SPE-175972-MS

Coupled Fluid-Solid Geomechanical Modeling of Multiple Hydraulic

Fractures Interacting with Natural Fractures and the Resulting Proppant
Distribution
S. Raymond, FracGeo; Y. Aimene, and J. Nairn, Oregon State University; A. Ouenes, FracGeo

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 20 –22 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The application of a new Material Point Method (MPM) approach to model the proppant distribution in
a reservoir where hydraulic fractures interact with natural fractures is presented and validated with an
Eagle Ford well. The new MPM approach uses particles to represent the slurry and its effects on the
hydraulic and natural fractures. The particles are injected in the hydraulic fractures and their action causes
the hydraulic fractures to propagate and interact with the natural fractures thus providing new pathways
for the proppant to move away from the wellbore when optimal natural fracture orientations are
encountered. Elementary tests, conducted with the new MPM approach show that fractures oriented in
certain directions close to the hydraulic fracture orientation facilitate the proppant placement while other
fracture orientations that are perpendicular to the hydraulic fracture or close to perpendicular direction
appear to cause screen out. When using the new MPM approach on multiple interacting natural fractures
with different orientations the same conclusions observed with one single fractures still hold and only
those close to the orientation of the hydraulic fractures promote the placement of the proppant. The
application of the new technology to an Eagle Ford well shows that the simulated proppant travels the
farthest in the frac stage that is known from other methods and measurements to be the one with the best
half fracture length. Furthermore, the examination of the simulated proppant concentration curve versus
time shows striking similarities with the actual slurry concentration measured at the same well. These
encouraging results show that the macroscopic modeling of proppant distribution using the new MPM
technology could help improve our understanding of the complex hydraulic fracturing process and the
resulting proppant distribution.

Introduction
A major factor in the success of the shale revolution is the use of hydraulic proppant fracturing where the
stimulated rock and its complex fracture network, invaded by the proppant, is kept propped to resist the
closure stress. The proppant is used to provide a stimulated permeability path that will hopefully bring
hydrocarbons originally locked in the shale to the wellbore. Commonly, sand is used as proppant but in
some high closure stress zones, other proppants based on ceramics and sometimes harder materials is used.
2 SPE-175972-MS

Without the proper proppant type and its placement away from the wellbore, frac stages cannot deliver
desirable hydrocarbon production. The optimal placement of the desired proppant is a major challenge that
begins with the fracing operations. Breaking the rock and creating the hydraulic fractures is the initial
concern of the fracing operation, with the main challenge being the placement of the proppant within the
fractured network. Pumping the proppant at a low rate can cause ⬙screen-out⬙ and pumping at a higher rate
can cause ⬙leak-off⬙. Finding the optimal pumping rate that will achieve the best proppant placement that
avoids screen-out and leak-off is a complex problem that is still poorly understood and rarely studied. The
negative economic impact of screen-out starts with the operational disruptions it causes during the fracing
operations. Too many screen-out occurances will increase the cost of the fracing operations but can also
lead to failure of the screened-out frac stage.
Cleary et al. (1995) identified some of the key factors that could prevent the optimal proppant
placement. Among these factors were: ⬙near-wellbore tortuosity, deviatoric stress, natural fractures and/or
perforation-dominated creation of complex fracture patterns in the wellbore vicinity⬙. Daneshy (2005,
2011) discussed the problems related to proppant placement and their impact on screen-out and the overall
shale well performance. From these observations, it is becoming clear that a successful proppant
placement has a big impact on the success of a shale well and all the factors hindering this success need
to be better understood. This new research area has been poorly investigated both from the experimental
and modeling perspectives due to its complexity. Given the lack of understanding of the complex
distribution of proppant, most of the efforts have been focused on estimating the resulting stimulated
propped permeability. In the companion paper, Ouenes et al (2015c) describes one way this stimulated
propped permeability is estimated from the geomechanical strain and used in frac design and reservoir
simulation software. Yu et al (2015) used a proppant table in a reservoir simulator also to estimate
indirectly this proppant distribution. Using strain and other reservoir properties derived from modeling or
field acquistions could hightlight the question ⬙where is the proppant and its resulting stimulated propped
permeability?⬙ but cannot answer the critical question ⬙why is the proppant there and how did it get
there?⬙.
To better understand the behavior of the proppant as it flows from the wellbore and into hydraulic
fractures, multiple experiments have been conducted. Jain et al. (2013) described a large scale experiment
to understand the behavior of the proppant in separated wellbore perforations. Mattson et al. (2014)
focused on the Cooke Conductivity Cell to study the behavior of the proppant and to attempt to model it
using the Discrete Element Method (DEM). Their results indicated that even in the Cooke Conductivity
Cell the proppant distribution was not uniform. In Medina et al. (2015) experimental data supported a
similar conclusion and provided indications on the possible role of the complex velocity behavior of the
proppants. In general, most of the modeling and experiments have focused on the understanding of the
proppant distribution in a hydraulic fractures and not on complex geologic features such as natural
fractures. Some authors (Dontsov and Peirce, 2015) limited their investigation to understanding the
proppant distribution using classical PKN and GDK models while others (Das et al., 2014) investigated
the feasibility of Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Eulerian Granular methods in a simple geometry
representing a hydraulic fracture. Unfortunately, these simplistic hydraulic fracture models are not
representative of the complexity observed in shale wells where the role of natural fractures in controlling
the behavior and path of the proppant and their impact on screen out cannot be neglected.

Modeling Proppant Distribution in the Presence of Natural Fractures using

the Material Point Method (MPM)
The role of natural fractures and their impact on the proppant distribution and screen-out has been
recognized for decades (Cleary et al. 1995). Zhang et al. (2009) conducted numerical experiments that
showed the complex interaction between the fluid, the natural fractures, the far and local stress field and
SPE-175972-MS 3

the conditions that lead to screen-out and pressure losses. Keshavarz et al. (2014) proposed a graded
injection of proppant particles with increasing size and decreasing concentration to achieve better
proppant placement in CBM wells where natural fractures play a key role in improving well productivity.
With this very limited body of knowledge and the critical importance of deriving a better understanding
of the impact of natural fractures on proppant distribution, we developed a practical approach, based on
the Material Point Method (MPM) to model the complex multiphysics problem of hydraulic fracturing in
the fractured media, involving both solid and fluid mechanics with proppant. This allowed, to the best of
our knowledge for the first time, the large scale modeling of proppant distribution in the presence of the
natural fractures near a wellbore.
MPM is a numerical technique used to solve the equations of continuum mechanics (Sulsky et al.
1994). MPM combines Lagrangian and Eulerian descriptions of the material and, in doing so, overcomes
the inherent drawbacks of using only one perspective. This is done by discretizing the material into
Lagrangian material points. These material points reside in an Eulerian mesh that is used to solve the
equations of motion during a timestep. An interpolation from the material points to the background mesh
nodes is the link for this dual perspective. MPM is an example of a meshless method (Belytschko et al.
1996) as the mesh that is used is not required for a full description of the material, it is only used for
efficient calculation purposes. Meshless methods have been borne out of the needs of scientists and
engineers to overcome limitations that are encountered in the more widely used Finite Element Method
(FEM) and other mesh based technologies. Previous work using MPM has shown its effectiveness in
modeling the interaction of natural and hydraulic fractures (Aimene & Nairn, 2014). This is possible due
to developments of the original MPM method allowing fractures to be included in the discretization
scheme. The initial development, known as CRAcks in the Material Points, or CRAMP (Nairn 2003,
Bardenhagen et al. 2011), enables the calculation of stresses and strains in the presence of a fracture and
also allows the dynamic behavior of fractures, such as opening and propagation, to be simulated. A recent
extension of the CRAMP algorithm allowing fractures interacting has been used to simulate the
interaction of hydraulic and natural fractures to solve multiple completion optimization problems (Aimene
& Ouenes, 2015, Ouenes et al. 2015a, Ouenes et al. 2015b, Ouenes et al. 2015c).
In this paper, an additional development to the geomechanical modeling of interacting fractures using
MPM, in the context of hydraulic fracturing is presented. Unlike the previous model (Aimene and Nairn,
2014, Aimene and Ouenes, 2015) where the effect of the fluid in the hydraulic fractures was modeled by
a traction law mimicking the fluid pressure on the fracture surfaces, this new model takes into account the
complex multiphysics scale of the hydraulic fracturing, by explicitly including the effect of the injected
mixture of fluid and proppant (slurry) in the hydraulic fractures. The slurry is representing the proppant
as particles that are injected inside the hydraulic fractures. In other words, the proppant and the slury is
treated as a fluid but represented as particles invading the hydraulic and natural fractures. In the next
sections, we use the word ⬙proppant⬙ to describe the fluid invading the hydraulic and natural fractures.
MPM has been shown to be apt in solving nonlinear problems such as coupling solid and fluid
interactions (York et al. 2000, Hu et al. 2010) which is augmented in the context of this study by the fluid
flow in the hydraulic fracture, fracture propagations and interactions in a naturally fractured media. The
fluid and solid material interaction is enabled by using the multimaterial mode algorithm (Bardenhagen
et al., 2001 and Nairn, 2013), which detects the contact forces between different materials determined to
be in contact, which are the fluid and the solid rock in our case. Forces at surfaces in contact were
calculated using coulomb friction theory where the frictionless contact was considered. A key issue in
MPM is the accurate determination of the contact normal direction. Because of the small fluid volume in
the fracture compared to the surrounding solid material volume, the normal vectors were evaluated on the
rock material using their volume gradient (Nairn, 2013).
Fluid and solid are both governed by the same continuum mechanics. The differences in behavior is
captured in the different constitutive equations used. The solid (rock) sample is modeled by an elastic
4 SPE-175972-MS

isotropic material and the fluid pressure by a Tait equation (Li, 1967, Khalil, 2013). The fluid constitutive
response is represented with a hyperelastic material with a volumetric strain energy function. The fluid
particles or ⬙proppant⬙ are injected at a constant or increasing then constant volume rate Q0 with an initial
velocity V0 at a fixed injection area representing the perforated clusters. Under the fluid pressure on the
fracture surfaces, the hydraulic fracture tip stress is developed; and material failure occurs if failure
conditions are fulfilled. Propagation of fractures is directed along the direction of maximum hoop stress.
The simulations are solved under plane strain conditions where the stress and strain fields, fracture
opening displacement, fracture lengths, and the J integral at each fracture tip etc. are monitored. Simple
examples based on a single hydraulic fracture and a single natural fracture are performed to test the
underlying principles of the new methodology. More complex examples are introduced to understand the
effect of natural fractures on screen out. Finally, an Eagle Ford case study is presented, and the estimated
half lengths derived by other means (Ouenes et al. 2015c) are compared to the results of this new approach
for modeling the macroscopic proppant distribution.
Effect of One Natural Fracture on Proppant Placement
To understand the behavior of fluid and solid interaction within a fracture, as well as the following
propagation, a number of elementary tests using the data described in Aimene and Nairn (2014) were
performed. These involved a single hydraulic and a single natural fracture, placed within the material and
oriented at various degrees from the horizontal axis. Lateral compressive stress is applied on the sample
reproducing the regional stress whose anisotropy is equal to one. A diagram of this is shown in Fig. 1 of
the geometry of the hydraulic and natural fracture.

Figure 1—Schematic of elementary tests involving one hydraulic and one natural fracture.

The angle shown in Fig. 1 was varied so that three cases were tested: 30°, 60°, and 90°. Intersection
of fractures is handled with the extended CRAMP algorithm and there is no limit as to how many fractures
may be present in any single simulation. This is a key feature of MPM that will be further explored in the
following sections.
An injection algorithm was developed so as to inject material points with a specified volume flow rate
at a user defined location area representing perforated clusters. The fluid imparted pressure on the sides
SPE-175972-MS 5

of the fracture whose material has a critical value for fracture propagation. The proppant, represented as
the fluid material points, pumped into the hydraulic fracture was pushed further into the fracture and
eventually propagated into the natural fracture. Four simulation times for the three elementary test results
are shown in Figs 2–4 for the 30°, 60°, and 90° cases, respectively. Fig. 4 represents a zoom of the last
simulation for the 60° case where the red points represent the latest distribution of the proppant. In all
three cases the proppant successfully opened the hydraulic fracture and propagated it to intersect with the
nearby natural fracture. Once the two fractures had crossed, the proppant entered the natural fracture and
began imparting pressure on the natural fracture. The increase in fluid pumping volume resulted in the
natural fractures propagating with the proppant flowing along with it.

Figure 2—(A) Elementary test of a 30° natural fracture: a) proppant entering the hydraulic fracture. b) intersection of hydraulic and
natural fracture and proppant entry into the natural fracture. c) proppant filled natural fracture and begins to propagate. d) further
propagation of natural fracture with proppant flow. (B) Proppant concentration during the simulation.
6 SPE-175972-MS

Figure 3—(A) Elementary test of a 60° natural fracture: a) proppant entering the hydraulic fracture. b) intersection of hydraulic and
natural fracture and proppant entry into the natural fracture. c) proppant filled natural fracture and begins to propagate. d) further
propagation of natural fracture with proppant flow.propagate. d) further propagation of natural fracture with proppant flow. (B)
Proppant concentration during the simulation.

Figure 4 —Zoom around the hydraulic and natural fractures showing the asymmetric proppant distribution

In addition to the modeling of the proppant distribution during the simulation, an additional algorithm
was implemented to evaluate the proppant concentration in the fracture network over time. This uses the
SPE-175972-MS 7

open fracture area and the number of particles within each fracture to calculate a concentration of proppant
within a unit area of open fracture. Figs 2B, 3B, 5B show the proppant concentration plot. Additionally,
key features of the proppant concentration curves related to leak-off are identified for the 4 distinct steps
of the simulation: (a) fluid entering the hydraulic fracture, (b) fluid propagating and intersecting the
hydraulic and natural fracture, (c) fluid entering the natural fracture, and finally (d) fluid filling the natural
fracture and propagating the natural fracture.

Figure 5—(A) Elementary test of a 90° natural fracture: a) proppant entering the hydraulic fracture. b) intersection of hydraulic and
natural fracture and proppant entry into the natural fracture. c) proppant filled natural fracture and begins to propagate. d) further
propagation of natural fracture with proppant flow.(B) Graph of proppant concentration during the simulation. Notice the inability of the
proppant to open new patheways causing a screen out

The effect of the different angles is captured in the behavior of the proppant concentration curves as,
for example the 90° test shows a much higher and sustained proppant concentration which occurred due
to the difficulty in the proppant opening a new fracture. Comparing this to the 60° test, it was observed
that when the fluid is about to intersect with the natural fracture, the proppant concentration is at its peak,
once the new fracture had opened the proppant was able to leak-off and this was shown in the proppant
concentration curve declining.
When comparing the proppant concentration curves in the three cases shown in Fig. 3B, 4B, and 6B
the importance of the natural fracture orientation is obvious. As the fracture rotates from 30° to 90°, we
notice the difficulty of the proppant to open, propagate and travel through the fractures. In the case of a
30° natural fracture, we see successful placement of the proppant, while in the case of 90° it is obvious
that we have screen-out since we are unable to place more proppant. Although this observation is obvious
8 SPE-175972-MS

and represents basic plumbing (proppant does not like 90° turns), it is a critical validation step in the
macroscopic modeling of proppant placement and the impact of the natural fractures on that successful
placement.

Figure 6 —(A) Evolution of proppant placement in a complex fracture network of configuration with favorable natural fracture
orientations. (B) Total proppant concentration versus time.

With these elementary tests it is clear that the physics of the fluid (or proppant) solid interaction and
fracture mechanics was correctly captured by the MPM model. In the next section more complex fracture
networks are shown to emulate more realistic situations that are encountered in fractured shale reservoirs.
Effect of Multiple Natural Fractures on Proppant Placement
The resulting proppant distribution is dictated by the geometry, the orientation and the complexity of
natural fracture network as well as the anisotropy and orientation of maximum regional stress. The new
approach presented in this paper allows simulating complex fracture networks and helps in understanding
and identifying favorable networks that yield a larger proppant distribution from those involving situations
causing ‘screen out’. A number of simulations were conducted in order to ascertain the ability of this new
technology to correctly simulate and identify fracture networks that hinder or promote proppant distri-
bution. We consider two real fractured reservoir configurations where multiple fracture sets exist. Some
of these fractures enhance the proppant placement while others inhibit it. A detailed case study will
describe in the future the considered reservoir, its complex fracturing and the implication on the successful
fracing of the wells. In the next section, a brief summary of this real case study is described.
Fig. 6 shows a simulation involving two hydraulic fractures (or perforations clusters) being injected
with fluid and the resulting proppant distribution and proppant concentration over time. The concentration
curve indicates good fracturing was achieved as the concentration rises during the hydraulic fracture
propagation and a decrease that follows the intersection of natural fractures and further proppant
SPE-175972-MS 9

placement. Fig. 7 shows a zoom of the proppant distribution at the end of the simulation showing the
successful placement especially in the upper natural fracture that has a favorable fracture orientation.

Figure 7—Zoom on the last proppant distribution from Fig. 6 showing the ability of the proppant to propagate farther when
encountering the fracture set oriented N40E. The fracture set oriented N10E, seems to prevent the proppant placement.

Fig. 8, shows a case where the proppant is not able to travel too far from the injection point since the
hydraulic fracture is encountering natural fractures with unfavorable orientations. These observations are
tested on an Eagle Ford well where natural fractures follow multiple orientations.
10 SPE-175972-MS

Figure 8 —(A) Evolution of proppant placement in a complex fracture network of configuration with unfavorable natural fracture
orientations. (B) Total proppant concentration versus time.

Application to an Eagle Ford Well

In a companion paper (Ouenes et al. 2015c), the propped permeability around an Eagle Ford well was
estimated with two workflows that use hydraulic fracturing design and reservoir simulation software.
These workflows are based on the strain derived from the MPM geomechanical simulation that takes into
account the interaction between the hydraulic and natural fractures. In this paper, we attempt to understand
the role of the proppant in creating the stimulated and propped permeability. The objective of this new
technology is to study the macroscopic effects of the natural fractures on the proppant placement. We will
focus in this paper on the last three completion stages at the heel of the considered Eagle Ford well. The
three completion stages 7, 8 and 9 are surrounded by natural fractures captured by the Equivalent Fracture
Model (EFM) (Fig. 10A). When injecting proppant in these three stages, our objective was to estimate the
asymmetric half-fracture length at each stage and derive a better understanding of the proppant main flow
paths given the natural fractures surrounding the well. The resulting main proppant flow paths after the
injection are shown in Fig. 10B and showed that the highest half length will be achieved at the eastern
side of completion stage 7 which is in line with the results derived with geomechanical simulations based
on pressure alone in the hydraulic fractures and the resulting strain which was used in frac design and
reservoir simulation.
SPE-175972-MS 11

Figure 9 —(A) The Equivalent Fracture Model (EFM) around the last three stages of the Eagle Ford well described in Ouenes et al. 2015c,
(B) Main proppant flow pathways showing the best asymmetric half length at completion stage #7.

The advantage of a simulation tool showing the proppant distribution is to be able to follow its
progression from the wellbore to the outer edges of the SRV (defined as the initial area where the propped
permeability can be found as a result of the successful placement of the proppant) and examine the areas
where the natural fractures enhance or hinder the optimal placement of the proppant. Based on the natural
fractures surrounding the well, the treatment could be adjusted. For example there is no need to keep
pumping if at a given completion stage, the natural fractures create a barrier to a succefsul proppant
placement. Fig. 10A shows for example the big difference in the proppant placement between completion
stage 7 and frac stage 9. In completion stage 9, the neighboring fractures are allowing the placement of
the proppant thus providing the longest asymmetric half length. From stage 8, we learn that the fractures
oriented in the NE direction will help develop complexity and the proppant will be able to be placed in
multiple directions. The opening and resistance of certain natural fractures can be seen in the proppant
concentration curve Fig. 10B which provides an indication that the considered three completion stages
will be successful and the proppant will be placed as desired. However, the proppant concentration curve
could provide additional information. In this paper we examine the total proppant concencentration from
all three completion stages and in future publications we will discuss the details provided by the total
proppant concentration curve at each completion stage.
12 SPE-175972-MS

Figure 10 —(A) shows a proppant simulation involving three hydraulic fractures at the heel of an Eagle Ford well and the resulting
proppant distribution at four key time steps, (B) evolution of the proppant concentration vs. time as the proppant invades and avoids
different natural fractures

When focusing on the time steps indicated in Fig. 10 by the letters c and d, we notice that the proppant
placement is not a smooth operation and there is a constant battle between the pumping and the natural
fractures. Around the time indicated by the letter c, the proppant concentration curve shows a plateau
which indicates that a fracture system is preventing the proppant to go farther. The plateau is followed by
small drop indicating that a fracture opened up and was invaded by proppant. The new opened volume
is filled with more proppant and more fractures open up with less resistance around the time indicated by
the letter d. The question one may ask: are these observations numerical errors or are they observed in real
data?
If we focus on the times indicated by the letters c and d in Fig. 10, and we take a moving average of
the proppant concentration curve, we could compare these numerical simulations to real data as shown in
Fig. 11. The proppant concentration of the initial treatment of the Eagle Ford was not published however
the refracing of the considered well and its treatment data was published by Diakhate et al. (2015). It is
interesting to note that one of the actual published slurry concentration curves during the refracing of the
considered Eagle Ford well (Fig. 11A) shows similar features as those seen in the simulation (Fig. 11B).
These encouraging results, indicate that modeling the proppant distribution at a macroscopic level and
taking into account the natural fractures could be possible with the proposed new technology illustrated
with the considered Eagle Ford well.
SPE-175972-MS 13

Figure 11—(A) Slurry concentration measured during the refrac of the same considered Eagle Ford well showing similar features as
those shown in the simulated proppant concentration.) Moving average of the proppant concentration curve of Fig. 11B showing some
of the key features related to the impact of natural fractures on proppant concentration.

Conclusions
The application of a coupled solid/fluid MPM technology to model the proppant distribution in a reservoir
where hydraulic fractures interact with natural fractures has shown that it is possible to represent the
macroscopic behavior of the proppant. The new MPM approach uses particles to represent the slurry and
its effects on the hydraulic and natural fractures. To validate and better understand this new methodology
of modeling proppant, elementary tests were conducted with the coupled solid/fluid MPM approach.
These tests showed that fractures oriented in certain directions facilitate the proppant placement while
other fracture orientations that are perpendicular or close to perpendicular direction appear to cause screen
out. A further test of this MPM model involved multiple interacting natural fractures with different
orientations. The same conclusions observed with one single fractures held to be true, indicating the
effectiveness and reliability of this new method. Additionally, proppant concentration curves were
produced to allow the behavior of the proppant to be expressed further. These curves indicated various
stages of proppant/fracture interactions. The application of the new technology to an Eagle Ford well
shows that the simulated proppant travels the farthest in the frac stage that is known from other methods
and measurements to be the one with the best half fracture length. Furthermore, the examination of the
simulated proppant concentration curve versus time shows striking similarities with the actual slurry
concentration measured at the same well. These encouraging results, show that the macroscopic modeling
of proppant distribution using the coupled solid/fluid MPM technology could be used in improving our
understanding of the complex hydraulic fracturing process and the resulting proppant distribution that
provide the needed initial stimulated permeability.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Nick Umholtz for his editorial comments.
14 SPE-175972-MS

References
Aimene, Y. E., & Nairn, J. A., 2014, Modeling Multiple Hydraulic Fractures Interacting with Natural
Fractures Using the Material Point Method, Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/167801-MS
Aimene, Y., Ouenes, A., (2015) Geomechanical modeling of hydraulic fractures interacting with
natural fractures — Validation with microseismic and tracer data from the Marcellus and Eagle
Ford, Interpretation, Vol. 3, No. 3 (August 2015); p. 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2014-
0274.1
Bardenhagen, S. G., Guilkey, J. E., Roessig, K. M., Brackbill, J. U., Witzel, W. M., Foster, J.C. (2001).
An improved contact algorithm for the material point method and application to stress propagation
in granular materials. Computer Modeling Engng. Sci., 2, 509 –522.
Bardenhagen, S., Nairn, J., Lu, H. (2011). Simulation of dynamic fracture with the Material Point
Method using a mixed J-integral and cohesive law approach. International Journal of Fracture.
doi: 10.1007/s10704-011-9602-1
Belytschko, T., Krongauz, Y., Organ, D., Fleming, M., Krysl, P. (1996). Meshless Methods: An
Overview and Recent Developments. Computer Method in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.
doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01078-X
Cleary, M. P., Johnson, D. E., Kogsbøll, H.-H., Owens, K. A., Perry, K. F., de Pater, C. J., Mauro, T.
(1993, January 1). Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid Premature Screen-Out of
Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant Concentration. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/25892-MS
Daneshy, A. A. (2005, January 1). Pressure Variations Inside the Hydraulic Fracture and Its Impact
on Fracture Propagation, Conductivity, and Screen-out. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/95355-MS
Daneshy, A. A., ⬙Uneven distribution of proppants in perf clusters,⬙ World Oil, April 2011, pp. 75–76.
Das, K., Basu, D., Smart, K., Ofoegbu, G., (2014) Numerical modeling of proppant flow in fractured
reservoirs, ANSYS Convergence Regional Conference, May 22-24, Houston
Diakhate, M., Gazawi, A., Barree, R. D., Cossio, M., Tinnin, B., McDonald, B., & Barzola, G. (2015,
February 3). Refracturing on Horizontal Wells in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas - One
Operator’s Perspective. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/173333-MS
Dontsov, E.V., Peirce, A.P., (15 June, 2015) Proppant transport in hydraulic fracturing: Crack tip
screen-out in KGD and P3D models, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Volume 63,
Pages 206 –218
Hu, P. G., Xue, L. Mao, S., Kamakoti, R., Zhao, H., Dittakavi N, Wang, Z. and Ni, K. (2010). Material
point method applied to fluid-structure interaction (FSI)/aeroelasticity problems. 48th American
Institure of Aeronautic and Astronautics (AIAA), Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January, Orlando,
Florida.
Jain, S., Soliman, M., Bokane, A., Crespo, F., Deshpande, Y., Kunnath Aven, N., & Cortez, J. (2013,
February 4). Proppant Distribution in Multistage Hydraulic Fractured Wells: A Large-Scale
Inside-Casing Investigation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/163856-MS
Khalil, M., Jan, B.M. and Raman, A.A.A. (2013). A Tait-like Equation for Estimating the Density of
Nontraditional Super Lightweight Completion Fluid at High Pressure and Temperature. Petroleum
Science and Technology, 31: 44 –50.
Keshavarz, A., Badalyan, A., Carageorgos, T., Johnson, R., & Bedrikovetsky, P. (2014, February 25).
Stimulation of Unconventional Naturally Fractured Reservoirs by Graded Proppant Injection:
Experimental Study and Mathematical Model. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/167757-MS
SPE-175972-MS 15

Li, Yuan-Hui (1967). Equation of state of water and seawater. J. Geophysical Research, 72 (10):
2665–2678.
Mattson, E. D., Huang, H., Conway, M., & O’Connell, L. (2014, February 4). Discrete Element
Modeling Results of Proppant Rearrangement in the Cooke Conductivity Cell. Society of Petro-
leum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/168604-MS
Medina, R., El khoury, J.E, Morris, J.P, Prioul, R., Desroches, J., Detwiler, R.L, Flow of concentrated
suspensions through fractures: small variations in solid concentration cause significant in-plane
velocity
Nairn. J, (2003). Material point method calculations with explicit cracks. CMES - Computer Modeling
in Engineering and Sciences.
Nairn, J. A. (2013). Modeling imperfect interfaces in the material point method using multimaterial
methods. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng. Sci., 92, 271–299
Ouenes, A., Smaoui, R., Aimene, Y., & Nairn, J. A. (2015a). Predicting Frac Stage Differential Stress
and Microseismicity Using Geomechanical Modeling and Time Lapse Multi-Component Seismic
- Application to the Montney Shale. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/174054-MS
Ouenes, A., Umholtz, N., Aimene, Y. (2015b) Using geomechanical modeling to quantify the impact
of natural fractures on well performance and microseismicity: application to the Wolfcamp,
Permian basin, paper URTeC 2173459 presented at the 2015 Unconventional Resources Tech-
nology Conference, July 20-22, San Antonio.
Ouenes, A, Bachir, A., Paryani, M., Smaoui, R., (2015c), Estimation of Propped Volume Permeability
Using Strain from Geomechanical of Interacting Hydraulic and Natural Fractures – Application to
the Eagle Ford, paper SPE 175971 presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference 20
– 22 October, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sulsky, D., Chen, Z., Schreyer, H. (1994). A particle method for history-dependent materials.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(94)90112-0
York, A. R., Sulsky, D. and Schreyer, H. L. (2000). Fluid-membrane interaction based on the material
point method. Inter. J. Numer. Mech. Engng., 48 (6): 901–924.
Yu, W. Zhang, T., Du, S., Sepehrnoori, K., (February 2015) Numerical study of the effect of uneven
proppant distribution between multiple fractures on shale gas well performance, FUEL, doi:
10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.074
Zhang, X., R. G. Jeffrey, and, M. Thiercelin (2009), Mechanics of fluid-driven fracture growth in
naturally fractured reservoirs with simple network geometries, J. Geophys. Res., 114, B12406, doi:
10.1029/2009JB006548