Interpretation of Fracture Height From
Temperature LogsĊThe Effect of
Wellbore/Fracture Separation
E.R. Davis, SPE, Conoco Inc., Ding Zhu, SPE, and A.D. Hill, SPE, The U. of Texas at Austin
Summary
Temperature logs commonly have been used to evaluate fracture
height by locating cool anomalies that indicate the locations where
cool fracture fluids were injected. Instead of cool anomalies, how-
ever, warm anomalies (called “warm noses”) often occur on temper-
ature logs run after fracture treatments. When interpreting fracture
height from a temperature log, warm anomalies make it difficult to
identify the top and bottom of the fracture. We believe that a plausi-
ble reason for warm anomalies is that the wellbore and the fracture
are not coincident over the entire extent of the fracture; instead,
away from the perforations, the fracture and the wellbore may be
separated a finite distance that varies with depth. This paper investi-
gates the effect of the existence and magnitude of the displacement
between the wellbore and the fracture on wellbore temperature be-
havior after fracturing. The results obtained explain the “warm
noses” on shut-in temperature logs run after a fracture treatment
and, more generally, illustrate how fracture-wellbore separation can
result in a variety of characteristic temperature log responses.
A mathematical model has been developed to simulate the well-
bore temperature after fracturing for cases where the wellbore and the
fracture are not coincident for the entire extent of the fracture. The
study shows that the temperature behavior strongly depends on the
pattern and the magnitude of the displacement. When the fracture is
perfectly connected with the wellbore, the cool region on the log indi-
cates the top and bottom of the fracture clearly. However, the cool re-
gion is much smaller than the fracture height if the wellbore deviates
from the fracture at a constant angle away from the perforations—a
situation that may occur in a well that is deviated slightly from verti-
cal, for example. Furthermore, “warm noses” appear on the log if the
well spirals in a helical trajectory because the spacing between the
wellbore and the fracture will vary with depth for this geometry.
Therefore, when evaluating a postfracture temperature log, the possi-
bility of a deviated wellbore-fracture system must be considered to
avoid misinterpreting the fracture height. Longer shut-in times are
shown to improve the fracture-height interpretation.
Introduction
Currently, a widely used method for determining the height of a hy-
draulic fracture is to run a temperature log on the shut-in well shortly
after the fracturing treatment. The temperature profile along the
wellbore theoretically should show a cool anomaly adjacent to the
location where the fracturing fluid has been injected and, from this
cool anomaly, the fracture height can be estimated. Fig. 1 shows an
ideal temperature log that locates the created fracture height. Unfor-
tunately, the temperature log does not always record a perfect cool
anomaly that clearly indicates the fracture height. On the contrary,
many times warm anomalies appear in the cool region. These warm
anomalies have been referred to as “warm noses” in the literature
(Dobkins1 and Wages2). A typical example of a warm nose can be
seen in Fig. 2.
Previously, two explanations have been proposed for areas of
warm fluid in the wellbore and in the fracture following a fracture
stimulation. One explanation presented by Dobkins1 supposes that
warm reservoir fluids from deep in the fracture wings flow in massive
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 20 March 1995. Revised manuscript received
26 November 1996. Paper peer approved 10 February 1997. Paper (SPE 29588) first pre-
sented at the 1995 SPE Rocky Mountain Region/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium
held in Denver, Colorado, 20–22 March.
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997
convective currents through the fracture to the wellbore, causing it to
be flushed with warm formation fluid. While, theoretically, it is pos-
sible for natural convection to occur in a fracture, it does not seem
probable that fluid could move hundreds to possibly a thousand feet
by natural convection to influence the temperature of the wellbore in
just a few hours. The other explanation mentioned in the literature is
that heterogeneity in the formation could create varying thermal dif-
fusivity with depth. This could cause certain portions of the near-
wellbore formation to return to formation temperature faster than oth-
ers. Therefore, areas with high thermal diffusivity would exhibit a
higher temperature on the temperature log than those areas with lower
diffusivity. Thus, a warm nose could be produced.1,3 While the warm
noses could be created as a result of thermal diffusivity differences,
these differences would tend to be small in magnitude. Prefracture in-
spection of gamma ray, spontaneous potential, and resistivity logs
have been used along with temperature logs to help factor out hetero-
geneity-dependent temperature fluctuations to better define created
fracture height.1,4 If a reservoir’s heterogeneity can cause a 10°F
warm nose through different thermal diffusivities, significant varia-
tions in other formation properties should be evident.
While these explanations for the warm noses possibly could ac-
count for small temperature fluctuations, they do not seem plausible
as explanations for the large warm noses that are often observed.
Instead, a more justifiable explanation centers around the fact that
the fracture and the wellbore can become noncoincident as a result
of wellbore drift. Because of variations in the hardness, the natural
trend of an area, and the high torque imposed on the flexible drill
string, wells often drift from vertical. In some instances, they tend
to corkscrew with depth. If the wellbore not only drifts by a degree
or two but also corkscrews, then it is possible that the fracture could
be vertically propagating in and out of the wellbore’s helical path,
thus causing multiple warm noses. A section of such a wellbore-
fracture configuration is depicted in Fig. 3.
To understand the warm-nose phenomenon caused by the well-
bore deviation, a mathematical model based on an idealized geo-
metric system that consists of a wellbore and a fracture has been de-
veloped to simulate closely the wellbore temperature behavior after
shut-in following a fracturing job. Three wellbore-fracture configu-
rations, perfectly coincident, constant-angle deviated wellbore, and
helically spiraling wellbore, have been considered in this study. The
response of temperature logs to the displacement pattern and dis-
tance between the fracture and the wellbore has been studied based
on the results of the mathematical model.
Mathematical Model and Its Solution
The geometric system used to develop the model, shown in Fig. 4,
includes a well with a radius of rw and a fracture in the domain. The
displacement between the wellbore and fracture, defined as A, can
vary from zero (the wellbore and the fracture are coincidentally con-
nected) to a finite number. The main assumptions for the model de-
velopment are the following:
1. The system is symmetric about the x-axis. Thus, only half of the
temperature field is simulated.
2. Heat transfer is only considered in the x- and y-directions.
3. The wellbore and the fracture temperature are constant during
injection.
4. Forced and free convection radiation and heat convection be-
cause of the fluid loss from the fracture to the formation are negligi-
ble compared with heat conduction.
5. The formation properties are considered to be homogenous.
119
 Fig. 1—An ideal temperature log.

The equation to describe the temperature behavior in the system

derived from an elemental energy balance and Fourier’s law of heat
conduction is

ēt r ǒ
ēT + a ē 2T ) ē 2T .
ēx 2 ēy 2
Ǔ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Fig. 2—An example of a warm nose on a temperature log (from
In Eq. 1, ar is the thermal diffusivity of the formation, defined as Dobkins1).

lr is the formation temperature. Eq. 1 was solved in the following di-

ar + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
ò rC pr mensionless form:5
where lr is the thermal conductivity, ò r is the density, and Cpr is the
heat capacity of the formation. The boundary conditions for Eq. 1 are
T + T I at 0 v t v t si for the wellbore,
ēT d
ēt d
+ ad ǒ
ē 2T d ē 2T d
ēx 2d
Ǔ
) 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
ēy d
T + T I at 0 v t v t si for the fracture,
T + T R at t w t si at the outer boundary, with the dimensionless variables defined as
and the initial condition is T + T R at t + 0, where tsi is the time t si a r T * TI
at which injection is stopped, TI is the injection temperature, and TR ad + ; Td + ; t + tt ;
A2 TR * TI d si

x ; and y + y
xd + .
A ) rw d
A ) rw
The boundary conditions for the dimensionless temperature
equation, Eq. 3, are
rw rw
T d + 0 at x d v , y v ,
A ) rw d A ) rw

Fig. 3—Vertical fracture intersecting a portion of a spiralling

wellbore. Fig. 4—The geometric system for the model.

120 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997

Fig. 5—Temperature field for a coincident wellbore-fracture sys-
tem at td +1.
and 0 v t d v 1.
A ) rw
T d + 0 at x d v , 0 v yd v L ,
A ) rw A ) rw
and 0 v t d v 1.
T d + 1 at x d ³ R, y d ³ R ,
and the initial condition is
T d + 1 at t d + 0,
where rw is the wellbore radius and L is the fracture length.
Because there are two sources in the system (the well and the frac-
ture) and the well has a finite diameter (not a point source), solving
Eq. 3 analytically by integral transforms or the law of superposition
is impossible. The temperature equation was solved numerically
with an explicit finite-difference method. The simulation results
were verified by energy balance and were comparable with the re-
sults presented by Zhu.6
Model Results
The simulation results of the model can be used to generate a tempera-
ture field at any shut-in time, an averaged wellbore-temperature histo-
ry as a function of shut-in time for various displacements between the
fracture and the wellbore, and pseudotemperature logs. The fractur-
ing time for the examples shown in this paper was 4 hours.
Temperature Field. To understand how the temperature in the en-
tire system varies because of the existence of a fracture, the tempera-
ture field around the wellbore and the fracture was generated from
the simulator for the defined system. Fig. 5 shows the temperature
field for an idealized case where the wellbore and the fracture are
perfectly connected at a dimensionless time of 2 (after a shut-in time
equal to the fracturing time). Because there is no displacement be-
tween the wellbore and the fracture, the temperature field is sym-
metric about the wellbore and the fracture. The lowest temperature
is always located at the wellbore.
Fig. 6 shows the temperature field at the time of shut-in (td +1)
for a displacement of 6 in. between the wellbore and the fracture,
and Fig. 7 shows the temperature field for the same wellbore-frac-
ture configuration at a later time (td +2). At the time of shut-in, the
temperature in the wellbore and the fracture are the injection tem-
perature (Td +0) and both rise after shut-in.
In both the coincident case (Fig. 5) and the case with a 6-in. dis-
placement between the wellbore and the fracture (Fig. 7), the region
affected by the cool fracture fluid is small, extending less than 2 ft
beyond the wellbore and fracture. This allows us to simulate only
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997
Fig. 6—Temperature field for a 6-in. displacement between the
wellbore and the fracture at td +1.
Fig. 7—Temperature field for a 6-in. displacement between the
wellbore and the fracture at td +2.
a small portion of the reservoir to model wellbore temperature be-
havior during and after fracturing.
Temperature History. To examine the effect of the displacement
on temperature logs, the averaged wellbore temperature as a func-
tion of dimensionless time for various displacements, A, is dis-
played in Fig. 8. As the displacement increases, Fig. 8 shows that
the rate of temperature recovery also increases. The top curve, rep-
resenting the nonfracture scenario, shows that the wellbore temper-
ature returns to the reservoir temperature the quickest. At early
times after shut-in, the temperature curve with a large value of A is
close to the nonfracture temperature curve, and the existence of the
fracture does not affect the wellbore temperature.
It should be noticed that the A+0 curve, which corresponds to a
fully connected fracture-wellbore case, is not the lowest of the family
of curves. Fig. 9, an enlargement of the temperature history between
td +5 and td +6, shows this feature more clearly. When the wellbore
and the fracture become deviated a small distance, the area between
the wellbore and the fracture is cooled more by the two cool sources
(the well and the fracture) bounding it than if only one cool region (the
well with a connected fracture) affects that area. Thus, this cooler area
slows down the wellbore temperature recovery after shut-in,
compared with a fully connected fracture-wellbore case, resulting in
a lower wellbore temperature for the case of a small deviation.
The family of curves shown in Fig. 8 can be used to generate
pseudotemperature logs, which can be used to compare with a field
temperature log to understand any abnormal temperature behavior
in field records.
121
 Fig. 8—Temperature history for different displacements.
Application in Temperature Log Analysis
To apply the mathematical model to temperature log interpretation
for fracture height, the two-dimensional temperature simulator has
been used to generate pseudotemperature log curves for specified
wellbore-fracture deviation patterns and treatment conditions. The
procedure to generate a pseudolog curve follows:
1. Calculate the wellbore temperature history to generate the fam-
ily of curves for different displacements, as shown in Fig. 8, for a
given fracturing job.
2. Estimate the displacement as a function of depth for an as-
sumed wellbore-fracture deviation pattern.
3. Assign the wellbore temperature from the temperature history
family curves to a depth according to the calculated displacement
at that depth at a given shut-in time.
Three patterns for the wellbore-fracture configuration, coinci-
dent, constant deviation, and helical, have been studied to see the
temperature response to the displacement and to determine the fea-
tures of temperature logs for each deviation pattern. A frac-fluid
temperature of 100°F and a reservoir temperature of 200°F have
been used in the following examples of pseudo-temperature logs.
Fig. 10—Simulated temperature log for a coincident wellbore
and fracture.
122
Fig. 9—Temperature histories for td between 5 and 6.
Coincident. In this case, there is no displacement between the well-
bore and the fracture. In this perfectly connected wellbore-fracture
geometry, a cool region will be seen clearly corresponding to the
fracture location, as shown in Fig. 10; further, the created height of
the fracture can be identified easily from the length of the cool zone.
Constant Deviation. The fracture and the wellbore are coincident
throughout the perforated region; the fracture then deviates from the
wellbore at a constant angle, starting at the top and the bottom of the
perforations (see Fig. 11). When the fracture is deviated from the
wellbore with a constant angle, the displacement constantly in-
creases with distance from the top and the bottom of the perfora-
tions. As a result, a cool anomaly will be seen only around the perfo-
rated region with a smaller height than the actual fracture height;
therefore, the fracture height could be interpreted as being much
smaller than the actual height, as shown in Fig. 12. Running an addi-
tional temperature log after a longer shut-in period may be a useful
method of determining if the fracture and wellbore are separated
away from the perforations. For the constant deviation case, the cool
anomaly will extend up and down farther from the perforated re-
gions at longer shut-in times, while in a fully coincident case, the
length of the cool anomaly is essentially unchanged with time. If
Fig. 11—Geometry for a constant angle deviated wellbore-frac-
ture system.
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997
Fig. 12—Simulated temperature log for a constant deviation
case.
wellbore deviation is leading to significant displacement between
the wellbore and the fracture, it is likely that the full fracture height
cannot be determined with a temperature log.
Helical. The fracture and the wellbore are coincident throughout the
perforated region; the wellbore moves away from/toward the frac-
ture in a helical pattern, above and below the perforations, with a de-
fined helix diameter and length for one revolution (Fig. 13). When
the pattern is helical, the wellbore temperature will be lower in the
region where the fracture is connected to the wellbore but will be
higher where the wellbore and the fracture are separated. Therefore,
warm noses will occur on the temperature log as the wellbore runs
away and then back into the fracture, as shown in Fig. 14. Interpreta-
tion of fracture height from the temperature log becomes compli-
cated because there may be more than one warm or cool region on
the log. It could be even more difficult if the wellbore runs into the
fracture several times with different helix diameters or revolution
lengths. There will be more than one warm nose and the shape of the
warm noses could be different. In general, the presence of a warm
nose indicates the fracture extends into the cooler region above or
below the warm nose.
Fig. 14—Simulated temperature log for a helical wellbore-fracture system.
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997
Fig. 13—Geometry for a helical wellbore-fracture system, top
view.
Conclusions
From this study, we have concluded the following:
1. A mathematical model of the temperature field in and around
a wellbore/fracture system shows that temperature recovery in the
wellbore after fracturing depends strongly on the spacing between
the wellbore and the fracture, when the two are not coincident over
the entire height of the fracture. If the fracture is approximately 2 ft
or farther from the wellbore, its presence does not affect the well-
bore temperature.
2. When a hydraulic fracture is coincident with the wellbore over
the entire height of the fracture, the fracture height is easily meas-
ured as the location of the cool anomaly on a temperature log.
3. When the wellbore deviates away from the fracture at a
constant angle (except at the perforations), it is often not possible to
measure the entire fracture height from the cool anomaly on a tem-
perature log. In this instance, the cool anomaly indicates an apparent
fracture height smaller than the true fracture height. With longer
shut-in time, the cool anomaly will extend farther up and down.
123
Thus, repeating a temperature log after a longer shut-in period is a
means of determining if the fracture and wellbore depart from one
another. Such behavior is expected when fracturing from a deviated
wellbore, even with small deviations of a few degrees.
4. Warm noses will be observed on shut-in temperature logs after
a fracture treatment when the wellbore and fracture are alternately
coincident and separated. This can occur when the wellbore is
spiraling in a helical trajectory and the fracture is vertical. The exis-
tence of a warm nose indicates that the fracture extends into the cool
region above/below the warm nose.
Nomenclature
A+ distance between wellbore and fracture
Cpr + heat capacity of the formation
rw + wellbore radius
t+ time
tsi + shut-in time
td + dimensionless time
T+ temperature
Td + dimensionless temperature
TI + injection temperature
TR + initial reservoir temperature
xd ,yd + dimensionless distance
ad + dimensionless thermal diffusivity
ar + thermal diffusivity of the formation
ò r+ density of the formation
lr + thermal conductivity of the formation
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the sponsors of the Stimulation, Logging, and
Formation Damage Research Program at the U. of Texas at Austin
for support of this work.
References
1. Dobkins, T.A.: “Improved Methods to Determine Hydraulic Fracture
Height,” JPT (April 1981) 719.
2. Wages, P.E.: “Interpretation of Postfracture Temperature Surveys,” paper
SPE 11189 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 26–29 September.
3. Hill, A.D.: Production Logging-Theoretical and Interpretive Elements,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson (1990).
4. Bundy, T.E.: “Prefracture Injection Surveys: A Necessity for Successful
Fracture Treatments,” paper SPE 9883 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26–29 September.
124
5. Davis, E.R.: “Interpretation of Fracture Height With Temperature Logs,”
MS thesis, The U. of Texas, Austin, Texas (1993).
6. Zhu, D.: “Effect of Temperature on Minifrac Pressure Behavior,” PhD dis-
sertation, The U. of Texas, Austin, Texas (1992).
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft 3.048* E*01 +m
°F (°F–32)/1.8 +°C
in. 2.54* E)00 +cm
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Eric R. Davis is an engineer with Conoco, currently based in the
Well Engineering and Operations Dept. in Houston. His responsiĆ
bilities include completion design, sand control, formation failĆ
ure modeling, and productivity analysis. Davis holds a BS deĆ
gree in petroleum engineering and an MS degree in
engineering, both from the U. of Texas at Austin. Ding Zhu is a reĆ
search associate in the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering
Dept. at the U. of Texas at Austin. She holds a BS degree in meĆ
chanical engineering from Beijing U. of Science and TechnoloĆ
gy and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from the
U. of Texas at Austin. A. Daniel Hill is professor of petroleum and
geosystems engineering at the U. of Texas at Austin and holds
the Halliburton Annual Professorship in Petroleum and GeosysĆ
tems Engineering. He holds a BS degree from Texas A&M U. and
MS and PhD degrees from the U. of Texas at Austin, all in chemiĆ
cal engineering. Hill is currently Chairman of the Books CommitĆ
tee and a member of the Editorial Review Committee. He was
also 1993-95 Chairman and a 1992-93 member of the Symbols
and Metrication Committee, and a member of the Program
Committee in 1986 and the Career Guidance Committee durĆ
ing 1984-85. Hill was the founding chairman of the Austin section
in 1986-87 and U. of Texas student chapter faculty sponsor durĆ
ing 1983-84 and 1987-88. Hill also was a 1988-89 Distinguished
Lecturer and is the author of the SPE monograph Production
Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elements.
Davis Zhu Hill
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1997