10
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

10

CfDopt=1.6

10

Optimum for large Proppant Number

100

Dimensionless Productivity Index, J

1.8
1.6

30

X e=Y e

Ye

10

2Xf

Xe

1.4
1.2
1.0
1

0.8

0.6

0.6
0.3

0.4

0.01

N prop =0.1

0.1
Penetration Rate, IX

Fracture
Design
43

Tight Gas and Frac&Pack:

the extremes
Tight gas k << 1 md (hard rock)

xf

V fp k f

1/ 2

C fDoptV fp k

wp

hk
fDopt

1/ 2

hk f

High permeability k >> 1 md (soft formation)

V fp k f

x f
1.6hk
Fracture
Design
44

1/ 2

wp

1.6V fp k

1/ 2

hk f

FracPi

Fracture
Design
45

Exercise No 1
Determine the "folds of increase" if 40,000 lbm proppant
(pack porosity 0.35, specific gravity 2.6, permeability
60,000 md) is to be placed into a 65 ft thick formation of
0.5 md permeability. Assume all proppant goes to pay.
The drainage radius is re = 2100 ft, the well radius is
rw = 0.328 ft, the skin factor before fracturing is spre = 5.
Determine the optimal fracture length and propped width.
Fracture
Design
46

1: Proppant Number
2: Max Folds of Increase
40,000 lbm proppant, specific gravity 2.6, pack porosity 0.35
packed volume is 40,000/62.4/2.6/(1-0.35) = 380 ft3
N prop

2 60 103 md 380 ft 3

0 .1
2
2
0.5 md 2100 ft 65 ft

1
0.467
0.99 0.5 ln 0.1

Folds of Increase

J post
J pre

Fracture
Design
47

J D ,opt ( N prop )

1
2100
ln[
] 0.75 5
0.328

FOI: 6.8 with respect to skin 5

FOI: 3.8 with respect to skin=0

FracPi
0.467

0.0768

Optimum frac dimensions

The volume of two propped wing is
2V1wp = 380 ft3

If the proppant number is not too large: the optimal fracture

half-length is
V1wp
380 ft 3

(60,000 md)
2

xf
1.6 (65 ft)(0.5 md)

1/2

468 ft

The propped width is

wp
Fracture
Design
48

V1wp
h xf

0.075 in. (1.8 mm)

Computer Exercise: High Perm

Determine the optimal fracture length and propped width
if 40,000 lbm proppant (pack porosity 0.35, specific
gravity 2.6, permeability 60,000 md) is to be placed into
a 65 ft thick formation of 50 md permeability.
The drainage radius is re = 2100 ft, the well radius is
rw = 0.328 ft, the skin factor before fracturing is spre = 5.
(Assume all proppant goes to pay.)
Fracture
Design
49

Computer Exercise: Tight gas

Determine the optimal fracture length and propped width
if 40,000 lbm proppant (pack porosity 0.35, specific
gravity 2.6, permeability 60,000 md) is to be placed into
a 65 ft thick formation of 0.01 md permeability.
The drainage radius is re = 2100 ft, the well radius is
rw = 0.328 ft, the skin factor before fracturing is spre = 5.
(Assume all proppant goes to pay.)
Fracture
Design
50

Economic optimization
Production forecast
Transient regime
Stabilized
Economics: Converting additional production into
value
Time value of money
Discounted revenue

NPV
Fracture
Design
51

Costs and Benefits

The more proppant (larger proppant
number) the higher Productivity Index, if
the given proppant volume is placed
according to the optimal dimensionless
fracture conductivity
The more proppant, the larger costs
How large should be the treatment?
NPV optimization
Fracture
Design
52

Treatment Sizing

N
N

Rev n
Rev
n
NPV

- Cost

n - Cost
NPV
n
(1

i)
n 1
n 1 (1 i)

Fracture
Design
53

Pre-Treatment Data Gathering

Fracture
Design
54

Design Input Data

Petroleum Engineering Data
Hydrocarbon in Place, Drainage area, Thickness,
Permeability

Rock Properties
Youngs modulus, Poisson ratio,
Fracture toughness, poroelastic const

Stress State
Leakoff
Proppant and Other Fluid properties
Operational constraints
Fracture
Design
55

Rock Properties
Linear Elasticity
Poroelasticity
Fracture Mechanics

Fracture
Design
56

Young's modulus and Poisson ratio

Uniaxial test
F
A

xx l
l
yy D
D

l
D

xx F
A

Fracture
Design
57

xx
E
xx

yy

xx
D/2

Linear stress-strain relations

Other elasticity constants

Fracture
Design
58

Formation Classification

Two types
Consolidated and tight E = 106 + psi
Unconsolidated and soft E = 105 - psi

Fracture
Design
59

Poroelasticity and Biots constant

p
Total Stress = Effective Stress + [Pore Pressure]

Fracture
Design
60

Who Carries the Load?

Total Stress = Effective Stress + [Pore Pressure]
Grains

Fracture
Design
61

Force

Biots constant

Pore Fluid

Stress State in Formations

Far Field and Induced Stresses, Fracture
Initiation and Orientation
Stress versus Depth
Minimum Horizontal Stress
Magnitude and Direction

Fracture
Design
62

Total (absolute) horizontal stress

The simplest model:

v g dz
0

v v p

v p
h
1
'

v p p
h
1
Fracture
Design
63

1) Poisson ratio changes from layer to layer

2) Pore pressure changes in time

Crossover of Minimum Stress

Ground Surface
Critical Depth
977 m

-1000
-1500

Tr
ue

r iz
Ho

-2000

ta
on
ss
tr e
lS

-2500

-1000
Ve
rti

O
rig

in
al
Ve
ca
rt i
lS
ca
tre
lS
ss
tre

-3000
Fracture
Design
64

20x106

-500

40x106
Stress, Pa

60x106

-1500

ss

-2000

-2500
80x106

Current Depth , m

-500

um
nim
Mi

Depth from original ground surface, m

Stress Gradients
Overburden gradient gradient
Slope of the Vertical Stress line

1.1 psi/ft

Frac gradient
Basically the slope of the minimum
horizontal stress line

0.4 - 0.9 psi/ft

Extreme value: 1.1 psi/ft or more

Fracture
Design
65

Fracture width

Fracture
Design
66

Linear Elasticity + Fractures

The force opening the fracture comes from net pressure

Net pressure = fluid pressure - minimum principal stress
pn
=
p
min
The net pressure distribution determines the width profile
Plane strain modulus and characteristic half length

Fracture
Design
67

Ideal Crack Shapes (Plane strain)

Plane strain: Infinite repetition of the same picture (2D)
E

Plane - strain modulus: E

1 2
Half length c
w

pn(x)

Deformation (distribution)
net pressure (distribution)
Fracture
Design
68

Shape of a pressurized crack, pn=cons

Width

4 pn
w( x)
c2 x2
E'

pn : net pressure
c : half length
characteristic dimension

Max Width
4c
w0
pn
E'
linearity preserved
Fracture
Design
69

c
w

Height and Width in Layered

Formation
Far-field Stress

Upper tip

Pinch point

Lower tip

Fracture
Design
70

Questions:
Contained?
Breakthrough?
Run-away?
Up or Down?
Width?
Hydrostatic
pressure?
Height
control?
What can be
measured?

From Fracture Mechanics to Fracture

Height

Fracture
Design
71

Stress Intensity Factor

weighted pressure at tip
Pa m1/2
psi - in.1/2

K I 2c

Weighting function: the

nearer to tip, the more
important the pressure
value
Fracture
Design
72

stress distribution
at tip
c

pn ( x )
c x
2

dx

1
cx

x
c
KI : proportionality const

Stability of Crack, Propagation

Critical value of stress intensity factor:

Fracture Toughness KIC
Propagation: when stress intensity factor
is larger than fracture toughness

Fracture
Design
73

Application:
Fracture Height Prediction
Height containment: why is it critical?
Fracturing to water or gas
Wasting proppant and fluid

Can it be controlled?
Passive: safety limit on injection pressure
Active: proppant (light and heavy)
Fracture
Design
74

Calculation Based on Equilibrium

Fracture Height Theory
far field stress

fluid pressure

Fracture
Design
75

p
r
o
f
i
l
e

Stress Intensity Factor at the Tips (calc)

= Fracture Toughness of the Layer (given)

KI,top =

KI,bottom =

hp

yu yd
hp

pn y

yu yd

-1

pn y
-1

1 y
dy
1 y

1 y
dy
1 y

Two equations, two unknowns

Fracture
Design
76

Penetration Into Upper and Lower

Layers
y
Klc,2
1

hu
yu

hp

yd
-1

hd

3
Fracture
Design
77

Klc,3

Notation
2hu
yu 1
hp hu hd

hd hu
k 00 pcp g
2

2hd
y d 1
hp hu hd

k1 g

p ( y ) k 00 k1 y

pn ( y ) p ( y ) ( y )
Fracture
Design
78

2h p
yu yd

Input to a Height Map Calculation

hp
1
2
3
KIC,2
KIC,3

Fracture
Design
79

50 ft
3000 psi
3500 psi
4000 psi
1000 psiin.1/2
1000 psiin.1/2
3
62.4 lbm/ft

15.24 m
20.68 MPa
24.13 MPa
27.58 MPa
1.01 MPam1/2
1.01 MPam1/2
3
1000 kg/m

Calculated Height Map

(after HFM)

Tip
Location
[ft]

Tip
Location
[m]

1000

300

800
200

600
400

100

200

0
-200

-100

-400
-600

-200

-800
-300

-1000
-1200
3000
Fracture
Design
80

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800 psi
26 MPa

21

Treating Pressure

How to Use a Height Map?

1

Off-line:

Assume a height, make a 2D design,

Calculate net pressure (averaged in time)
Read-off a better estimate of height
2

In-line:

P3D design (3D),

Calculate net pressure at a location
Adjust height to equilibrium
Fracture
Design
81

Fluid loss:
the property of both the rock and the fluid

1
2

Fracture
Design
82

Leak-off
Spurt loss

Fluid Loss in Lab

AL

CL
uL
t
VLost
= S p 2CL t
AL
Fracture
Design
83

units :

m mm

Lost volume per unit surface, m

0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
y = 0.0024 + 0.000069x

0.002

Sp

0.001
0

10

CL
Sp

2CL

20
30
40
50
Square root time, t1/2 (s1/2)

m
unit :
s
unit : m

60

m3
or
m2 s

Fluid Loss in the Formation: Ct

Flow through filtercake covered wall
filtercake build-up and filtercake integrity

Flow through polymer invaded zone

viscosity of polymer in formation

Flow in bulk of formation

compressibility, permeability, viscosity of
original reservoir fluid

1
1
1
1

Ct CW Cv Cc
Fracture
Design
84

Description of leakoff through flow in

porous media and/or filtercake build-up
Concept of leakoff coefficient

Where are those twos coming from?

Integrated leakoff volume:

Leakoff Width
What is the physical meaning?
Fracture
Design
85

CL
uL
t
m m / s1 / 2

s
s1 / 2

VL 2 AC L t
VL
wL
2C L t
AL
m m m

Fracture
Design
86

Injection rate

Bottomhole pressure

Step rate test

Time

Bottomhole pressure

Step rate test

Propagation pressure

Two straight lines

Fracture
Design
87

Injection rate

3 ISIP

Fall-off (minifrac)

4 Closure
5 Reopening
6 Forced closure

1
5

7 Pseudo steady state

8 Rebound

2nD injection
cycle

shut-in

Fracture
Design
88

flow-back

Time

Injection rate

Injection rate

1st
injection
cycle

Bottomhole pressure

Pressure fall-off analysis

(Nolte)

t D t / te
Vte t = Vi 2Ae S p g t D , 2Ae C L te
wte t

Fracture
Design
89

Vi

- 2 S p g t D , 2C L te
Ae

g-function
1

1 t D

A1D/

g t D ,

dimensionless
shut-in time

1
t D AD1 /

dt D dAD

area-growth
exponent

4 t D 2 1 t D F 1 / 2, ;1 ;1 t D
g t D ,
1 2

Fracture
Design
90

where F[a, b; c; z] is the Hypergeometric function,

available in the form of tables and computing algorithms

g-function

Fracture
Design
91

Pressure fall-off

t D t / te

Vte t = Vi 2Ae S p g t D , 2Ae C L te

wte t

Vi

- 2S p 2C L te g t D ,
Ae

Fracture stiffness

pnet S f w

pw pC S f Vi / Ae - 2 S f S p - 2 S f C L te g t D ,
Fracture
Design
92

pw bN mN g t D ,

Fracture Stiffness
(reciprocal compliance)
pnet S f w

Pa/m

Table 5.5 Proportionality constant, Sf and suggested for basic fracture geometries

Fracture
Design
93

PKN

KGD

Radial

4/5

2/3

8/9

Sf

2E '
h f

E'
x f

3E '
16 R f

Shlyapobersky assumption
No spurt-loss

Vi
pw pC S f
- 2 S f S p - 2 S f C L te g t D ,
Ae

Ae from intercept

bN

mN

pw
g
Fracture
Design
94

Nolte-Shlyapobersky

Leakoff
coefficient,

PKN

KGD

h f

x f

4 te E '

mN

2 te E '

mN

Radial

8R f
3 te E '

m N

CL
Fracture
Extent
Fracture
Width

xf

2 E Vi
h 2f bN pC

we

Vi

x f hf

2.830C L t e
Fluid
Efficiency
Fracture
Design
95

we x f h f
Vi

xf

E Vi
h f bN pC

we

Vi

x f hf

2.956C L t e

Rf 3

we

Vi: injected into one wing

Vi

R 2f
2
2.754C L t e

we x f h f
Vi

3E Vi
8bN pC

we R 2f
Vi