Energies: Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Optimization For Low Permeability Reservoirs Based On Unified Fracture Design

energies
Article
Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Optimization for Low
Permeability Reservoirs Based on Unified
Fracture Design
Kun Ai 1,2 , Longchen Duan 1 , Hui Gao 1, * ID
and Guangliang Jia 2
1 Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China; aikun@vip.163.com (K.A.);
duanlongchen@163.com (L.D.)
2 Downhole Operation Company, Sinopec North China Petroleum Bureau, Zhengzhou 450042, China;
jglly@126.com
* Correspondence: gaohui@cug.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-158-2742-6025

Received: 1 June 2018; Accepted: 25 June 2018; Published: 1 July 2018
Abstract: Hydraulic fracturing optimization is very important for low permeability reservoir
stimulation and development. This paper couples the fracturing treatment optimization with fracture
geometry optimization in order to maximize the dimensionless productivity index. The optimal
fracture dimensions and optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity, given a certain mass or volume
of proppant, can be determined by Unified Fracture Design (UFD) method. When solving the optimal
propped fracture length and width, the volume and permeability of the propped fracture should be
determined first. However, they vary according to the proppant concentration in the fracture and
cannot be obtained in advance. This paper proposes an iterative method to obtain the volume and
permeability of propped fractures according to a desired proppant concentration. By introducing the
desired proppant concentration, this paper proposes a rapid semi-analytical fracture propagation
model, which can optimize fracture treatment parameters such as pad fluid volume, injection rate,
fluid rheological parameters, and proppant pumping schedule. This is achieved via an interval search
method so as to satisfy the optimal fracture conductivity and dimensions. Case study validation is
conducted to demonstrate that this method can obtain optimal solutions under various constraints in
order to meet different treatment conditions.
Keywords: hydraulic fracturing; treatment optimization; unified fracture design; fracture

propagation model; low permeability reservoir
1. Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing is an important method currently used for low permeability
reservoir stimulation and development. There are many factors affecting hydraulic fracturing,
including reservoir characteristics, fracture parameters, and fracturing treatment parameters. To obtain
the best stimulation results, hydraulic fracturing optimization [1] is conducted such as fracturing
completion optimization [2], fracture spacing optimization [3], fracture geometry optimization [4–7],
proppant distribution optimization [8,9], treatment parameters optimization [10–13], optimization
for different types of reservoirs [14–17], optimization considering heterogeneous properties of
reservoirs [18–20] and complex fracture networks optimization [21–23].
This paper focuses on the treatment optimization for low permeability reservoirs.
The conventional treatment optimization is to obtain optimal treatment parameters in order to
maximize the production with some constraints such as the cost and treatment capability. Usually,
the net present value (NPV) [24] is used as the optimization objective. Taking various treatment
Energies 2018, 11, 1720; doi:10.3390/en11071720 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 1720 2 of 23
parameters as inputs, fracture propagation simulations are executed to obtain the fracture dimensions.
Then, reservoir simulations are performed to calculate the production and net present value. From large
number of simulations, the optimal treatment parameters are determined to maximize the net present
values. To obtain the global optimization solution [25–27], several optimization methods are used such
as genetic algorithm [28–32], neural networks [31–33], integer programming [34,35], surrogate-based
approach [23,36].
Usually, numerical methods are used for both fracture propagation simulation [37–39] and
production prediction [40–43]. However, as the input parameters must be adjusted iteratively,
computational efficiency is one of the key issues during optimization. Therefore, numerical methods
are not suitable for rapid optimization. Moreover, models of production calculation need many input
parameters that are difficult to obtain accurately. To overcome this issue, Gorucu and Ertekin [33]
proposed an artificial neural network model to determine the relationships between production and
design parameters. A reservoir simulator was used for calculating the production profiles and training
the neural network system. Then the expected production profiles can be input into the trained neural
network to obtain the optimal design parameters. Mohaghegh et al. [31,32] utilized fundamental
well information, historical production data, and previous fracturing treatment schemes as input for
a neural network and genetic algorithms to obtain the optimal treatment parameters for new wells.
The above methods do not use complex hydraulic fracturing simulators and a lot of basic reservoir
data; however, it still needs a large quantity of historical fracturing data or training data, and the
optimization accuracy strongly relies on the quality of the data.
In order to further increase the computational efficiency, significant simplifications are performed
for both fracture propagation models and production prediction models. For instances, 2D fracture
propagation models [44–46] are used instead of fully-3D [37] or pseudo-3D [47–50] ones. The simple
equation of the ratio of post-fracture and pre-fracture productivity indexes [5,10–12,28,36] are used
instead of actual production solutions. There are two main problems for conventional treatment
optimization methods [28,36,51,52]. The first one is that the fracture dimensions are not optimized
directly. The second one is that the simplified productivity indexes are much empirical due to
the lack of rigorous theoretical basis. This paper couples the fracturing treatment optimization
with fracture geometry optimization in order to maximize the dimensionless productivity index.
The optimal fracture dimensions corresponding to the maximum dimensionless productivity index
are obtained from Unified Fracture Design (UFD) method. Then, a rapid semi-analytical fracture
propagation model is proposed to obtain the optimal treatment parameters in order to satisfy the
optimal fracture dimensions.
Unified fracture design is an optimization method proposed by Economides et al. [53,54], which is
suitable for both high-middle and low permeability reservoirs. This method gives the analytical
solution for the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity and dimensions in order to maximize
the dimensionless productivity index, given a certain mass or volume of proppant. The fracture
dimensions and volume of proppant are related by a proppant number. There are certain analytical
equations that describe the relationship between the maximum dimensionless productivity index and
the proppant number [55]. Thus, these equations demonstrate a direct relationship between production
and the optimal fracture dimensions. In equations that solve for propped fracture length and width,
the volume and permeability of the propped fracture are supposed to be fixed and known in advance.
However, they vary according to the proppant concentration in the fracture. In this paper, an iterative
method is proposed to determine them for a given preset proppant concentration, allowing solutions
for optimal fracture length and width to be calculated.
After UFD was proposed, it was further extended and applied in many situations.
While considering the fracture face and choke skins, the relationships between the maximum
dimensionless productivity index and optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity for different
proppant numbers have been reported [56]. The UFD method can provide rapid solutions for
the fracture optimization of reservoirs with irregularly-shaped drainage areas [57,58], very low
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 3 of 23
permeability reservoirs [59], horizontal wells [60,61], and coalbed methane wells [16]. Due to the
high flow velocity of gas in fractures, the non-Darcy flow effect is combined with the UFD method to
optimize the design of gas reservoirs [13,16]. The UFD method is also used for optimizing the design
of fractured horizontal wells in heterogeneous tight gas reservoirs [19]. However, the above works
only focus on the optimization of fracture number, fracture spacing and fracture geometry dimensions.
Treatment optimizations are not mentioned [62–65]. In order to satisfy the optimal fracture dimensions,
the treatment parameters should also be optimized further.
To this end, this paper proposes a method coupling the fracture geometry optimization and
treatment parameter optimization to maximize the dimensionless productivity index, given a certain
mass or volume of proppant. By introducing a desired proppant concentration, both the optimal
fracture dimensions and treatment parameters can be solved rapidly. The methods are detailed in
Section 2. A case study and some discussions are described in Section 3. Moreover, the proppant mass
or volume can also be optimized further considering the fracturing cost or the treatment capability,
which will be discussed in Section 3. Conclusions are drawn in Section 4.
2. The Model
2.1. Fracture Geometry Optimization Based on UFD

UFD method gives the analytical solution for the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity in
order to maximize the dimensionless productivity index, given a certain mass or volume of proppant.
The optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity is the function of a proppant number. The details
about UFD method are given in Appendix A.
When the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity is determined, the optimal fracture
half-length and width can be obtained accordingly:
!0.5
k f Vf
xopt = (1)
C f Dopt kh p
!0.5
C f Dopt kVf
wopt = (2)
k f hp
where: k f is the permeability of the propped fracture (md); k is the permeability of the reservoir
(md); h p is the thickness of the reservoir, in this model, it equals to the fracture height (m); C f Dopt is
V
the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity; Vf = 2p is the single wing volume of the propped
fracture (m3 ); Vp is the total volume of the propped fracture (m3 ).
As mentioned above, since the volume and permeability of the propped fracture are unknown,
the fracture dimensions cannot be solved directly. Note that the volume and permeability of the
propped fracture are both related to the proppant concentration, which reflects the uniformity of
the proppant distribution. In theory, if the distribution of the proppant in the fracture is completely
uniform, then the value of the proppant concentration can reach the bulk density of the proppant
on the ground. However, due to proppant transport in the pipe and fracture, the distribution of the
proppant is never completely uniform. Thus, the value of the proppant concentration should be less
than the bulk density. Nevertheless, the proppant concentration can be maintained at a suitable level
by optimizing the treatment parameters. So, we can preset a desired proppant concentration value
and then calculate the volume and permeability of the propped fracture. The corresponding optimal
fracture dimensions can be obtained accordingly, which can be reached through treatment parameter
optimization. Thanks to the corresponding relationship between the optimal fracture dimensions and
the proppant concentrations, once the optimal fracture dimensions are reached, the desired proppant
concentration can be obtained.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 4 of 23
This paper proposes an iterative method to solve the optimal fracture dimensions given a preset
proppant concentration. Suppose all the proppants stay within the range of the thickness of the
reservoirs; then the relationship of the mass and concentration of the proppant in the fracture is
as follows:
Mp
Vp = (3)
Cs
where M p is the proppant mass (kg), which is constant if the fracturing scale is fixed. Cs is the proppant
concentration (kg/m3 ). Then, the fracture width Equation (2) can be rewritten as follows:
!0.5
C f Dopt kM p
wopt = (4)
2k f h p Cs
The permeability of the fracture is related to the proppant concentration per unit area and closure
pressure. The proppant concentration per unit area is defined as:
C f = Cs wopt (5)
Then, function of the permeability of the fracture can be written as:

k f = F C f , Pc (6)
where Pc is the closure pressure (MPa), which can be determined by field tests. There is no
explicit equation for the function F, which can be obtained from the permeability curve of different
proppant concentrations per unit area and closure pressures, given one certain type of proppant.
The permeability curves can be obtained through lab experiments.
Given the proppant mass M p and the desired proppant concentration Cs in the fracture,
based on the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity C f Dopt , the optimal fracture dimensions
and permeability can be solved by the fracture half-length Equation (1), width Equation (4) and
permeability Equation (6) using the iterative method.
Firstly assume an initial permeability k f , and substitute it into the fracture width equation to
solve wopt . The proppant concentration per unit area C f can then be solved by wopt , and the new
permeability k f can be obtained from the permeability curve. If the difference between the new value
and the assumed one is within a certain small range, then the new permeability and corresponding
fracture width can be obtained. Otherwise, replace the assumed permeability with the new value and
repeat the above procedure until convergence is achieved. Once the fracture width and permeability
are calculated, substitute them into Equation (1) to solve the optimal fracture half-length.
2.2. Treatment Optimization through a Fast Semi-Analytical Fracture Propagation Model

Once the optimal fracture dimensions are determined, the treatment parameters also need to
be optimized. There are many parameters that influence the fracture dimensions, and the value of
each should be within a certain range considering the treatment feasibility. Moreover, the treatment
optimization result should satisfy the fracture length and width simultaneously. In order to solve
this optimization problem, the treatment parameters need to be tuned and the fracture dimensions
calculated repeatedly. Thus, the computation of the fracture propagation model should be rapid.
Currently, the widely-used PKN [44–46] analytical model is very fast. However, its solution does
not rigorously satisfy the flow continuity equation. Pseudo-3D [47–50] and fully-3D [37] models can
solve the geometric dimensions of the propped fracture accurately. However, these methods are
time-consuming and rarely suitable for treatment parameter optimization. This paper proposes a fast
2D semi-analytical fracture propagation model, which assumes that the fracture height is constant and
the proppant is transported in the fracture at the same speed as the sand-laden fluid.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 5 of 23
In this method, the total pumping time is divided into 1, 2, . . . k, . . . k end segments. The length of
each time segment is ∆t and the pumping fluid volume during each segment is constant, ∆V. Then,
after k time segments, the total pumping time is t = k∆t and the fluid elements in the current fracture
can be recorded as 1, 2, . . . i, . . . k accordingly. The following values of each fluid element are calculated
according to the total pumping time t: the length Li (t), the distance of its back interface to the fracture
entry di (t), the cumulative fluid loss volume Vli (t), the remaining volume Vi (t), the proppant mass
M pi , and the proppant concentration Csi (t). The proppant mass in each element is related to the
pumping schedule and supposed to be invariable during fracture propagation. Additionally, we record
the current total fracture half-length L(t) and width distribution W ( x, t) at the end of each pumping
time segment.
During one new pumping time segment, the length of each existing fluid element Li (t) varies
continuously due to the change of the fracture width at its location and the fluid loss within it. As more
fluid is injected, the existing fluid element moves forward. Hence, the distance of the back interface
to the fracture entry di (t) also changes. Due to fluid loss, the volume of the fluid element decreases
continuously. For the pad fluid element, its volume decreases to 0 eventually. For the sand-laden fluid
element, thanks to the existence of proppant, its final volume will be greater than 0. The maximum
concentration Csmax should be set to ensure proppant transport in the fracture. Otherwise, a sand plug
will occur. Csmax can be determined empirically. Figure 1a shows the fluid element distribution after k
time segments. Figure 1b is the fluid element distribution after k + 1 time segments.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the fracture propagation model.
The width equation uses the PKN analytical solution for double wing fractures with fluid loss [44]:
" #1
2 1 − υ2 µ a Q2 4 1

W (0, t) = 1.425 t8 (7)
ECH
) 14
x 2 12
(
x x π x
W ( x, t) = W (0, t) sin−1 + 1 − − (8)
L L L 2L
where: n n −1
2n + 1 3Q
µa = K 2
(9)
3n HW
where ν is the rock Poisson’s ratio, E is the rock elastic modulus (Pa), H is the fracture height (m), C is
the fluid loss coefficient (m/s1/2 ), µ a is the apparent viscosity of the power law fluid (Pa·s), K is the
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 6 of 23
fluid consistency coefficient (Pa·sn ), n is the flow index, Q is the injection rate (m3 /s), and W is the
average width along the fracture height (m). For the PKN model, W = 0.785W (0, t).
Because the fracture length solution of the PKN model does not satisfy the flow continuity
equation, the following continuity equation is used for fracture half-length calculation (where spurt
loss is ignored):
Z L(t) k
πHW ( x, t)
dx + ∑ Vli (t) = Qt (10)
0 4 i =1
where: 
k 2HCLi ( j)
 V (t) = ∆t · ∑ √

i<k
li
j = i +1 ( j−i )∆t (11)

 V (t) = 0
lk i=k
The volume of the fluid loss for each element is limited as follows:
(
Vli (t) ≤ Vi (t − ∆t) for pad fluid
M pi (12)
Vli (t) ≤ Vi (t − ∆t) − Csmax for sand − laden fluid
Because the fracture half-length L(t) cannot be solved explicitly, an iterative method is used.
First, an initial fracture half-length is assumed, and then the fracture width distribution is solved
by Equation (8). We can substitute it into Equation (10) to check whether the continuity equation
is satisfied. If it is not, then we assume another fracture half-length and calculate again. In general,
the fracture half-length increases with time. So, the assumed value can be set as the previous value
plus a small increment until it finally satisfies the continuity equation. When both the fracture width
and half-length have been determined, the fluid element space in the fracture should be reassigned.
The remaining volume of each fluid element after pumping for k time segments is:
Vi (t) = Vi (t − ∆t) − Vli (t) (13)
According to the remaining volume of each fluid element, starting from the fracture tip,
we calculate in turn the distance of the back interface of element 1, 2, . . . i, . . . k to the fracture entry:

 Vi (t) = di−1 (t) W ( x, t) Hdx
R
i>1
R di ( t ) (14)
 Vi (t) = L(t) W ( x, t) Hdx i=1
d (t) i
As the model satisfies the continuity equation, then the following condition will be
satisfied naturally:
dk (t) = 0 (15)
Thus, the length of each fluid element becomes:

(
L i ( t ) = d i −1 ( t ) − d i ( t ) i>1
(16)
Li ( t ) = L ( t ) − di ( t ) i=1
The proppant concentration in the fluid element can be calculated as:
M pi
Csi (t) = (17)
Vi (t)
Because fluid loss occurs during fracturing, sand-laden fluid that was injected early is subject to
a long loss time; hence, the sand ratio of the injected fluid at early times should be relatively small.
As the loss time of sand-laden fluid injected at a later stage is short, the sand ratio of the injected fluid
can be relatively large. Thus, at the end of injection, the proppant in the whole fracture will be evenly
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 7 of 23
distributed. For the convenience of operation, the staged proppant pumping schedule is usually used.
It means that one constant sand ratio is maintained over a period of time. When the injection of these
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
portions of sand-laden fluid is finished, the sand ratio is then changed. In this paper, the sand ratio
is increased
paper, according
the sand ratio to
is the following
increased power function
according to ensurepower
to the following that the proppant
function to is distributed
ensure as
that the
evenly as possible, so as to reach the desired proppant concentration:
proppant is distributed as evenly as possible, so as to reach the desired proppant concentration:
× 1100
SS × 00 = a tbb
= at (18)
(18)
where is the sand ratio (representing the ratio of proppant to fluid volume), and are
where S is the sand ratio (representing the ratio of proppant to fluid volume), a and b are coefficients
coefficients (in this paper, is referred to as the proppant pumping curve index), and is the
(in this paper, b is referred to as the proppant pumping curve index), and t is the proppant pumping
proppant pumping sequence. If all the proppants are to be injected through 10 times, then the value
sequence. If all the proppants are to be injected through 10 times, then the value of t is an integer from
of is an integer from 1–10. In this paper, the proppant pumping times and the maximum sand
1–10. In this paper, the proppant pumping times and the maximum sand ratio will be determined
ratio will be determined empirically. Then, for a given value of coefficient , the corresponding
empirically. Then, for a given value of coefficient b, the corresponding coefficient a can be determined.
coefficient can be determined. Thus, the optimization of the complicated proppant pumping
Thus, the optimization of the complicated proppant pumping schedule can be simplified as the
schedule can be simplified as the optimization of the single coefficient .
optimization of the single coefficient b.
After the injection has finished, the pad fluid continues to be lost and the front of the fracture
After the injection has finished, the pad fluid continues to be lost and the front of the fracture
will close. Thus, the half-length of the propped fracture can be set as the length in which proppant is
will close. Thus, the half-length of the propped fracture can be set as the length in which proppant is
present. If the proppant concentration in the direction of the fracture width has not reached a certain
present. If the proppant concentration in the direction of the fracture width has not reached a certain
value, then the fracture will close and the fracture width will decrease until the proppant
value, then the fracture will close and the fracture width will decrease until the proppant concentration
concentration reaches the desired value. The final width is the propped fracture width. The average
reaches the desired value. The final width is the propped fracture width. The average fracture width is
fracture width is used in the UFD method regardless of the fracture shape. Figure 2a shows the state
used in the UFD method regardless of the fracture shape. Figure 2a shows the state of the fracture
of the fracture immediately after the end of injection. Figure 2b shows the state of the propped
immediately after the end of injection. Figure 2b shows the state of the propped fracture.
fracture.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of fracture closure.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of fracture closure.
This simulation needs to find the optimal treatment parameters in order to satisfy both the
Thishalf-length
fracture simulation and
needswidth.
to findSo,
thethe
optimal treatment
objective of theparameters
treatmentinoptimization
order to satisfy both
is to the fracture
minimize the
half-length and width.
following error function: So, the objective of the treatment optimization is to minimize the following
error function: s 22 2 2
x x   ww 
(%) =( %100
ErrorError ) = ·100 ⋅ xopt −−11 ++ wopt− 1− 1 (19)
(19)
x w 
 opt   opt 
where x is the calculated fracture half-length (m), xopt is the optimal fracture half-length (m), w is the
where isfracture
calculated the calculated fracture
width (m), and whalf-length (m), is the optimal fracture half-length (m),
opt is the optimal fracture width (m).
is
the calculated fracture width (m), and is the optimal fracture width (m).
The basic flowchart of the proposed fracturing treatment optimization method based on the UFD
The in
is shown basic flowchart
Figure 3. of the proposed fracturing treatment optimization method based on the
UFD is shown in Figure 3.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 8 of 23
The proppant The desired proppant concentration

mass or volume in the fracture
Assume a permeability of the propped fracture
Pad fluid volume Sand adding program

The optimal fracture dimensions
(fracture half-length, fracture width) Injection rate Fluid rheological parameters
The proppant concentration

per unit area in the fracture
Whether the optimal fracture No
dimensions are reached?
Calculated permeability of
the propped fracture
Yes
No Yes
The optimized fracturing
Whether the assumed permeability treatment parameters
equals to the calculated one?
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of the
the proposed
proposed optimization
optimization method.
method.
3.
3. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
3.1. Basic
Basic Parameters
To validate
validate the
theproposed
proposedmethod,
method,it itwas
was applied
applied to to a case
a case study
study reservoir:
reservoir: thatthat of Daniudi
of the the DaniudiGas
Gas
FieldField located
located at theatjunction
the junction
of the of
citythe
of city ofShaanxi
Yulin, Yulin, Shaanxi
ProvinceProvince andofthe
and the city city of
Ordos, Ordos,
Inner Inner
Mongolia
Mongolia
Autonomous Autonomous Region,
Region, China. China. Itlower
It contains contains lower Paleozoic
Paleozoic marine carbonate
marine carbonate rock as onerock
of as
theone of
main
the main gas-bearing strata. Its basic parameters are listed in Table 1. The homogeneous
gas-bearing strata. Its basic parameters are listed in Table 1. The homogeneous rock is presented in rock is
presented in this
this case study case study Nevertheless,
for illustration. for illustration.theNevertheless,
heterogeneousthe heterogeneous
rocks rocks are
are usually divided intousually
several
divided into several homogeneous segments [19] and the proposed method can
homogeneous segments [19] and the proposed method can also be used for each segment respectively. also be used for
each segment respectively.
Table 1. Reservoir properties and fixed fracturing parameters.
Table 1. Reservoir properties and fixed fracturing parameters.
Reservoir depth 2611 m Rock elastic modulus 35 GPa
HorizontalReservoir
segment depth
length 2611
1000 mm Rock
Rockelastic modulus
Poisson’s ratio 35 GPa0.3
Horizontal
Reservoir net paysegment length
thickness 1000
20 m m Rock Poisson’s
Proppant apparentratio
density 0.3 kg/m3
1630
Reservoir porosity
Reservoir net pay thickness 20 m
1.39% Proppant apparent
Proppant density
porosity 1630 kg/m 3
38.7%
Reservoir
Reservoir average porosity
permeability 0.461.39%
md Proppant coefficient
Fluid-loss porosity 38.7%
0.05 mm/min0.5
Reservoir
Drainage average permeability 1200
area length 0.46mmd Fracturing
Fluid-loss coefficient
segment number 0.05 mm/min 6 0.5
Drainage area area
Drainage widthlength 600 m m Fracturing segment
1200 - number 6 -
Drainage area width 600 m - -
3.2. Optimization Method and Results
3.2. Optimization Method and Results
A proppant volume of 18 m3 is used to illustrate the optimization process and results. First of all,
A proppant
the desired volume
proppant of 18 m3 isCsused
concentration is settotoillustrate
1000 kg/m the3 , optimization process
which is related to theand results.pumping
proppant First of
all, the desired
schedule proppant
and will concentration
be discussed later in theispaper.
set to According
1000 kg/m ,towhich
3 is related
the actual to the
situation in proppant
the field,
pumping schedule and will be discussed later in the paper. According to the actual
the maximum sand ratio is set to 35% and the proppant pumping schedule is divided into eight stages. situation in the
field, the maximum sand ratio is set to 35% and the proppant pumping schedule
The maximum proppant concentration Csmax during fracture propagation is 700 kg/m . The other is divided
3 into
eight stages.
treatment The maximum
parameters will beproppant
optimizedconcentration
to satisfy the desiredduring fracture
proppant propagation
concentration, is 700
optimal kg/m3.
propped
The other
fracture treatment parameters
conductivity will be optimized to satisfy the desired proppant concentration,
and dimensions.
optimal propped fracture conductivity and dimensions.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 9 of 23
As a matter of fact, all the related treatment parameters can be optimized automatically by an
exhausted search method. However, due to the field treatment capability, if certain constraints are set
to some parameters
Energies 2018,
As a matter [52],
11, x FOR thenallthe
PEER
of fact, theoptimization
REVIEW
related treatment efficiency
parameters can canbe increased
be optimized significantly.
automaticallyNext
9 of 23
by an methods
demonstrate
exhaustedhow the
search treatment
method. parameter
However, due constraints
to the field facilitate
treatment the optimization
capability,
As a matter of fact, all the related treatment parameters can be optimized automatically by an if certain procedure
constraints and
are how
they affect thesome
optimization
set exhausted
to parameters result.
[52], then the optimization efficiency can be
search method. However, due to the field treatment capability, if certain constraints areincreased significantly. Next
methods
Usually, the
set to demonstrate
padparameters
some fluid volume how
[52], thethen treatment
is onethe of the parameter
optimization key parameters constraints
efficiency can to
be be facilitate
optimized.
increased the Ifoptimization
significantly.the Next
injection rate,
procedure
methods and how they affect
demonstrate how the
theoptimization
treatment result.
parameter constraints facilitate the optimization
fluid rheological parameters and proppant pumping schedule can be selected according to the actual
Usually, and
procedure the pad
howfluid volume
they affect theisoptimization
one of the key parameters to be optimized. If the injection rate,
result.
treatment conditions,
fluid rheological
Usually, the
and then the
parameters
pad fluid andvolume
pad fluidpumping
proppant
is one of
volume needs to to
schedule can
the key parameters
bebe optimized
be optimized.
automatically.
selected according to therate,
If the injection
Taking an
actual
injection rate Q of 5 m 3 /min as an example, if the fluid’s apparent viscosity µ is set as 58 mPa·s
fluid rheological parameters and proppant pumping schedule can
treatment conditions, and then the pad fluid volume needs to be optimized automatically. Taking an be selected according ato the actual
(for instance, the fluid K n , and automatically.
·sviscosity n is
treatment
injection rate Q of consistency
conditions,
5 m3/min as ancoefficient
and then the pad fluid
example, theisfluid’s
if volume setneeds
toapparent
0.7 Paoptimized
to be the is flow
set asindex
58Taking
mPa·s set to 0.6),
an(for
injection
instance, therate
fluidQ of 5 m 3/min
consistency as an example,
coefficient
and the proppant pumping curve index b is set as 0.63, then K if
is the
set fluid’s
to 0.7 apparent
Pa·s n, andviscosity
the flow is
index set
n as
is 58
set
the curve for the calculated propped mPa·s
to (for
0.6), and
instance,
proppantthe fluid consistency coefficient
is set K asis0.63,
set to 0.7 the
Pa·scurve
n, and the flow index n is set to 0.6), and
fracturethe
half-length
the proppant
pumping
and width
pumping
curveversus
curve
index bdifferent
index b is setfluid
as 0.63,
pad thenfluid
then the
volumes
curve
for thecancalculated propped as
be illustrated,
for the calculated propped
fracture
in Figures 4
half-length and width versus different pad volumes can be illustrated, as in Figures 4 fracture
and 5. For
and 5. For half-length
the sake and of comparison, the optimal fracture half-length and
width versus different pad fluid volumes can be illustrated, as in Figures 4 and 5. For width are also plotted in the
the sake of comparison, the optimal fracture half-length and width are also plotted in the figure as
figure as horizontal lines.
the sake of comparison,
horizontal lines. As shown
As shown in theinfigures,
the optimal the figures,
fracture the propped
half-length
the propped
and widthfracture half-length
are also plotted
fracture half-length decreases decreases
while the while
in the figure as
the propped horizontal
fracture lines.
width As shown
increases in thewith figures, the propped
increasing pad fracture
fluid half-length
volume. When decreases
the while the fracture
calculated
propped fracture width increases with increasing pad fluid volume. When the calculated fracture
propped fracture width increases with increasing pad fluid volume. When the calculated fracture
half-length curve intersects
half-length curve intersects the optimal
the optimal fracture fracturehalf-length
half-length horizontal
horizontal
half-length curve intersects the optimal fracture half-length horizontal line and the calculated
linelineand and thethe calculated
calculatedfracture
fracture
width curve fracturewidth
intersects
width curve
the intersects
curve optimal the
theoptimal
intersectsfracture width
optimal fracture width
horizontal
fracture horizontal
line, theline,
width horizontal line, theoptimal
optimal
the optimal
pad pad pad
fluid fluid
volume
fluid can
volume can be obtained.
be obtained.volume can be obtained.
220
220
calculated fracture half-length
Fracture half-length (m)
210
210 optimal
optimal fracture half-length
fracture half-length
200
200
190
190
180
180
170
170
160
160
100 200 300 400 500 600
100 200 300 400 500 600
Pad fluid volume (m33)
Pad fluid volume (m )
Figure 4. Curves of propped fracture half-length vs. pad fluid volume for the original design.
4. Curves
Figure Figure of propped
4. Curves fracture
of propped fracturehalf-length vs.pad
half-length vs. padfluid
fluid volume
volume fororiginal
for the the original
design.design.
4.6
4.6
4.4
Fracture width (mm)
4.4
4.2
Fracture width (mm)
4.2
4
43.8
3.83.6
calculated fracture width
3.63.4 optimal fracture width
calculated fracture width
3.43.2 optimal fracture width
100 200 300 400 500 600
3.2
100 200 Pad fluid
300 volume400
(m3) 500 600
Padwidth
Figure 5. Curves of propped fracture fluid volume (m3)volume for the original design.
vs. pad fluid
AsFigure
Figure shown 5.from
5. Curves
Curves
ofthe
of propped
figures,
propped
fracture
within
fracture
width vs. padoffluid
a certain
width range
vs. pad pad
volume
fluidfluid
for the original
volumes,
volume
design. result
no optimization
for the original design.
can be acquired. Nevertheless, the design scheme can be adjusted in two ways. The first is to increase
Asinjection
the shown from the the
rate and figures, within
second a certainthe
is to increase range of pad
fluid’s fluid viscosity.
apparent volumes, For
no optimization result
the first adjusted
Ascan
shown from the
be acquired. figures, within
Nevertheless, a certain
the design schemerange of pad fluid
can be adjusted in twovolumes,
ways. The no
firstoptimization
is to increase result
the injection
can be acquired. rate and the second
Nevertheless, is to increase
the design schemethe
canfluid’s apparentin
be adjusted viscosity.
two ways.For the
Thefirst adjusted
first is to increase
the injection rate and the second is to increase the fluid’s apparent viscosity. For the first adjusted
scheme, if the injection rate is increased to 7 m3 /min, then new curves are obtained, as illustrated in
Figures 6 and 7. As shown from these figures, an optimal pad fluid volume within the given range can
be acquired.
scheme, if the injection rate is increased to 7 m3/min, then new curves are obtained, as illustrated in
scheme,
Figures
Energies 2018, 6if and
11, 1720 the injection rate from
7. As shown is increased to 7 m3/min,
these figures, then new
an optimal pad curves are obtained,
fluid volume within as
theillustrated in 10 of 23
given range
Figures 6 and 7. As shown from these figures, an optimal pad fluid volume within the given range
can be acquired.
can be acquired.
185
185
(m)(m)
180
180 calculated fracture half-length
half-length
175 optimal fracture half-length
half-length
175
170
170
Fracture
165
Fracture
165
160
160
155
155 200 300 400 500 600 700
200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 6. Curves of propped fracture half-length vs. pad fluid volume for the first adjusted design.
6. Curves
Figure Figure of propped
6. Curves fracture
of propped half-length
fracture vs.pad
half-length vs. padfluid
fluid volume
volume forfirst
for the the adjusted
first adjusted
design. design.
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
(mm)
4.5
(mm)
4.5
4.4
width
4.4
width
4.3
4.3
Fracture
4.2
Fracture
4.2 calculated fracture width

4.1
4 optimal fracture width
4 optimal fracture width
3.9
3.9 200 300 400 500 600 700
200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 7. Curves of propped fracture width vs. pad fluid volume for the first adjusted design.
For the second adjusted scheme, if the fluid’s apparent viscosity is increased to 201 mPa·s (for
For the
instance, thesecond adjusted scheme,
fluid consistency coefficientif the fluid’s
K is set toapparent
0.7 Pa·sn,viscosity
and the flow is increased
index n to 201tomPa·s
is set (for
0.8), then
Forinstance,
the the
second fluid consistency
adjusted coefficient
scheme, if K
theis set to
fluid’s 0.7 Pa·s n, and the flow index n is set to 0.8), then
apparent viscosity
new curves are as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. As shown from these figures, the optimal pad fluid is increased to 201 mPa·s
new curves are as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. As shown from these
n figures, the optimal pad fluid
volumethe
(for instance, within
fluid theconsistency
given range can be acquired.
coefficient K is set to 0.7 Pa·s , and the flow index n is set to 0.8),
volume within the
According to given
the aboverangeanalysis,
can be acquired.
the treatment parameters that satisfy
then new curves are as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. As shown from thesethe optimal
figures, thefracture
optimal pad
According
dimensions are tonotthe aboveFor
unique. analysis,
the above thetwotreatment
adjusted parameters
designs, if that satisfy
the field the optimal
equipment fracture
can meet the
fluid volume within
dimensions are the given range
notrate,
unique. can be two acquired.
required injection thenForthe thefirstabove
adjusted designadjusted designs,
will if the field
be the better option. equipment can meet the
According
required to theofrate,
As ainjection
matter above
fact,then analysis,
moretheparameters the can
first adjusted treatment
design willparameters
be optimized. be the
This better
paper that
option. satisfy
proposes thethe optimal
interval searchfracture
dimensions As a
are matter
not of
unique. fact, more
For parameters
the above can
two be optimized.
adjusted This
designs, paper
method for automatic optimization. If we set the injection rate as 7 m /min, the range of other if theproposes
field
3 the interval
equipment search
can meet the
method
requiredparameters for automatic
injection needing
rate, then optimization.
to betheoptimized
first adjusted If we set
and thedesign the injection
will lengths
search step rate
be the are as
better7 m 3/min, the range of other
option.
as listed in Table 2. The search
parameters needing according
to be optimized and thetreatment
search step lengths are as
thelisted in step
Tablelength
2. Thecan search
As range can be
a matter of tuned
fact, more parameters to the actual can be optimized. conditions Thisandpaper search
proposes the interval also search
range
be can bebased
tuned tunedon according
the to the actualaccuracy
optimization treatmentand conditions
the and the search
calculation step
efficiency. length can
Generally,
3 /min, the range alsoa
methodbefortunedautomatic
based
optimization.
on strategy
the optimization
If we set
accuracy
the injection rate
and the calculation
as 7 m of other
coarse-to-fine search is used. During this optimization, the searchefficiency.
step lengthGenerally,
for pad fluid a
parameters needingsearch
coarse-to-fine to bestrategy
optimized is used. and the search step lengths are as steplisted in Table 2.fluid
The search
volume is initially set to 50, and thenDuring
tuned this optimization,
to 10 to obtain a more the search length
accurate result. for pad
The complete
range can be
volume tuned
is according
initially set to to
50, the
and
optimization results are listed in Table 3. actual
then treatment
tuned to 10 conditions
to obtain a and
more the
accuratesearch step
result. Thelength
completecan also be
optimization results are listed in Table 3.
tuned based on the optimization accuracy and the calculation efficiency. Generally, a coarse-to-fine
search strategy is used. During this optimization, the search step length for pad fluid volume is initially
set to 50, and then tuned to 10 to obtain a more accurate result. The complete optimization results are
listed in Table 3.
Table 2. Ranges of parameters used in optimization.
Pad Fluid Proppant Pumping Fluid Consistency Fluid Flow

Variable
Volume (m3 ) Curve Index b Coefficient K (Pa·sn ) Index n
Range 100–800 0.5–0.8 0.1–0.7 0.1–0.6
Search step length 50 (10) 0.01 0.05 0.05
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 11 of 23
176
176
174 calculated fracture half-
(m)
174
172 calculated fracture half-
length
(m)
172 length
half-length
170
half-length
170
168
168
166
166
164
Fracture
Fracture 164
162
162
160
160
158
158
156
300 156 200
350 400 250450 500
300 350200 400 250450 500
Figure 8. Curves of propped fracture half-length vs. pad fluid volume for the second adjusted design.
Figure 8. Curves of propped
propped fracture
half-lengthvs.
vs. pad
pad fluid
fluidvolume
volumefor
forthe
thesecond
secondadjusted
adjusteddesign.
design.
4.65
4.65
4.6
4.6
4.55
(mm)
4.55
(mm)
4.5
4.5
4.45
width
4.45
width
4.4
4.4
4.35
Fracture
4.35
Fracture
4.3
4.3
4.2 optimal fracture width
4.2 optimal fracture width
4.15
4.15 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 9. Curves of propped fracture width vs. pad fluid volume for the second adjusted design.
Pad Fluid Table 3. Optimization
Proppant Pumping results. Fluid Consistency Fluid Flow
Variable Pad Fluid Proppant Pumping Fluid Consistency Fluid Flow
Volume (m3
Variable Preset Parameters 3 ) Curve Index b Coefficient K (Pa·s n) Index n
Volume (m ) Fracture
Curve Optimization
Index b Results Treatment
Coefficient K Optimization
(Pa·s n) Results
Index
Range 100–800 0.5–0.8 0.1–0.7 0.1–0.6n
Proppant volume 100–800
Range on 0.5–0.8 Injection rate
0.1–0.7 0.1–0.6
Search step
the ground (m3 ) 50 (10)
18 Proppant number 2.039 3 7
Search step 0.01 0.05(m /min) 0.05
length 50 (10) 0.01 JD for 0.05 0.05
Proppant mass on the
length Maximum
29,340 0.82 Pad fluid volume (m3 ) 470
ground (kg) single fracture
Table 3. Optimization results. Sand adding curve
Optimal
Table Cf D
3. Optimization results.
2.215 0.63
Desired proppant index b
Preset Parameters 1000.000 Fracture Optimization Results Treatment Optimization Results
concentration (kg/m3 )
Preset Parameters Calculated Cf D
Fracture Optimization 2.213
Results Consistency
Treatment Optimization Results
Proppant volume on the coefficient
18 Proppant number 2.039 0.7
(Pa·sn ) rate (m /min)
KInjection 7
3
Proppant volume Optimal fracture
ground (m3)on the 18 Proppant(m) number 166.180 2.039 Injection rate (m3/min) 7
Calculated proppant half-length
ground (m3) 3) 1001.062
Proppant mass on the
concentration ground
(kg/m Maximum for single
Proppant mass on the ground 29,340 Calculated
Maximum fracture
for single166.184 0.82 Pad fluid volume (m3) 470
(kg) fracture Flow index n 0.6
29,340 half-length (m) 0.82 Pad fluid volume (m3) 470
(kg) fracture
Optimal
Desired proppant Optimal fracture 2.215 Sand adding
Apparent viscosity curve index b 0.63
Fractureproppant
height (m) 1000.000
20 Optimal 4.414 2.215 Sand 58 b
Desired
concentration (kg/m3) 1000.000 width (mm)
Calculated 2.213 (mPaadding
·s) curve index 0.63
concentration (kg/m3) Calculated 2.213 Consistency coefficient K
Optimal fracture
Calculated half-length
fracture Consistency coefficient 0.7
- - Optimal
4.409 166.180 - (Pa·s n) -K 0.7
Calculated proppant widthfracture
(mm)
(m) half-length
166.180 (Pa·s )
n
Calculated -proppant 1001.062 (m)
concentration (kg/m3) - Total error (%)
Calculated fracture 0.109 - -
1001.062
concentration (kg/m3) Calculated fracture 166.184 Flow index n 0.6
half-length (m) 166.184 Flow index n 0.6
half-length (m)
Table 3. Cont.
Fracture height (m) 20 Optimal fracture width (mm) 4.414 Apparent viscosity (mPa·s) 58
- - Calculated fracture width (mm) 4.409 - -
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 12 of 23
- - Total error (%) 0.109 - -
3.3. General Discussion

3.3. General Discussion
For rapid optimization, the injection rate and fluid rheological parameters are preset or tuned
For rapid optimization, the injection rate and fluid rheological parameters are preset or tuned
within certain ranges according to the actual treatment conditions, and the pad fluid volume needs
within certain ranges according to the actual treatment conditions, and the pad fluid volume needs to
to be optimized automatically. To this end, it is important to analyze the influences of the injection
be optimized automatically. To this end, it is important to analyze the influences of the injection rate
rate and fluid rheological parameters on the optimization results. Furthermore, the reservoir
and fluid rheological parameters on the optimization results. Furthermore, the reservoir permeability
permeability has a strong influence on the optimization results, which will be also discussed in this
has a strong influence on the optimization results, which will be also discussed in this section.
section. Although the discussions used the specific data above, they are quite general and very
Although the discussions used the specific data above, they are quite general and very useful
useful for the field optimization design especially using the proposed methods in this paper.
for the field optimization design especially using the proposed methods in this paper. Moreover,
Moreover, the findings in this section are consistent well with the established knowledge. They are
the findings in this section are consistent well with the established knowledge. They are presented
presented here for completeness.
here for completeness.
3.3.1. Injection
3.3.1. Injection Rate
Rate
Based on
Based on the
the above
above data,
data,we weconsider
considerseveral
severalinjection
injection rates: 4, 5,4,6,5,7,6,8 7,
rates: and8 9and
m3/min. Other
9 m3 /min.
parameters, including proppant pumping curve index b and fluid
Other parameters, including proppant pumping curve index b and fluid rheological parameters rheological parameters are
obtained
are from
obtained Table
from 3 and
Table held
3 and constant.
held Then,
constant. the the
Then, curve describing
curve describingthe the
relationship between
relationship pad
between
fluid volume and injection rate is obtained, as shown in Figure 10. To generate
pad fluid volume and injection rate is obtained, as shown in Figure 10. To generate the same fracture the same fracture
withthe
with thesame
samefluid
fluidand
andproppant
proppantpumping
pumpingschedule,
schedule,the therequired
requiredpad padfluid
fluidvolume
volumedecreases
decreaseswith
with
increasing injection
increasing injection rate.
rate. Note
Note that
that when
when the
the injection
injection rate
rate isis small,
small, the
the required
required pad pad fluid
fluidvolume
volume isis
excessively large, which is unfeasible in terms of treatment difficulty and cost.
excessively large, which is unfeasible in terms of treatment difficulty and cost. Therefore, it is suggested Therefore, it is
suggested to select a larger injection rate, within the treatment limitations, in
to select a larger injection rate, within the treatment limitations, in order to reduce the amount of padorder to reduce the
amount
fluid of pad fluid used.
used.
2000
1500
1000
500
0
4 5 6 7 8 9
Injection rate (m3/min)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Curve
Curve describing
describing the
the relationship
relationshipbetween
betweenpad
padfluid
fluidvolume
volumeand
andinjection
injectionrate.
rate.
3.3.2. Fluid’s Apparent Viscosity

3.3.2. Fluid’s Apparent Viscosity
Based on the above data, we can take different fluid’s apparent viscosities, such as 20 mPa·s (for
Based on the above data, we can take different fluid’s apparent viscosities, such as 20 mPa·s
instance, if K = 0.46 Pa·sn and n = 0.5), 30 mPa·s (K = 0.5 Pa·sn and n = 0.55), 58 mPa·s (K = 0.7 Pa·sn and
(for instance, if K = 0.46 Pa·sn and n = 0.5), 30 mPa·s (K = 0.5 Pa·sn and n = 0.55), 58 mPa·s (K = 0.7 Pa·sn
n = 0.6), 80 mPa·s (K = 0.71 Pa·sn and n = 0.65), and 100 mPa·s (K = 0.79 Pa·sn and n = 0.67). Other
and n = 0.6), 80 mPa·s (K = 0.71 Pa·sn and n = 0.65), and 100 mPa·s (K = 0.79 Pa·sn and n = 0.67).
parameters come from Table 3 and are held constant. Then, the curve describing the relationship
Other parameters come from Table 3 and are held constant. Then, the curve describing the relationship
between the pad fluid volume and the fluid’s apparent viscosity is as shown in Figure 11. To
between the pad fluid volume and the fluid’s apparent viscosity is as shown in Figure 11. To generate
generate the same fracture with the same injection rate and proppant pumping schedule, the
the same fracture with the same injection rate and proppant pumping schedule, the required pad fluid
required pad fluid volume decreases with increasing apparent viscosity of the fluid. Note that when
volume decreases with increasing apparent viscosity of the fluid. Note that when the fluid’s apparent
the fluid’s apparent viscosity is small, the required pad fluid volume is excessively large, which is
viscosity is small, the required pad fluid volume is excessively large, which is unfeasible in terms of
treatment difficulty and cost. Therefore, it is concluded that a larger apparent fluid viscosity reduces
the amount of pad fluid used.
Energies
Energies2018,
2018,11,
11,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 13
13of
of23
23
unfeasible
unfeasible in in terms
terms of
Energies 2018, 11, 1720
of treatment
treatment difficulty
difficulty and
and cost.
cost. Therefore,
Therefore, itit isis concluded
concluded that
that aa larger
larger apparent
apparent
13 of 23
fluid
fluidviscosity
viscosity reduces
reducesthetheamount
amountofof pad
pad fluid
fluidused.
used.
2500
2500
(m33))
2000
2000
volume (m
fluid volume
1500
1500
1000
1000
Pad fluid
Pad 500
500
00
20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80 100
100
Apparent
Apparentviscosity
viscosity(mPa·s)
(mPa·s)
Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.Curve
11. Curveof
Curve ofthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenpad
padfluid
fluidvolume
volumeand
andits
itsapparent
apparentviscosity.
viscosity.
viscosity.
3.3.3.
3.3.3.Reservoir
3.3.3. ReservoirPermeability
Reservoir Permeability
Permeability
Based
Based on
Based on the
on the above
the above data,
above data, we
data, we now
we now consider
now consider reservoir
consider reservoir permeability
reservoir permeability values
permeability valuesof:
values of: 0.001,
of: 0.001,0.01,
0.001, 0.01,0.1,
0.01, 0.1,0.2,
0.1, 0.2,
0.2,
0.35,
0.35, 0.46
0.46 and
and 11 md.
md. Figure
Figure 12
12 shows
shows the
the optimal
optimal propped
propped fracture
fracture half-lengths
half-lengths
0.35, 0.46 and 1 md. Figure 12 shows the optimal propped fracture half-lengths and widths for various and
and widths
widths for
for
various
various reservoir
reservoir permeabilities.
permeabilities. With
With increases
increases in
in reservoir
reservoir permeability,
permeability,
reservoir permeabilities. With increases in reservoir permeability, the optimal fracture half-length the
the optimal
optimal fracture
fracture
half-length
decreases decreases
half-lengthwhile
decreases while
while the
the optimal the optimal
optimal
fracture fracture
fracture
width width increases.
widthThis
increases. increases. This
This isiswith
is consistent consistent
consistent with
with established
established established
knowledge.
knowledge.
knowledge. That
That is
is to
to say,
say, for
for very
very low
low permeability
permeability reservoirs,
reservoirs, long
long
That is to say, for very low permeability reservoirs, long and narrow fractures should be and
and narrow
narrow fractures
fractures should
should be
created.be
created.
created. For
For low-to-medium
low-to-medium permeability
permeability reservoirs,
reservoirs, short
short and
and wide
wide fractures
For low-to-medium permeability reservoirs, short and wide fractures should be created. Figure 13 fractures should
should be
be created.
created.
Figure 13
13 shows
Figure the
shows shows
optimal the
the optimal
optimal dimensionless
dimensionless dimensionless fracture
fracture conductivity
fracture conductivity conductivity
and the maximum and
and the maximum
maximum dimensionless
thedimensionless dimensionless
productivity
productivity
productivity index
index for
for different
different reservoir
reservoir permeabilities.
permeabilities. From
From the
the
index for different reservoir permeabilities. From the figure, we can see that with decreasesfigure,
figure, we
we can
can see
seeinthat
that with
with
reservoir
decreases
decreases in
permeability, in reservoir
reservoir
the maximum permeability,
permeability, the
the maximum
dimensionless maximum
productivity dimensionless
dimensionless productivity
this, asincreases.
productivity
increases. Despite increases. Despite
Despite
actual production
this,
this, as
as actual
actual production
production is
is proportional
proportional to
to reservoir
reservoir permeability,
permeability, for
for
is proportional to reservoir permeability, for very low-permeability reservoirs, absolute production very
very low-permeability
low-permeability
reservoirs,
reservoirs,
remains absolute
low.absoluteproduction
production remains
remains low.
low.
350
350 66
300
300 55
(mm)
width (mm)
(m)
half-length (m)
250
250
44
Fracture half-length
Fracture width
200
200
33
150
150
Fracture
22
100
100 optimal
optimal fracture
half-length
Fracture
50
50 optimal
optimal fracture
fracture width
width 11
00 00
00 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.4
0.4 0.5
0.5 0.6
0.6 0.7
0.7 0.8
0.8 0.9
0.9 11
Reservoir
Reservoirpermeability
permeability (md)
(md)
Figure
Figure12.
Figure 12.Optimal
12. Optimalpropped
Optimal proppedfracture
propped fracturehalf-lengths
fracture half-lengthsand
half-lengths andwidths
and widthsvs.
widths vs.reservoir
vs. reservoirpermeability.
reservoir permeability.
permeability.
During the optimization for various reservoir permeabilities, other parameters, including the
injected proppant volume on the ground, injection rate, and desired proppant concentration are taken
from Table 3 and kept invariable. The pad fluid volume and the fluid rheological parameters are
optimized automatically. Figure 14 shows the optimized pad fluid volume and the fluid’s apparent
viscosity for different reservoir permeabilities. The figure shows that with increases in reservoir
permeability, the pad fluid volume increases and the fluid’s apparent viscosity increases accordingly.
Thus, it can be seen that for very low permeability reservoirs, low viscosity fluid should be used,
180 6
160 optimal fracture conductivity
5
140 maximum productivity index
120 4
Maximum JD
Optimal CfD
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 100 14 of 23
3
80
60
and for low-to-medium permeability 2
reservoirs, high viscosity fluid should be used. This is also
consistent
Energies 2018,with established
11, x FOR 40
knowledge.
PEER REVIEW 14 of 23
1
20
0
180 06
160 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
optimal fracture conductivity
Reservior permeability(md) 5
140 maximum productivity index
120 4
Maximum JD
Figure 13. Optimal and maximum values vs. reservoir permeability.
Optimal CfD
100
3
During the optimization 80 for various reservoir permeabilities, other parameters, including the
injected proppant volume60 on the ground, injection rate, and desired proppant 2 concentration are
taken from Table 3 and kept 40 invariable. The pad fluid volume and the fluid rheological parameters
1
are optimized automatically. 20 Figure 14 shows the optimized pad fluid volume and the fluid’s
0
apparent viscosity for different reservoir permeabilities. The figure shows 0 that with increases in
reservoir permeability, the pad 0 fluid
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
volume 0.5 0.6and
increases 0.7the
0.8fluid’s
0.9 1apparent viscosity increases
accordingly. Thus, it can be seen thatReservior
for very permeability(md)
low permeability reservoirs, low viscosity fluid should
be used, and for low-to-medium permeability reservoirs, high viscosity fluid should be used. This is
Figure
Figure
also consistent with 13.
13. Optimal
Optimal
established C f D and
and maximum
knowledge. values vs.
maximum JD values vs. reservoir permeability.
During the optimization

800 for various reservoir permeabilities, other160 parameters, including the
injected proppant volume on the ground, injection rate, and desired proppant concentration are
700 140
Apparent viscosity (mPa·s)

taken from Table 3 and kept invariable. The pad fluid volume and the fluid rheological parameters
600
are optimized automatically. Figure 14 shows the optimized pad fluid 120 volume and the fluid’s
500
apparent viscosity for different 100 that with increases in
reservoir permeabilities. The figure shows
reservoir permeability, the
400 pad fluid volume increases and the fluid’s apparent
80 viscosity increases
accordingly. Thus, it can be seen that for very low permeability reservoirs, low viscosity fluid should
300 60
be used, and for low-to-medium permeability reservoirs, highvolume
Pad fluid viscosity fluid should be used. This is
200
also consistent with established knowledge. 40
Apparent viscosity
100 20
800
0 0160
700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 140
Apparent viscosity (mPa·s)
600 Reservoir permeability (md) 120

Figure
Figure 14. 500
14. Optimized
Optimized pad
padfluid
fluid volume
volume and
and fluid’s
fluid’s apparent
apparent viscosity vs.100
viscosity vs. reservoir
permeability.
400 80
3.4. Special Discussion
3.4. Special Discussion 300 60
Besides the general parameters discussed above, Pad fluidtwo
volume
other important parameters are
Besides the general 200parameters discussed above, two other important40parameters are introduced
introduced in this paper for coupling the fracturing Apparent treatment viscosity
optimization and fracture geometry
in this paper for coupling 100the fracturing treatment optimization and fracture 20 geometry optimization:
optimization: desired proppant concentration in the fracture and injected proppant volume on the
desired proppant concentration in the fracture and injected proppant volume on the ground.
ground. The desired proppant 0 concentration in the fracture is used to0solve the optimal fracture
The desired proppant concentration 0 0.1 in the fracture
0.2 is used to solve the optimal fracture half-length and
half-length and width. It also affects the 0.3 0.4 0.5
treatment 0.6 0.7
parameters 0.8in0.9 1
the fracture propagation model to
width. It also affects the treatment parameters in the fracture propagation model to reach the optimal
reach the optimal fracture dimensions. Reservoir permeability (md)
The determination of it will be discussed in this section.
fracture dimensions. The determination of it will be discussed in this section.
The injected
Figure proppantpad
14. Optimized volume on the ground
fluid volume is also
and fluid’s a keyviscosity
apparent factor forvs.fracturing. It determines the
The injected proppant volume on the ground is also a key factor for fracturing. It determines the
optimal fracture dimensions. Generally, there are two methods for optimizing it. The first is to select
optimal fracture dimensions. Generally, there are two methods for optimizing it. The first is to select the
the
3.4. maximum proppant volume that can be injected by the field treatment equipment, under the
Special proppant
Discussion
maximum volume that can be injected by the field treatment equipment, under the condition
condition that all the treatment parameters are optimized to obtain the maximum productivity index
that all the treatment parameters are optimized to above,
obtain thetwomaximum productivity index using
usingBesides the general
the proposed method. parameters
The second discussed
is to determine the other important
injected parameters
proppant volume so asare
to
the proposed
introduced in method. The
this paper forsecond
couplingis tothe
determine
fracturing the injected proppant
treatment optimization volume so as to maximize
and fracture geometry
the NPV. For illustration,
optimization: the influence
desired proppant of the injected
concentration proppant
in the fracture and volume
injectedonproppant
the treatment parameter
volume on the
optimization
ground. The results
desiredwill be discussed,
proppant and the in
concentration injected proppant
the fracture volume
is used used for
to solve thethe treatment
optimal will
fracture
be determined using the first method.
half-length and width. It also affects the treatment parameters in the fracture propagation model to
reach the optimal fracture dimensions. The determination of it will be discussed in this section.
The injected proppant volume on the ground is also a key factor for fracturing. It determines the
optimal fracture dimensions. Generally, there are two methods for optimizing it. The first is to select
the maximum proppant volume that can be injected by the field treatment equipment, under the
condition that all the treatment parameters are optimized to obtain the maximum productivity index
using the proposed method. The second is to determine the injected proppant volume so as to
Energies2018,
Energies 2018,11,
11,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 15of
15 of23
23
maximize the
maximize the NPV.
NPV. For
For illustration,
illustration, the
the influence
influence of
of the
the injected
injected proppant
proppant volume
volume on
on the
the treatment
treatment
parameter optimization results will be discussed, and the injected proppant
parameter optimization results will be discussed, and the injected proppant volume used for volume used for the
the
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 15 of 23
treatment will
treatment will bebe determined
determined using
using the
the first
first method.
method.
3.4.1. Desired
3.4.1.
3.4.1. Desired Proppant
Desired Proppant Concentration in
Proppant Concentration
Concentration in the
in the Fracture
the Fracture
Fracture
When the
When
When the desired
the desired proppant
desired proppant concentration
proppant concentration is
concentration is preset,
preset, itit
is preset, can be
it can
can be reached
be reached through
reached through optimization
through optimization of
optimization of
of
the
the treatment
the treatment parameters.
treatment parameters.
parameters. Once Once both
Oncebothboththethe desired
the desired proppant
desired proppant concentration
proppant concentration
concentration and and
and the the optimal
the optimal fracture
optimal fracture
fracture
half-length
half-length are
are satisfied
satisfied during
during the
the optimization
optimization process,
process, the
the fracture
fracture width
width
half-length are satisfied during the optimization process, the fracture width will be satisfied naturally. will
will be
be satisfied
satisfied
naturally.the
naturally.
Usually, Usually,
Usually,
desiredthethe desiredconcentration
desired
proppant proppant concentration
can be obtained can be
can be obtained
obtained
through through the
through
the parameter the parameter
parameter
optimization
optimization
optimization
of the proppant of the
of the proppant
proppant
pumping pumping
pumping
curve curve
index curve index
index
b. Based b.the
onb. Based
Based
above ondata,
on the above
the above data, we
data,
we consider weseveral
consider
consider several
several
proppant
proppant
proppant concentrations
concentrations in
in the
the fracture:
fracture: 800,
800, 900,
900, 1000,
1000, 1100
1100 and
and 3 1200
1200
concentrations in the fracture: 800, 900, 1000, 1100 and 1200 kg/m . Other parameters, including the kg/m
kg/m 33.. Other
Other parameters,
parameters,
including
including
injected the injected
the
proppantinjected
volume proppant
proppant volumethe
volume
on the ground, oninjection
on the ground,
the ground, thefluid
the
rate, and injection
injection rate, and
rate,
rheological and fluid rheological
fluid
parameters, rheological
are taken
parameters,
parameters,
from are
Table 3are taken
andtaken from
heldfrom Table 33 and
Table
constant. and held
held constant.
constant.
Figure 15
Figure
Figure 15 shows
15 shows the
shows the optimal
the optimal propped
optimal propped fracture
propped fracture half-lengths
fracture half-lengths and
half-lengths and widths
and widths with
widths with different
with different proppant
different proppant
proppant
concentrations.
concentrations. Figure
Figure 16
16 shows
shows the
the optimal
optimal dimensionless
dimensionless fracture
fracture
concentrations. Figure 16 shows the optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity and the maximum conductivity
conductivity and
and the
the maximum
maximum
dimensionless
productivityindex index
indexwithwith different
withdifferent proppant
differentproppant concentrations.
proppantconcentrations.
concentrations.As As shown
Asshown
shownby by the
bythe figures,
thefigures,
figures,
with
with increasing desired proppant concentration, both the optimal
with increasing desired proppant concentration, both the optimal fracture half-length and width
increasing desired proppant concentration, both the optimal fracture
half-length and
and width
width
decrease, as
decrease,
decrease, as does
as does the
does the maximum
the maximum dimensionless
maximum dimensionless productivity
dimensionless productivity index.
productivity index.
index.
178
178 66
176
176
174
174 55
Fracture width (mm)

172
172
170
170 44
168
168
33
166
166
164
164 22
162
162
160
160 optimal fracture
half-length 11
158
158 optimal fracture
optimal fracture width
width
156
156 00
800
800 900
900 1000
1000 1100
1100 1200
1200
Proppant concentration
Proppant concentration in
in the
the fracture (kg/m33))
fracture (kg/m
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Optimal
Optimal propped
Optimalpropped fracture half-lengths
proppedfracture half-lengths and
and widths
widths according
according to
to proppant
proppant concentration.
concentration.
2.35
2.35 0.9
0.9
0.88
0.88
2.3
2.3
0.86
0.86
fD
Optimal CfD
Maximum JDD
2.25
2.25 0.84
0.84
2.2
2.2 0.82
0.82
0.8
0.8
2.15
2.15 optimal fracture
optimal fracture conductivity
conductivity 0.78
0.78
maximum productivity
maximum productivity index
index
2.1
2.1 0.76
0.76
800
800 900
900 1000
1000 1100
1100 1200
1200
Proppant concentration
Proppant concentration in
in the fracture(kg/m33))
the fracture(kg/m
Figure
Figure 16.
Figure16. Optimal
16.Optimal values
Optimalvalues of
valuesof and
of C f Dand maximum
andmaximum according to
maximum JD according
according toproppant
to proppant concentration
concentration
Figure 17
Figure
Figure 17shows
17 shows
shows optimized
optimized
optimized proppant
proppant
proppant pumping pumping
pumping curves
curves
curves for for
variousfor various
various
desired desired
desired
proppant proppant
proppant
concentrations.
concentrations.
concentrations.
However, However,
However,
a stepped aa stepped
proppant stepped proppant
proppant
pumping pumping
pumping
schedule, schedule,
schedule,
rather rather than
rather
than a continuous thanone,
aa continuous
continuous one,
is used inone, is
is
actual
used
used in
in actual
actual fracturing
fracturing treatments.
treatments. This
This is
is represented
represented by
by the
the dashed
dashed line
line in
in
fracturing treatments. This is represented by the dashed line in Figure 17. The optimized proppant Figure
Figure 17.
17. The
The
pumping curve coefficients a, indexes b, and actual proppant pumping schedules for various desired
proppant concentrations are listed in Table 4. As shown in the table, with increases of the desired
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 16 of 23

optimized proppant pumping curve coefficients a, indexes b, and actual proppant pumping
schedules for various desired proppant concentrations are listed in Table 4. As shown in the table,
with increases
proppant of the desired
concentration, proppant
the initial sandconcentration, the initial
ratio (the 1st stage sand sand
ratio)ratio (the 1st
increases andstage sand ratio)
the differences
increasesthe
between and the ratios
sand differences between stages
of subsequent the sand ratios This
decrease. of subsequent stages
style is rather decrease. This for
disadvantageous style
use is
rather disadvantageous for use in actual treatments, because the sand-laden fluid with
in actual treatments, because the sand-laden fluid with the initial sand ratio stays in the fracture for the initial
asand ratio stays
relatively in the
long time, andfracture for a relatively
the proppant long will
concentration time,continuously
and the proppant
increaseconcentration will
due to fluid loss.
continuously
In increase
this situation, a sanddue to fluid
plug loss.toInoccur.
is likely this situation, a sand
In addition, plug is likely
as shown to occur.
in Figure In addition,
16, with increasing as
shown in Figure 16, with increasing desired proppant concentration, the maximum
desired proppant concentration, the maximum dimensionless productivity index decreases. Therefore, dimensionless
aproductivity
high desiredindex decreases.
proppant Therefore,
concentration a high
is not desired proppant concentration is not advantageous.
advantageous.
Figure 17.
Figure 17. Optimized
Optimized proppant
proppant pumping
pumping curves
curves for
for various
various desired
desired proppant
concentrations.
Table 4.
Table 4. Stepped
Stepped proppant
proppant pumping
pumping schedule
schedule for
forvarious
variousdesired
desiredproppant
concentrations.
Desired Proppant Concentration (kg/m3)

Pumping Stages Desired Proppant Concentration 3
Pumping Stages 800 900 1000 1100 (kg/m
1200 )
1st stage sand ratio (%) 8005.976 900 7.67 1000 11.626
9.443 1100 14.3131200
2nd stage sand ratio
1st stage sand ratio (%) (%) 10.773
5.976 12.722
7.67 14.614
9.443 16.787
11.62619.28314.313
3rd stage sand ratio
2nd stage sand ratio (%) (%) 15.205
10.773 17.105
12.722 18.867
14.614 20.812
16.78722.95619.283
4th sand
3rd stage stageratio
sand(%)
ratio (%) 19.417 17.105
15.205 21.102 22.616
18.867 24.239
20.81225.97922.956
4th stage
5th sand
stageratio
sand(%)
ratio (%) 19.417
23.473 21.102 22.616 27.283
24.835 26.03 24.23928.59525.979
5th stage
6th sand
stageratio
sand(%)
ratio (%) 23.473
27.408 24.835 26.03 30.050
28.37 29.198 27.28330.92728.595
6th stage
7th sand
stageratio
sand(%)
ratio (%) 27.408
31.245 28.37 29.198 32.609
31.749 32.176 30.05033.04730.927
7th stage
8th sand
stageratio
sand(%)
ratio (%) 31.24535 31.749 35 32.176
35 32.609 35 33.047
35
8th stage sand ratio (%) 35 35 35 35 35
Proppant pumping curve coefficient a 5.976 7.670 9.443 11.626 14.313
Proppant pumping curve coefficient a 5.976 7.670 9.443 11.626 14.313
Proppant pumping curve index b
Proppant pumping curve index b 0.85 0.85 0.730.73 0.63
0.63 0.530.53 0.43 0.43
With the decreases in the desired proppant concentration, the initial sand ratio decreases and
With the decreases
the differences between in thethe
sanddesired
ratiosproppant concentration,
of subsequent the initial
stages increase. Thissand
style ratio decreases and
is advantageous for
the differences between the sand ratios of subsequent stages increase. This style
avoiding sand plugs. However, from Figure 18 note that the optimal pad fluid volume increases is advantageous for
avoiding sand plugs.
with decreasing However,
desired from Figure
proppant 18 note thatIntheparticular,
concentration. optimal pad fluidthe
when volume increases
desired with
proppant
decreasing
concentrationdesired proppantsmall,
is relatively concentration. In particular,
the pad fluid when the very
volume becomes desired proppant
large, which concentration is
is unfeasible in
relatively small, the pad fluid volume becomes very large, which is unfeasible in terms
terms of treatment difficulty and cost. Based on the above analysis, there is a reasonable range for of treatment
difficulty
the desiredand cost. Based concentration
proppant on the above analysis,
in the there is a reasonable
fracture. range for
In this paper, thethedesired
desired proppant
proppant
concentration
concentration in the fracture. In this paper, the desired proppant concentration
is set to 1000 kg/m , which provides a reference for actual designs.
3 C s is set to 1000 kg/m3 ,
which provides a reference for actual designs.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 17 of 23
1600
1400

1600
1200
1600
1400
1000
1400
3) 3)
volume(m(m
1200
1200800
1000
fluidvolume
1000600
800
800400
600
Padfluid
600200
400
400 0
Pad
200
200 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0
0 800Proppant
900concentration
1000 in the (kg/m3)
1100fracture1200
800 900 1000 1100 1200
Figure Proppant
18. Optimal concentration in the desired (kg/m3) concentration.
fracture proppant
Figure 18. Optimal pad pad
Proppant fluid
fluid volume
concentration
volume in vs.
vs. the fracture
desired (kg/m3) concentration.
proppant
Figure 18. Optimal pad fluid volume vs. desired proppant concentration.
Figure 18.Volume
3.4.2. Injected Proppant Optimal pad fluidGround
on the volume vs. desired proppant concentration.
3.4.2. Injected Proppant Volume on the Ground
3.4.2. Injected
Based on Proppant Volume
the above on
data, on the
wethenowGround
consider several injected proppant volumes: 6, 12, 18, 24 and
3.4.2. Injected
Based on the Proppant
above Volume
data, we now Ground
consider several injected proppant volumes: 6, 12, 18, 24 and
30 m 3. Figure 19 shows the optimal fracture half-lengths and widths for different injected proppant
Based on the above data, we now consider several injected proppant volumes: 6, 12, 18, 24 and
30 m3volumes.
. Figure
Based 19onshows
the
Figure
the
above optimal
data,
20 shows
we fracture
now half-lengths
consider
the optimal
and widths
several injected
dimensionless
proppant forvolumes:
different6,and
injected
12, 18, 24proppant
and
30 m33. Figure 19 shows the optimal fracture half-lengths and fracture
widths forconductivity
different injected the maximum
proppant
30
volumes. m . Figure
Figure 19 shows the
20productivity
shows optimal fracture half-lengths and widths for different injected proppant
dimensionless
volumes. Figure 20 showsthe the optimal
index for dimensionless
optimal different injected
dimensionless fracture
proppant
fracture conductivity
volumes.and
conductivity Theand
the the
figures maximum
show that
maximum
volumes. Figure
dimensionless 20 shows
productivity the optimal
index for dimensionless
different injected fracture
proppant conductivity
volumes. and
The the maximum
dimensionless
with increases productivity
of injectedindex for different
proppant volume,injected
both proppant
the optimalvolumes. figures showshow
figures
The half-length
fracture that
thatwidth
and
with dimensionless
increases
with of
increases
increase,
productivity index for different injected proppant volumes. The figures show that
injected
and the proppant
of maximum volume,
injected proppant both the optimal
volume,productivity
dimensionless both the optimalfracture half-length
fracture as
index increases and
half-length
well. width increase,
and width
with increases of injected proppant volume, both the optimal fracture half-length and width
and the maximum
increase, and the dimensionless productivity
maximum dimensionless index increases
productivity as well.as well.
index increases
increase, and the maximum dimensionless productivity index increases as well.
250 7
250 7
250 7 6
200 6
Fracture width (mm)
200 6 5
(mm)
200
(m)
width(mm)
5
(m)
150 5 4
half-length
150 4
Fracturehalf-length
150
Fracturewidth
4
100 3
100 3
100 3
Fracture
2 2
5050 optimal
optimal fracture
fracture half-length2
half-length
Fracture
50 optimal fracture half-length 1 1

optimal
optimal fracture
fracture widthwidth
1
0 optimal fracture width 0
0 0
0 6 6 9 9 12 12 15 1518 1821 2124 2427 27 30 0 30
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 27 30
Proppant
Proppant volume(m
volume(m 3) )
Proppant volume(m3)
Figure
Figure 19.19. Optimal
Optimal fracture
fracture half-lengths
half-lengths andand widths
widths vs. injected
vs. injected proppant
proppant volume.
volume.
Figure Optimal
19. 19.
Figure Optimalfracture
fracturehalf-lengths and widths
half-lengths and widthsvs.
vs.injected
injected proppant
proppant volume.
volume.
3.53.5 1.4 1.4

3.5 1.4
3 3 1.2 1.2
3 1.2
2.5 1
2.52.5 1
MaximumJDJD
1
Maximum JD
2 0.8
CfD
2 2 0.8
Optimal CfD
Maximum
0.8
OptimalCfD
1.5 0.6
1.51.5 0.6
Optimal
0.6
1 0.4
1 1 0.4 0.4
0.5 optimal fracture 0.2
0.50.5 optimal
optimal
conductivityfracture
fracture 0.2 0.2
0 conductivity
conductivity 0
0 06 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 0 0
6 6 9 9 12 1215 1518 1821 2124 24 27 27
30 30
Proppant volume(m33)
Proppant volume(m )
Proppant volume(m ) 3
Figure 20. Optimal and maximum values vs. injected proppant volume.
Figure 20.20.
Figure Optimal
Optimal and maximum values vs. injected proppant volume.
Figure 20. Optimal C f D and and maximum
maximum values
JD values vs. vs. injected
injected proppant
proppant volume.
volume.
Energies 2018,
Energies 11, 11,
2018, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 18 of 23 23
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 18 18
of of
23
However,
However, withwithincreases
increases in in
thethe
injected
injectedproppant
proppant volume,
volume, thethetreatment
treatment cost and
cost anddifficulty
difficultywillwill
both
both increase.
However, For
increase.with different
For increases injected
different in proppant
the injected
injected proppant volumes,
proppant
volumes, other
volume, parameters,
other the including
treatmentincluding
parameters, the
cost and the desired
difficulty
desired
proppant
will both concentration,
proppant increase.
concentration,Forare aretaken
differenttakenfromfromTable
injected 3 and
proppant
Table 3 and held constant.
volumes,
held other
constant. The pad fluid
parameters,
The pad fluidvolume,
including
volume, fluid
the
fluid
rheological
desired parameters
proppant
rheological and
concentration,
parameters injection rate
are taken
and injection are
ratefromto be
are Table optimized
to be 3optimized next.
and held next. Figures
constant. 21
The 21
Figures and
pad and 22
fluid show
22 volume,the
show the
optimized
fluid
optimized pad
rheologicalpad fluid
fluid volume,
parametersvolume,andfluid
fluidapparent
injection viscosity,
rate are
apparent and
to be optimized
viscosity, andinjection rate
next. Figures
injection rateforfor
21different
and injected
22 show
different the
injected
proppant
optimized volumes.
pad fluid From
volume, the figures,
fluid with
apparent increases
viscosity, andof injected
injection proppant
rate
proppant volumes. From the figures, with increases of injected proppant volume, the pad fluid for volume,
different the
injected pad fluid
proppant
volume
volumes.
volume increases,
From thethe
increases, fluid
figures,
the apparent
with
fluid apparent viscosity
increases increases
of injected
viscosity and
proppant
increases andthe injection
volume,
the therate
injection pad also
ratefluidincreases.
also volume
increases. Thus,
increases,
Thus, in in
spite of
thespite the increase
fluidofapparent
the increase in the
viscosity dimensionless
in theincreases
and theproductivity index
injection rateindex resulting
also increases. from the
Thus,the
resulting from increase
in spite in
of the
increase proppant
in increase
proppant
volume,
involume, the treatment
the dimensionless
the treatment becomes
productivity more
becomesindex and more
moreresulting
and more difficult.
from Therefore,
the increase
difficult. the injected
in proppant
Therefore, proppant
volume,
the injected volume
the treatment
proppant volume
should
becomes
should bemore
controlled
be and more
controlled within a suitable
difficult.
within range
Therefore,
a suitable according
the
range injected to
according thethe
proppant
to treatment
volumeconditions
treatment should be in
conditions order
controlled
in order to within
useuse
to it it
efficiently.
a suitable range according to the treatment conditions in order to use it efficiently.
efficiently.
1000
1000 70 70
900900
60 60
apparent viscosity (mPa·s)

apparent viscosity (mPa·s)
800800
700700 50 50
600600 40 40
500500
400400 30 30
300300 20 20
200200 PadPad
fluid volume
fluid volume 10 10
100100 fluid apparent viscosity
fluid apparent viscosity
0 0 0 0
6 6 9 9 12 12 15 15 18 18 21 21 24 24 27 27 30 30
Proppant volume
Proppant volume
3)
(m(m 3)
Figure
Figure21.
Figure Optimized
21.21.
Optimized pad
Optimized
padfluid
pad
fluidvolume
fluid
volumeand
volume fluid’s
and
and apparent
fluid’s
fluid’s viscosity
apparent
apparent vs.
viscosity
viscosity injected
vs.vs. proppant
injected
injected volume.
proppant
proppant volume.
volume.
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
6 6 9 9 12 12 15 15 18 18 21 21 24 24 27 27 30 30
Proppant volume
Proppant (m(m
volume
3)
3)
Figure 22.22.
Figure Optimized injection
Optimized rate
injection vs.vs.
rate injected proppant
injected volume.
proppant volume.
Figure 22. Optimized injection rate vs. injected proppant volume.
4. Conclusions
4. 4. Conclusions
Conclusions
This paper
This paperpresented
presented a method
a method to to
couple
couple thethe
fracturing
fracturing treatment
treatment optimization
optimizationand andfracture
fracture
geometryThis paper presented
optimization in a method
order to to couple
maximize the the fracturing
dimensionless treatment
productivity optimization
index. By and fracture
introducing a a
geometry
geometry optimization
optimization in in order
order toto maximize
maximize the
the dimensionless
productivity index.
index. By
By introducing
introducing
desired
desiredproppant
concentration in in
thethefracture,
fracture,thethe
optimal
optimalfracture
half-lengthand
andwidth
width cancanbe
a desired
solved proppant
based on UFD concentration
method and in
an the fracture,
iterative the optimal
approach. fracture
Moreover, a half-length
rapid and width
semi-analytical can bebe
fracture
solved
solved based
based onon
UFDUFD method
method andand anan iterative approach. Moreover, a rapid semi-analytical fracture
propagation
propagation model
model was
was proposed
proposed initerative
in
approach.
combination
combination with Moreover,
withanan interval a rapid
intervalsearchsemi-analytical
searchmethod
method to to fracture
optimize
optimize
propagation
fracturing model was
treatment proposed in
parameters in combination
order to to withthe
reach an optimal
interval search
fracture method to optimize
dimensions. Based fracturing
onon thethe
fracturing
treatment treatment
parameters inparameters
order to in
reach order
the optimalreach the optimal
fracture dimensions.fracture
Baseddimensions.
on the case Based
study and
case study
case studyand analyses
and analyses contained
contained in this paper,
in this paper, the following
the followingconclusions can be drawn:
analyses contained in this paper, the following conclusions can beconclusions
drawn: can be drawn:
(1)(1)Through
Throughthethesemi-analytical
semi-analyticalfracture
fracturepropagation
propagationmodel
modelandandthethetreatment
treatmentoptimization
optimization
method, the desired proppant concentration in the fracture can be achieved
method, the desired proppant concentration in the fracture can be achieved byby
optimizing thethe
optimizing
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 19 of 23
(1) Through the semi-analytical fracture propagation model and the treatment optimization method,
the desired proppant concentration in the fracture can be achieved by optimizing the proppant
pumping curve index b. The optimal fracture half-length can be achieved by optimizing
parameters such as pad fluid volume, injection rate, and fluid rheological parameters. Once both
the desired proppant concentration and optimal fracture half-length are achieved, the optimal
fracture width is also achieved naturally.
(2) In order to obtain the optimal fracture dimensions, the treatment parameters are not unique.
The optimal treatment parameters can be determined according to both the actual treatment
conditions in the field and the optimization procedure. The prior empirical knowledge about the
actual fracturing treatment can also make the optimization more efficiently.
(3) For the sake of rapid calculation, a 2D fracture propagation model was used. This optimization
method can provide complete and reasonable fracturing treatment parameters that meet the basic
requirements of field designs and provide a reference for finer fracturing simulations and designs
if necessary.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.A. and H.G.; Methodology, K.A.; Software, H.G.; Validation, G.J.;
Investigation, K.A. and G.J.; Data Curation, G.J.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, K.A.; Writing-Review &
Editing, H.G.; Visualization, H.G.; Supervision, L.D.; Project Administration, L.D.; Funding Acquisition, K.A.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the China National High Technology Research and
Development Program 863 (Grant No. 2013AA064503), the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(41672364, 41602373).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Unified Fracture Design (UFD) Method

We first define the penetration ratio:
2x f
Ix = (A1)
xe
and dimensionless fracture conductivity:
kf wf
Cf D = (A2)
kx f
where x f is the fracture half-length (m); xe is the length of the drainage area (m); k f is the permeability
of the propped fracture (md); k is the permeability of the reservoir (md); and w f is the average width
of the propped fracture (m).
If the volume of the propped fracture is constant, then the proppant number is also constant:
2k f Vp 4k f x f w f h p xe
Nprop = = = Ix2 C f D = const (A3)
kVres kxe ye h p ye
Define:
yeD = ye /xe (A4)
where ye is the width of the drainage area (m); Vp is the volume of the propped fracture (m3 ); Vres is
the volume of the drainage area (m3 ); and h p is the thickness of the reservoir (m).
Through numerical calculations, Valkó and Economides [54,57] found that the maximum
dimensionless productivity index and the corresponding optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity
can be uniquely determined given the proppant number. That is, the maximum dimensionless
productivity index and optimal dimensionless fracture conductivity are functions of the
proppant number.
Introduce the shape factor CA and the equivalent proppant number Nprop,e . Values of CA are
shown in Table A1.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 20 of 23
Table A1. Dietz shape factors for a range of aspect ratios.
yeD 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
CA 0.025 2.36 5.38 9.00 16.17 21.84 25.80 28.36 29.89 30.66 30.88
Using the shape factor, the equivalent proppant number can be written as:
CA
Nprop,e = Nprop (A5)
30.88
The maximum dimensionless productivity index and the optimal dimensionless fracture
conductivity in rectangular reservoirs can be described by the following equations.
(1) When Nprop ≤ 0.1: align
1 1
(
JDmax Nprop = 0.990−0.5lnN =
prop,e 2.7−0.5ln( Nprop C A ) (A6)

C f Dopt Nprop = 1.6
(2) When Nprop > 0.1:
1
(
JDmax Nprop = −0.63−0.5lnN prop + Fopt
100yeD −C f D,0.1 (A7)
C f Dopt Nprop = 100 × Nprop − 0.1 + C f D,0.1
where: (
4.5yeD + 0.25 0.1 ≤ yeD ≤ 0.25
C f D,0.1 =
1.6 0.25 < yeD ≤ 1
a+buopt +cu2opt +du3opt
Fopt = a0 +b0 uopt +c0 u2opt
uopt = lnC f Dopt
The related constants are from Table A2.
Table A2. Constants in F-function.
yeD 1 0.7 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.1

a 17.2 17.4 21.4 38.3 35 30.6
b 54.5 55.5 54.3 46 59 89.6
c 52.5 53.3 56.3 71.1 70 70.2
d 16.9 16.9 16.9 15.84 16.3 17.8
a’ 10
b’ 36
c’ 33
References
1. Hareland, G.; Rampersad, P.; Dharaphop, J.; Sasnanand, S. Hydraulic Fracturing Design Optimization.
In Proceedings of the 1993 Eastern Regional Conference & Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2–4 November 1993.
2. Lynk, J.M.; Papandrea, R.; Collamore, A.; Quinn, T.; Cazeneuve, E.; Centurion, S. Hydraulic fracture
completion optimization in Fayetteville shale: Case study. Int. J. Geomech. 2016, 17, 04016053. [CrossRef]
3. Roussel, N.P.; Sharma, M.M. Optimizing Fracture Spacing and Sequencing in Horizontal-Well Fracturing.
In Proceedings of the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, LA, USA, 10–12 February 2010.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 21 of 23
4. Jamiolahmady, M.; Sohrabi, M.; Mahdiyar, H. Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry. In Proceedings
of the 2009 SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 8–11 September 2009.
5. Manrique, J.F.; Poe, B.D. Evaluation and Optimization of Low Conductivity Fractures. In Proceedings of the
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, USA, 29–31 January 2007.
6. Bruce, R.M.; Lucas, W.B.; Henry, R.J.; Michael, G.L. Optimization of Multiple Transverse Hydraulic Fractures
in Horizontal Wellbores. In Proceedings of the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
23–25 February 2010.
7. Zeng, F.; Zhao, G. The optimal hydraulic fracture geometry under non-Darcy flow effects. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
2010, 72, 143–157. [CrossRef]
8. Siddhamshetty, P.; Yang, S.; Kwon, S.I. Modeling of hydraulic fracturing and designing of online pumping
schedules to achieve uniform proppant concentration in conventional oil reservoirs. Comput. Chem. Eng.
2018, 114, 306–317. [CrossRef]
9. Yang, S.; Siddhamshetty, P.; Kwon, S.I. Optimal pumping schedule design to achieve a uniform proppant
concentration level in hydraulic fracturing. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2017, 101, 138–147. [CrossRef]
10. Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, M.K.; Rahman, S.S. Optimizing treatment parameters for enhanced hydrocarbon
production by hydraulic fracturing. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2003, 42, 38–46. [CrossRef]
11. Poulsen, D.K.; Soliman, M.Y. A Procedure for Optimal Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design.
In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA, 12–14 November 1986.
12. Soliman, M.Y.; Pongratz, R.; Rylance, M.; Prather, D. Fracture Treatment Optimization for Horizontal Well
Completion. In Proceedings of the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October 2006.
13. Lopez-Hernandez, H.; Valkó, P.P.; Tai, T.P. Optimum Fracture Treatment Design Minimizes the Impact of
Non-Darcy Flow Effects. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX, USA, 26–29 September 2004.
14. Kong, B.; Fathi, E.; Ameri, S. Coupled 3-D numerical simulation of proppant distribution and hydraulic
fracturing performance optimization in Marcellus shale reservoirs. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2015, 147–148, 35–45.
[CrossRef]
15. Mahdiyar, H.; Jamiolahmady, M. Optimization of hydraulic fracture geometry in gas condensate reservoirs.
Fuel 2014, 119, 27–37. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, Q.; Yang, G.; Chen, T.; Guo, X. Non-Darcy effect on fracture parameters
optimization in fractured CBM horizontal well. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 27, 1438–1445. [CrossRef]
17. Masoomi, R.; Viktorovich, D.S. Simulation and optimization of the hydraulic fracturing operation in a heavy
oil reservoir in southern Iran. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2017, 12, 241–255.
18. Wang, J.; Jia, A. A general productivity model for optimization of multiple fractures with heterogeneous
properties. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2014, 21, 608–624. [CrossRef]
19. Zeng, F.H.; Ke, Y.B.; Guo, J.C. An optimal fracture geometry design method of fractured horizontal wells in
heterogeneous tight gas reservoirs. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2016, 59, 241–251. [CrossRef]
20. Atefeh, J.; Behnam, J. Optimization of hydraulic fracturing design under spatially variable shale fracability.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 138, 174–188.
21. Zhang, Z.; Li, X.; Yuan, W.; He, J.; Li, G.; Wu, Y. Numerical analysis on the optimization of hydraulic fracture
networks. Energies 2015, 8, 12061–12079. [CrossRef]
22. Zeng, F.H.; Guo, J.C. Optimized design and use of induced complex fractures in horizontal wellbores of tight
gas reservoirs. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1411–1423. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, M.; Sun, Y.; Fu, P.; Charles, R.; Lu, Z.; Charles, H.T.; Thomas, A.B. Surrogate-based optimization of
hydraulic fracturing in pre-existing fracture networks. Comput. Geosci. 2013, 58, 69–79. [CrossRef]
24. Balen, R.M.; Mens, H.Z.; Economides, M.J. Applications of the Net Present Value (NPV) in the Optimization
of Hydraulic Fractures. In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, USA,
1–4 November 1988.
25. Kim, H.; Querin, O.M.; Steven, G.P. On the development of structural optimization and its relevance in
engineering design. Des. Stud. 2002, 23, 85–102. [CrossRef]
26. Hariharan, K.; Balaji, C. Material optimization: A case study using sheet metal-forming analysis. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 324–331. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 22 of 23
27. Chisari, C.; Bedon, C. Multi-objective optimization of FRP jackets for improving the seismic response of
reinforced concrete frames. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 9, 669–679. [CrossRef]
28. Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, M.K.; Rahman, S.S. An integrated model for multi-objective design optimization of
hydraulic fracturing. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2001, 31, 41–62. [CrossRef]
29. Yang, C.; Vyas, A.; Datta-Gupta, A.; Ley, S.B.; Biswas, P. Rapid multistage hydraulic fracture design and
optimization in unconventional reservoirs using a novel Fast Marching Method. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017,
156, 91–101. [CrossRef]
30. Lee, S.; Min, B.; Wheeler, M.F. Optimal design of hydraulic fracturing in porous media using the phase field
fracture model coupled with genetic algorithm. Comput. Geosci. 2018, 3, 833–849. [CrossRef]
31. Mohaghegh, S.; Balanb, B.; Platon, V.; Ameri, S. Hydraulic fracture design and optimization of gas storage
wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 1999, 23, 161–171. [CrossRef]
32. Shahab, M.; Andrei, P.; Sam, A. Intelligent Systems Can Design Optimum Fracturing Jobs. In Proceedings of
the 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, WV, USA, 21–22 October 1999.
33. Gorucu, S.E.; Ertekin, T. Optimization of the Design of Transverse Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wells
Placed in Dual Porosity Tight Gas Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 31 January–2 February 2011.
34. Rueda, J.I. Using a Mixed Integer Linear Programming Technique to Optimize a Fracture Treatment
Design. In Proceedings of the 1994 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, WV,
USA, 8–10 November 1994.
35. Li, J.C.; Gong, B.; Wang, H.G. Mixed integer simulation optimization for optimal hydraulic fracturing and
production of shale gas fields. Eng. Optim. 2015, 48, 1378–1400. [CrossRef]
36. Queipo, N.V.; Verde, A.J.; Canelón, J.; Pintos, S. Efficient global optimization for hydraulic fracturing
treatment design. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2002, 35, 151–166. [CrossRef]
37. Wangen, M. Finite element modeling of hydraulic fracturing in 3D. Comput. Geosci. 2013, 17, 647–659.
[CrossRef]
38. Gordeliy, E.; Peirce, A. Implicit level set schemes for modeling hydraulic fractures using the XFEM.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2013, 266, 125–143. [CrossRef]
39. Li, L.; Xia, Y.; Huang, B.; Zhang, L.; Li, M.; Li, A. The behaviour of fracture growth in Sedimentary rocks:
A numerical study based on hydraulic fracturing processes. Energies 2016, 9, 169. [CrossRef]
40. Wang, J.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Jiang, B.; Luo, W. A new model to predict productivity of multiple-fractured
horizontal well in naturally fractured reservoirs. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 892594. [CrossRef]
41. Liu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, H.; Hu, X.; Xie, Y. A productivity prediction model for multiple fractured
horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 42, 252–261. [CrossRef]
42. Medeiros, F.; Ozkan, E.; Kazemi, H. Productivity and Drainage Area of Fractured Horizontal Wells in Tight
Gas Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver,
CO, USA, 16–18 April 2007.
43. Luo, W.; Wang, X.; Feng, Y.; Tang, C.; Zhou, Y. Productivity analysis for a vertically fractured well under
non-Darcy flow condition. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 146, 714–725. [CrossRef]
44. Nordgren, R.P. Propagation of a vertical hydraulic fracture. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1972, 12, 306–314. [CrossRef]
45. Valkó, P.P.; Economides, M.J. Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
46. Kovalyshen, Y.; Detournay, E. A reexamination of the classical PKN model of hydraulic fracture.
Transp. Porous Media 2010, 81, 317–339. [CrossRef]
47. Palmer, I.D.; Carroll, H.B. Numerical Solution for Height and Elongated Hydraulic Fractures. In Proceedings
of the 1983 SPE/DOE Symposium on Low Permeability, Denver, CO, USA, 14–16 March 1983.
48. Rahman, M.M.; Rahman, M.K. A Review of Hydraulic Fracture Models and Development of an Improved
Pseudo-3D Model for Stimulating Tight Oil/Gas Sand. Energy Sources 2010, 32, 1416–1436. [CrossRef]
49. Pitakbunkate, T.; Yang, M.; Valkó, P.P.; Economides, M.J. Hydraulic Fracture Optimization with a P-3D
Model. In Proceedings of the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA,
27–29 March 2011.
50. Economides, M.J.; Demarchos, A.S. Benefits of a p-3D over a 2D Model for Unified Fracture Design.
In Proceedings of the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, LA, USA, 13–15 February 2008.
Energies 2018, 11, 1720 23 of 23
51. Meng, H.Z.; Brown, K.E. Coupling of Production Forecasting, Fracture Geometry Requirements and
Treatment Scheduling in the Optimum Hydraulic Fracture Design. In Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, USA, 18–19 May 1987.
52. Rahman, M.M. Constrained hydraulic fracture optimization improves recovery from low permeable oil
reservoirs. Energy Sources Part A 2008, 30, 536–551. [CrossRef]
53. Valkó, P.P.; Economides, M.J. Heavy Crude Production from Shallow Formations: Long Horizontal Wells
Versus Horizontal Fractures. In Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, AB, Canada, 1–4 November 1998.
54. Economides, M.J.; Oligeny, R.E.; Valkó, P.P. Unified Fracture Design; Orsa Press: Houston, TX, USA, 2002.
55. Demarchos, A.S.; Chomatas, A.S.; Economides, M.J. Pushing the Limits in Hydraulic Fracture Design.
In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
LA, USA, 18–20 February 2004.
56. Romero, D.J.; Valkó, P.P.; Economides, M.J. Optimization of the Productivity Index and the Fracture Geometry
of a Stimulated Well with Fracture Face and Choke Skins. In Proceedings of the 2002 SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, USA, 20–21 February 2003.
57. Daal, J.A.; Economides, M.J. Optimization of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Irregularly Shaped Drainage
Areas. In Proceedings of the 2006 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, LA, USA, 15–17 February 2006.
58. Martin, A.N.; Economides, M.J. Best Practices for Candidate Selection, Design and Evaluation of Hydraulic
Fracture Treatments. In Proceedings of the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition, Tunis,
Tunisia, 8–10 June 2010.
59. Bhattacharya, S.; Nikolaou, M.; Economides, M.J. Unified Fracture Design for very low permeability
reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2012, 9, 184–195. [CrossRef]
60. Mukherjee, H.; Economides, M.J. A parametric comparison of horizontal and vertical well performance.
SPE Form. Eval. 1991, 6, 209–216. [CrossRef]
61. Wei, Y.; Economides, M.J. Transverse Hydraulic Fractures from a Horizontal Well. In Proceedings of the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 9–12 October 2005.
62. Rahman, M.M.; Sarma, H.K.; Yu, H. Transverse Fracturing of Horizontal Well-A Unified Fracture Design
to Stimulate Tight Gas Sands. In Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 28–30 January 2013.
63. Marongiu-Porcu, M.; Economides, M.J.; Holditch, A.S. Economic and physical optimization of hydraulic
fracturing. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2013, 14, 91–107. [CrossRef]
64. Zhang, T.; Pang, W.; Du, J.; He, Y.; He, Q.; Liu, H.; Feng, X.; Song, B.; Ehlig-Economides, C.A. Actual and
Optimal Hydraulic Fracture Design in a Tight Gas Reservoir. In Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, Woodlands, TX, USA, 4–6 February 2014.
65. Bhattacharya, S.; Nikolaou, M. Comprehensive optimization methodology for stimulation design of
low-permeability unconventional gas reservoirs. SPE J. 2016, 21, 947–964. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Energies: Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Optimization For Low Permeability Reservoirs Based On Unified Fracture Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies: Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Optimization For Low Permeability Reservoirs Based On Unified Fracture Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Keywords: hydraulic fracturing; treatment optimization; unified fracture design; fracture

Energies 2018, 11, 1720; doi:10.3390/en11071720 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

2.1. Fracture Geometry Optimization Based on UFD

Then, function of the permeability of the fracture can be written as:

2.2. Treatment Optimization through a Fast Semi-Analytical Fracture Propagation Model

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the fracture propagation model.

Vi (t) = Vi (t − ∆t) − Vli (t) (13)

Thus, the length of each fluid element becomes:

The proppant concentration in the fluid element can be calculated as:

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of fracture closure.

The proppant The desired proppant concentration

Assume a permeability of the propped fracture

Pad fluid volume Sand adding program

The proppant concentration

4.2 calculated fracture width

Table 2. Ranges of parameters used in optimization.

Pad Fluid Proppant Pumping Fluid Consistency Fluid Flow

3.3. General Discussion

3.3.2. Fluid’s Apparent Viscosity

During the optimization

Apparent viscosity (mPa·s)

600 Reservoir permeability (md) 120

Fracture width (mm)

Energies 2018, 11, 1720 16 of 23

Desired Proppant Concentration (kg/m3)

Pad fluid volume (m3)

50 optimal fracture half-length 1 1

3.53.5 1.4 1.4

apparent viscosity (mPa·s)

Appendix A. Unified Fracture Design (UFD) Method

Table A1. Dietz shape factors for a range of aspect ratios.

(1) When Nprop ≤ 0.1: align

(2) When Nprop > 0.1:

Table A2. Constants in F-function.

yeD 1 0.7 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.1

You might also like