OTC 22337

Limits of Acid Fracture Conductivity Correlation Improvement Through

Acid Fracture Surface Characterization
Valdo F. Rodrigues, SPE, Ana C. R. Medeiros, SPE, North Fluminense State University

Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4–6 October 2011.

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

Abstract
The classical theoretical framework of fracture conductivity for rough acid-etched surfaces is the Nierode and Kruk
correlation, given by an exponential equation of two parts: the conductivity under zero closure stress and the rate of
conductivity change with closure stress. The first part has been related to fracture width and the second one, to rock
embedment strength. This study, based on experiments that used samples from whole cores of an oil producer limestone,
analyzed the fitness of laboratory-measured conductivities to the exponential conductivity correlation model. By means of a
comprehensive 3D acid-etched surface characterization, this study showed that the use of surface parameters, measured at
zero closure stress, can improve only the first part of the exponential correlation. The rate of conductivity change with closure
stress is determined by the fracture width reduction under closure stress, while the effects of asperities in contact and related
tortuosity are small. This conclusion is based on a physical hypothesis, on correlations of the surface parameters with the
mentioned parts or coefficients, and on the relation between contact area ratio and fracture width reduction. The best acid
fracture conductivity correlation developed has its first part based on a surface characterization parameter and the second one
based on the rock embedment strength. This correlation showed superior accuracy compared with the Nierode and Kruk
correlation and represents the maximum possible improvement through the use of surface parameters for the studied
limestone. There is still significant room for improvement in the rate of conductivity change with closure stress. This requires
a new model of fracture width deformation under closure stress or at least the replacement of the rock embedment strength
for a more representative rock strength parameter.

Introduction
The success of acid-fracturing stimulation relies on fracture conductivity and effective fracture length, which depend on acid
transport along the fracture, acid leakoff, and acid reaction at the fracture faces. This study focuses on fracture conductivity.
The first and still mostly used acid fracture conductivity correlation is the Nierode and Kruk (1973) one. The best fit of their
experimental results was obtained with an exponential equation of two parts. The first part, C1, is the initial conductivity, i.e.,
the conductivity under zero-closure stress. The second part, C2, is the rate of conductivity change with closure stress. C1 has
been related to fracture width and C2 to rock embedment strength. Nierode and Kruk correlation does not take into account
surface characteristics. A clear drawback of their correlation is its prediction of continuous increase of conductivity with acid
volume and/or contact time. Broaddus et al. (1968) had showed that there must be an optimal acid quantity and/or contact
2 OTC 22337

time, which would generate the maximum conductivity on most formations and still sustain sufficient support strength.
Several studies tried to develop better correlations by including the surface characteristics of the acid-etched fractures (Ruffet
et al. 1997; Gong et al. 1998; Pounik 2008). In fact Ruffet et al. (1997) generated a routine to either assist an acid treatment
design or to improve an unsuccessful job and not an acid fracture conductivity correlation. Gong et al. (1998) produced the
first acid fracture conductivity correlation taking into account surface topography. However, their correlation did not achieve
field application because it depended on parameters difficult to be measured and there was no relation between operational
conditions and these parameters. Pounik (2008) correlation represented a significant improvement on surface characteristics
accounting, but its predictions showed significant discrepancy for the Quissamã-ESP limestone. Rodrigues (2011) developed
correlations for a specific limestone, the Quissamã-ESP, by using samples from well whole cores, and by performing a
comprehensive areal surface characterization of the acid fractures. This paper presents the Rodrigues study finding that the
use of surface parameters, measured at zero closure stress, can improve only the first part, C1, of the exponential correlation.
It also shows the best conductivity correlation developed for the Quissamã-ESP, which corroborates the mentioned finding.

Experimental Study Procedures

Five meters of whole cores from the Quissamã-ESP limestone, Campos Basin, offshore Brazil, drilled from 3,515.5 m to
3,545.5 m depth, were cut and polished to the shape of the modified API cell used for the acid fracture simulation and
conductivity tests (Fig. 1). The cores provided 20 samples of 177.8 mm (7 in.) length, 44.4 mm (1.75 in.) height, and 76.2
mm (3 in.) thickness. The following tests were carried out:
• Profilometer scan before and after acid-etching;
• Rock embedment strength measurement before and after acid-etching;
• Acid-etching along the mimic fracture;
• Conductivity tests.

3 in.

7 in.

2 in.

Fig. 1- Photos of the tops of core boxes from Quissamã-ESP (left), samples before (above) and after (below) acid etching (center),
and a 3D view of a sample (right).
OTC 22337 3

The 20 samples were grouped into two ranges of permeability: 6 in G-1 (1md), and 14 in G-2 (143 to 368 md). Four acid
systems were used for acid etching: straight 15% HCl, gelled 15% HCl, viscoelastic 15% HCl, and emulsified HCl. The
initial results analysis revealed that 3 of the 10 conductivity tests presented fatal failures compromising the results from the
G-1 group. Thus a set of four additional experiments was conducted on G-1 samples. These tests were carried out on 50 mm
length x 25 mm diameter piece of cores, cut longitudinally into two samples, with similar procedures of the previous tests.
The surface evaluation consisted of just visual inspection. Since these tests were reliable the final analysis was based on 11
conductivity tests, four in G-1 and seven in G-2. Three acid-etching were carried out with straight HCl, three with gelled
acid, three with viscoelastic acid, and only two with emulsified acid. The scaling of experiments to field conditions was
ensured by matching Reynolds´s and Peclet´s dimensionless groups.
This paper does not address the experimental apparatus and lab procedures as they were presented in detail elsewhere
(Zou 2006; Malagon 2007; Melendez 2007). However, it presents brief information of the laser profilometer used to assess
surface topography (Fig. 2). This has vertical accuracy of 13 µm (0.0005 in.) in a measurement range of 25.4 mm (1.0 in.),
and lateral resolution of 2,0 μm (0,00008 pol). All the experiments used a 0.05 in. measurement interval in both directions.
The rock embedment strength and the fracture conductivity measurements are presented in Rodrigues (2011).

Fig. 2- Profilometer scanning before (left) and after (right) acid etching (Malagon 2007).

Acid Fracture Areal Surface Characterization Parameters

The change of profile to areal characterization has been considered a paradigm shift in surface metrology. The areal approach
tries to describe the fundamental and functional topographic aspects of the surface, including evaluation of texture shape and
direction and differentiation between connected and isolated features (Jiang et al. 2007).
This study adopted a suit of parameters mostly from the ones proposed in the ISO/TS CD 25178-2 (2006) standard. The
selection criteria and the parameters classification are presented in Rodrigues et al. (2011). The following parameters were
selected: rms height (Sq); height skewness (Ssk); height kurtosis (Sku); maximum peak height (Sp); maximum valley height
(Sv); maximum height of texture surface (Sz); arithmetical mean height (Sa); fastest decay auto-correlation length (Sal);
texture aspect ratio (Str); texture direction of the texture surface (Std); rms slope of the assessed texture surface (Sdq);
developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr); material volume of peaks (Vmp); material volume of the core (Vmc); void volume of
the core (Vvc); void volume of the valleys (Vvv); surface bearing index (Sbi); core fluid retention index (Sci); valley fluid
retention index (Svi); density of summits (Sds); ten-point height of surface (S10z); five-point peak height (S5p), and five-
point pit height (S5v).
4 OTC 22337

The parameters were calculated on the roughness area after filtering out form and waviness. The filter used is the one
recommended in the ISO-13565-1 (1998) standard, proper for surfaces with deep valleys, such as the acid wormholes. It was
implemented with a moving average algorithm. To calculate the parameters Rodrigues (2011) implemented the equations
presented by Dong et al. (1993), Thomas (1999), Mainsah et al. (2001), Whitehouse (2002), and Blunt and Jiang (2003) in
MATLAB codes. The parameters Sal and Str were obtained with a specific code that first calculated the normalized
autocorrelation function, then the contour line related to the 0.2 decay, and finally calculated its minimum and maximum
intercept segments. The minimum segment corresponds to Sal and the minimum to maximum segment ratio corresponds to
Str (Tsukada and Sasajima 1983, apud Thomas 1999).

Experimental Study Results

The full results of the experimental study can be found in Rodrigues (2011). This item presents only the data directly related
to the main topic of this paper. First, the fit of the measured conductivities to classical fracture conductivity models (Nierode
and Kruk 1973; Gangi 1978; Walsh 1981) revealed best fit with the exponential model of Nierode and Kruk. Then a
refinement process was applied on the exponential model (Eq. 1) generating a list of C1 and C2 values for each test (Table 1),
which were the basis for conductivity correlations development (Rodrigues 2011).

C f = C1 × exp(C 2 × σ c ) …………………………………………………………………………………………… (1)

in which Cf is the fracture conductivity, C1 is the initial conductivity, C2 is the rate of conductivity change with closure stress
and σc is the closure stress.

Table 1 – Exponential model coefficients, C1 and C2 for each conductivity test

C1 C1 C2 C2
Sample pair 2
(md-pé) (μm .mm) (1/psi) (1/KPa)
LC1G 2300 692.0 -0.000517 -0.000075
13&14 2357 709.0 -0.000517 -0.000075
LC1V 2400 722.0 -0.000531 -0.000077
15&16 2571 773.5 -0.000793 -0.000115
LC1E 2580 776.1 -0.000524 -0.000076
3&4 2676 805.0 -0.000758 -0.000100
7&8 2699 811.9 -0.000552 -0.000080
11&12 2726 820.0 -0.000552 -0.000080
LC1S 3270 983.7 -0.000655 -0.000095
9&10 3424 1030.0 -0.000483 -0.000070
5&6 3466 1042.7 -0.000621 -0.000090

Second, the studied acid-etched fracture surfaces showed roughness much larger than usual engineering surfaces, negative
skewness, high kurtosis, and an intermediate isotropy - mostly random but with some spatial orientation (Rodrigues et al.
2011). The correlation between the surface characterization parameters and C1 and C2 was verified through the coefficient of
linear correlation or Pearson coefficient, r. The range of r is -1.00 to 1.00. A value of zero indicates no linear relationship
between two variables, whereas the closer the value is to 1 or -1, the greater the relationship, positive or negative,
respectively, between the variables. This is valid only for descriptive purposes because the distributions obtained are not
Gaussian (Salkind, 2007). Table 2 shows the results attained by Rodrigues (2011).
OTC 22337 5

Table 2 – Linear correlation between C1 and C2 with surface characterization parameters

Linear correlation with C1 Linear correlation with C2
Parameter r Parameter r Parameter r Parameter r Parameter r
2
Vmc (µm) 0.98 wtopm (mm) 0.86 Sds (1/mm ) -0.70 Sp (µm) -0.28 S5p(µm) 0.11
Sdr (%) 0.95 Sz (µm) 0.86 rc (adim.) 0.66 Sal (mm) 0.19 Vmp (µm) -0.11
Sa (µm) 0.94 Vmp (µm) 0.86 Sbi (adim.) -0.37 Vvv (µm) 0.19 Svi 0.10
Sdq (grau) 0.93 S10z(µm) 0.85 Sci (adim.) -0.35 S10z(µm) -0.18 Str -0.07
Vvc (µm) 0.92 S5p(µm) 0.84 Ssk -0.30 Sci -0.16 Rmax(mm) 0.06
2
Sq (µm) 0.91 Sp (µm) 0.84 Sku 0.32 Ssk -0.16 Sds (1/mm ) -0.06
Vvv (µm) 0.88 S5v(µm) -0.84 Str (adim.) 0.20 Sz (µm) -0.16 Sbi -0.04
Sv (µm) -0.85 Svi (adim.) 0.16 S5v(µm) 0.15 Sa (µm) 0.02
Vvc (µm) 0.14 Sdq (grau) -0.02
Sdr (%) -0.13 Sv (µm) 0.01
Sq (µm) -0.13 Sku -0.01
Vmc (µm) -0.13

Conductivity Correlation Based on Surface Characterization Parameter and Rock Embedment Strength
Rodrigues (2011) developed four types of conductivity correlations for the Quissamã-ESP limestone. The best correlation
achieved is comprised by the best C1 and C2 correlations attained. These were obtained by 1st dgree polynomial fit:

C1 = 0.87 × Vmc + 620.40 ……………………………………………………………………………………..…… (2)

for C1 in µm2.mm and Vmc in µm.
C1 = 2.897 × Vmc + 2062 .0 ………………………………………………………………………………………… (3)
for C1 in md-ft and Vmc in µm.
Vmc is the surface parameter material volume of the core of the material ratio curve.

C 2 = −0.000036 × ln(S RE ) + 0.00035 …………………………………………………………………………….. (4)

for C2 in 1/kPa, and SRE in kPa.
C 2 = −0.00025 × ln(S RE ) + 0.0019 …………………………………………………………………………..…… (5)
for C2 in 1/psi, and SRE in psi.
SRE is the rock embedment strength.

While this C1 correlation presented a high quality fit (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.96), the C2 correlation showed a
poor fit (R2 = 0.29). This C1 correlation is better than previous correlations (Nierode and Kruk 1973) based on fracture width.
On the other hand it was not possible to find a C2 correlation based on surface parameters better than the one based on SRE,
which is a poor one.
Summarizing, the best correlation achieved is given, in SI units, by:

C fM = (0.87 × Vmc + 620.40) × exp{[− 0.000036 × ln(S RE ) + 0.00035] × σ c } ………………..…………. (6)

6 OTC 22337

In which CfM is the conductivity in µm2.mm, Vmc is the material volume of the core of the material ratio curve in µm, SRE is
the rock embedment strength in 1/KPa, and σc is the closure stress in KPa.

Comparing with the measured conductivities, this correlation presented mean deviation of 16.7%, standard deviation (SD) of
17.7%, maximum deviation of 145%, and maximum deviation in the range of closure stress of normal production of 49.5%.
The application of the Nierode and Kruk (1973) correlation to the Quissamã-ESP limestone showed mean deviation of
112.4%, SD of 92.4%, maximum deviation of 456.1%, maximum deviation in the range of closure stress of normal
production of 127.0% (Rodrigues 2011). Thus, the developed correlation represents a significant improvement in
conductivity prediction for the Quissamã-ESP.

Limit of Conductivity Correlation Improvement Through Acid Fracture Surface Characterization

The great linear correlation of surface parameters with C1 and the low correlation of these parameters with C2 (Table 2) are
empirical evidences that the acid fracture surface characterization parameters influence strongly the initial conductivity and
are not directly related to the rate of conductivity change with closure stress. To reinforce this, high quality fit of the list of C1
values versus surface parameters values was obtained with a 1st degree polynomial (Eqs. 2 and 3). In contrast the match of the
list of C2 values versus surface parameters values with several mathematical functions, including polynomials, showed very
poor quality (Rodrigues 2011). An additional verification is given by the best acid fracture conductivity correlation obtained
for the Quissamã-ESP (Eq. 6) in which C1 is based on a surface parameter (Eq. 2) and C2 on the rock embedment strength
(Eq. 4). Thus, one can conclude that the limit of improvement of acid fracture conductivity correlations of the exponential
model through the use of surface characterization parameters has been achieved for the Quissamã-ESP. The improvement
limit is in the C2 correlation that does not depend on the surface parameters. As there are still significant discrepancy between
the predicted and the measured conductivities further improvement is desirable. To improve the exponential model the first
idea is to replace SRE with a more representative rock strength parameter in the C2 correlation, once the measurements of SRE
have showed great variance in acid fracture surfaces (Pournik 2008; Rodrigues 2011). If this approach does not succeed a
new fracture width deformation model will be necessary. This improvement is out of the scope of this paper. Anyway, trying
to shed some light on the acid fracture width deformation phenomenon let us examine the relative influences of the initial
fracture width reduction and the surfaces asperities interferences.
A physical approach of fracture width behavior under closure stress can start by investigating the specificities of the acid
fractures widths (apertures) distribution. Even though the conductivity of a fracture is mainly determined by the mean width
of the fracture, the variation in the width reflected, for instance, by the standard deviation (SD), also plays an important role.
As the SD of the fracture width increases, the effective void for fluid flow is reduced. Fig. 3 shows the effective space for
fluid flow for three fracture width distributions with the same mean width ( ) but different SD (Matsuki et al. 2006). Acid-
etched fractures differ from natural and hydraulic fractures by having larger fracture widths and smaller SD of the fracture
widths (Mou 2009; Rodrigues 2011). Thus acid fractures correspond to the left part of Fig. 3.
The fracture width distribution at a certain closure stress is related to the fracture faces asperities, in particular to those
touching each other working as pillars that sustain the fracture aperture and as obstacles to the fluid flow. The effect of
contact areas is usually associated with the parameter contact ratio, which is defined as the ratio between the sums of the
areas of the asperities that contact each other and the nominal area of the fracture surface (Mainsah et al. 2001).
OTC 22337 7

SDw1 < SDw2 < SDw3

Figure 3 – Schematic of effective space for fluid flow for three fracture width distributions with the same mean width and
three different standard deviation of the fracture width (Matsuki et al. 2006)

To establish a relation between fracture width reduction and contact ratio the first step was to develop a method to calculate
the initial fracture width from the fracture surfaces topography. The method used (Fig. 4) initially defines the relative
distance between the two juxtaposed fracture faces (RD0 = Max (Z1+Z2)). Then it calculates the difference between the sum
of local heights (Z1k + Z2k) and RD0, obtaining the local width (w0k). Finally, it figures out the average width (w0) across the
entire fracture surface. w0 is the initial width related to the initial conductivity (Cf0) and zero closure stress (σc = 0). The
arithmetic mean of w0 calculated on the back portion of each pair of samples was called wtopm. As σc increases the fracture
width and the relative distance decreases (RD = RD0 – fracture width reduction).

Z1i Z1k

w RD0 = Max (Z1+Z2)

Z2i Z2k

Figure 4 – Schematic draw of topographic width calculation

The contact ratio (α) is usually calcutated by the method described by Greenwood and Williamson (1966). This method
states that the contact between two rough surfaces can be considered as an effective surface in contact with a flat surface. The
two surfaces come together until their reference planes are separated by a fixed distance, usually 95% of the maximum
asperity height of the sample. The surfaces will be in contact at any location where the asperity height is originally greater
than 95% of maximum asperity height. The 95% of maximum asperity height is a typical value chosen for contact ratio
estimation of rough surfaces (Malagon 2007; Pournik 2008). The Greenwood and Williamson model seems to be adequate
for usual tribology problems, where one of two surfaces in contact is usually very smooth and can be considered a flat
surface. As in acid-etched fractures both surfaces are rough, Rodrigues (2011) preferred to calculate α as a function of w
reduction. The method developed, implemented in a MATLAB code, consists of localizing the points where the sums of
8 OTC 22337

heights are larger than RD. For each percent of the initial fracture width reduction, α is calculated as the ratio of the number
of asperities in contact to the total number of height measurements in the area of analysis. This method assumes the
simplification that each contact point obstructs the full area related to that point.
The methods of calculation of wtopm and α were applied to seven pair of samples with valid conductivity tests and surface
characterization. While wtopm varied from 0.41 mm to 1.74 mm, with SD of 0.45 mm, the SD of width in each pair of samples
varied from 0.12 mm to 1.12 mm. The contact ratio as function of the wtopm reduction (wtred) varied from 0.1% to 52.8% for
the pair of samples 13&14, wich showed the minimum initial conductivity, and from 0.1% to 66.6% for the maximum
conductivite pair of samples, 5&6. The results for all pairs of samples are illustrated in Fig. 5.

Figure 5 – Contact ratio versus mean initial fracture width reduction.

The relation between α and wtred is an exponencial one, in which α increases slower than a linear relation with wtred. As
an illustration the fitness of the mean values of α to the exponential function (mean curve in Fig. 5) generated the Eq. 7, with
R2 value of 0.97, i.e, a high quality fit.

( )
α = 3 .1 × exp 0 .03 × w tred ……………………………………………………………………….…………………….. (7)

Thus, while the initial fracture width is reduced under closure stress according with an unknown function, the contact ratio
varies exponentially with the initial fracture width reduction. As the C2 correlation with SRE (Eq. 4) showed a poor fit (R2 =
0.29) and the correlations with the surface parameters were still poorer, it is necessary to develop a new model of fracture
width deformation to obtain the unknown function. Then a proper evaluation of the contact ratio influence on C2 can be
OTC 22337 9

carried out. Anyway an inspection of the data that generated Fig. 5 can shed some light on the relevance of fracture width
reduction and contact ratio. An initial fracture width reduction of 50%, which affects strongly the conductivity, as this is
proportional to the fracture width to a power between 2 and 3, corresponds to a contact ratio range of 4.1% to 28.8% with
14.2% mean and 8.9% SD. Thus it seems that fracture width reduction is the main determinant of C2, while the effects of
asperities contacts are secondary. The search of an explanation for this raised the hypothesis that as the initial fracture width
reduces under closure stress, the connected valleys that initially behaved as as conduits for the flow of fluids from the rock
matrix to the fracture, become also path for fluid flow along the fracture, in a kind of compensation for the increased
resistance to the flow. This mechanism decreases the relevance of tortuosity.
Summarizing this item it was proved that the use of surface characterization parameters in the exponential model enabled the
optimization of the initial conductivity prediction. On the other hand they did not improve the prediction of the rate of
conductivity change with closure stress fractures. The initial fracture width reduction seems to be the determinant of the rate
of conductivity change with closure stress, while the tortuosity effects caused by the asperities in contact seems to be
secondary. The development of a fracture width deformation model is required to confirm the relevance of the parameters
involved and to generate improved acid fracture conductivity correlations for rough surfaces acid fractures.

Conclusions

1. There is a great linear correlation between acid-etched fracture surface characterization parameters and the initial
fracture conductivity. On the other hand, the linear correlation between those parameters and the rate of conductivity
change with closure stress is very low.
2. The fracture width reduction seems to be the dominant factor on the rate of conductivity change with closure stress,
while the tortuosity effects related to the contact ratio are less significant.
3. The previous conclusions show that the characteristics of the acid-etched surfaces influence the initial conductivity, but
not the rate of conductivity change with closure stress.
4. The conductivity correlation based on a surface parameter and on the rock embedment strength (Equation 6) represents
the limit of improvement of exponential conductivity correlations through the use of surface parameters for the
Quissamã-ESP limestone.
5. The correlation of the rate of conductivity change with closure stress based on the rock embedment strength is a poor one
and demands improvement.
The conclusions 1 to 3 must be checked for acid fractures with conductivities much higher than those found in this study.
The authors of this paper also suggest carrying on an experimental study similar to the one summarized in this paper but with
the following improvements: i) the conductivity essays should include cycles of closure stress; ii) the surface parameters
should be measured before and after the cycles of closure stress and, ideally, also under stress. Based on the results a fracture
deformation model including plastic, elastic and viscous effects should be developed.

Nomenclature
Cf = fracture conductivity, μm2.mm [md-ft], [L3]
Cf0 = initial fracture conductivity, μm2.mm [md-ft], [L3]
C1 = fracture conductivity at zero closure stress, μm2.mm [md-ft], [L3]
C2 = the rate of conductivity change with closure stress, 1/KPa [1/psi]
CfM = conductivity from the correlation based on Vmc and SRE, μm2.mm [md-ft], [L3]
MATLAB = MATrix LABoratory software
r = coefficient of linear correlation or Pearson coefficient, dimensionless
10 OTC 22337

R2 = the relative distance between the two juxtaposed fracture faces, mm [L]
Sa = arithmetical mean height, mm [in.], [L]
Sal = fastest decay autocorrelation length, mm [in.], [L]
Sdq = slope of the assessed texture surface, degree
Sdr = developed interfacial area ratio, dimensionless
Sds = density of summits, [1/mm2], [1/L2]
SD = standard deviation, various
Sku = height kurtosis, dimensionless
Sp = maximum peak height, mm [in.], [L]
Sq = root mean square height, mm [in.], [L]
SRE = rock embedment strength, KPa [psi]
Ssk = height skewness, dimensionless
Str = texture aspect ratio, dimensionless
Sv = maximum valley height, mm [in.], [L]
Sz = maximum height of texture surface, mm [in.], [L]
S5p = five point peak height, mm [in.], [L]
S5v = five point pit height, mm [in.], [L]
S10z = ten point height, mm [in.], [L]
Vmc = material ratio of the core of the material ratio curve, μm, [L]
Vmp = material volume of peaks, µm, [L]
Vvc = void volume of the core, µm, [L]
Vvv = void volume of the valleys, µm, [L]
w = fracture width, mm [in.], [L]
= arithmetic mean of the fracture width, mm [in.], [L]
w0 = initial fracture width, mm [in.], [L]
wtopm = arithmetic mean of w0 calculated on the back portion of each pair of samples, mm [in.], [L]
wtred = fracture width that corresponds to the wtopm reduction under closure stress, mm [in.], [L]
α = contact ratio, dimensionless
σc = closure stress, KPa [psi], [m/LT2]
Z1, Z2 = surface topography heights, mm, [L]

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Bio-combustible, ANP, for
allowing the use of cores and laboratory results of Quissamã limestone. Special thanks go to the professors Dr Marcos
Antônio Rosolem, Wellington Campos, and Rodolfo Araujo Victor for their invaluable suggestions.

References
Blunt, L. e Jiang, X.:”Advanced techniques for assessment surface topography – development of a basis for 3D surface texture standards
“SURFSTAND”, 2003, Kogan Page Science, Elsevier Ltd
Broaddus, G.C., Knox, J.A., and Fredrickson, S.E. 1968. Dynamic Etching Tests and Their Use in Planning Acid Treatments. Paper SPE
2362 presented at the 1968 Oklahoma Regional Meeting of SPE of AIMES, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 25 October.
Gangi, A.F. 1978. Variation of Whole and Fractured Porous Rock Permeability with Confining Pressure. Int.J.Rock Mech. Sci. &
Geomech Abstr. Vol. 15, pp.249-257, Pergamon Press 1978
Gong, M., Lacote, S., and Hill, A.D. 1999. A New Model of Acid Fracture Conductivity Based on Deformation of Surface Asperities.
Paper SPE 39431 presented at the International Symposium on Formation Damage Controle, Lafayette, Lousiana, USA, 18-19
February.
ISO-13565-1 1998 Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) - Surface texture: Profile method; Surfaces having stratified functional
properties - Part 1: Filtering and general measurement conditions
ISO/TS CD 25178-2: 2006 Geometrical product specification (GPS)—surface texture: areal—part 2: terms, definitions and surface texture
parameters.
Mainsah, E., Greenwood, J.A., and Chetwynd, D.G. 2001. Metrology and Properties of Enginnering Surfaces. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston. ISBN 0-412-80640-1
Malagon, C., Pournik, M., and Hill, A.D. 2007. The Texture of Acidized Fracture Surfaces – Implications for Acid Fracture Conductivity.
Paper SPE 102167 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24-27 September.
Mou, J. 2009. Modeling of Acid Transport and Non-Uniform Etching in a Stochastic Domain in Acid Fracturing. PhD dissertation, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Nierode, D.E. and Kruk, K.F. 1973. An Evaluation of Acid Fluid Loss Additives, Retarded Acids, and Acidized Fracture Conductivity.
Paper SPE 4549-MS presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 30 September-3 October.
Pournik, M. 2008. Laboratory-Scale Fracture Conductivity Created by Acid Etching. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, USA.
Pursell, D.A., S.A. Holditch; Blakeley, D. 1988. Laboratory Investigation of Inertial Flow in High-Strength Fracture Proppants. Paper
SPE 18319 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 2-5 October.
OTC 22337 11

Rodrigues, V.F. 2011. Acid-Fracture Hydraulic Conductivity Correlations Based on Tridimensional Surface Characterization. PhD
dissertation. LENEP/UENF, Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (in Portuguese).
Rodrigues, V.F., Campos,W., Medeiros, A.C.R., Victor, R.A. 2011. Areal Surface Characterization of Acid Fractures in Carbonate Rocks.
Paper presented at the 12th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 15-18,
2011
Ruffet, C.S., Féry, J.J., and Onaisi, A. 1997. Acid-Fracturing Treatment: A Surface-Topography Analysis of Acid-Etched Fractures To
Determine Residual Conductivity. Paper SPE 38175 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 2-3
June.
Salkind, N.J. 2007. Encyclopedia of Measurements and Statistics, Vol. 1, Editor Neil J. Salkind, SAGE. ISBN 1-4129-1611-9
Walsh, J. B. 1981. Effect of Pore Pressure and Confining Pressure on Fracture Permeability. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Vol. 18. pp. 429 – 435, 1981.
Zimmerman, R.W., and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1994. Hydraulic Conductiviy of Rock Fractures, Earth Sciences Division Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory University of California Berkeley, CA 94720, October.
Zou, C. 2006. Development and Testing of and Advanced Acid Fracture Conductivity Apparatus. MsC dissertation, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, USA.