Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Vol. 2, No.
4, December 2014
Research on Fracture Height Containment in Poor
and Thin Pay Zones
Xiang Zhou, Shicheng Zhang, and Xinfang Ma
College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing, China
Email: xiang_zhou2008@sina.com, {zhangsc, maxinfang}@cup.edu.cn
Kaiyu Liu
Great wall Drilling Company Downhole Service Company, Beijing, China
Email: liukaiyu666@163.com
Abstract—So far, some of the domestic oil-fields have
entered the high water cut stage after a long term
production, and the objects of the exploration are shifting
from thick and high quality pay zones to the thin and poor
pay zones. For the development of thin and poor reservoir,
hydraulic fracturing is an extremely effective measure to
enhance production, but the fracture height always gets out
of control when stimulating these kind of pay zones.
Considering the problem, the paper firstly summarized the
factors affecting fracture height based on literature
researches; then an orthogonal design including seven
factors of five level was made according to the reservoir
parameters and construction parameters of M Oil-field, and
the fracture propagation under each situation was simulated
with FracproPT. On the grounds of simulation results,
further sensitivity analysis and single factor analysis were
conducted. The results turn out that factors impacting
fracture height are sequentially: in-situ stress contrast
between barrier layer and target layer, total amount of
fracture fluid, pumping rate, fracture fluid viscosity, Young
modulus contrast, reservoir permeability and fracture
toughness contrast. Finally, the paper gives strategies to
confine the fracture vertical growth in the light of
simulation results, and a field case was used to certify the
feasibility of the strategy. The research can help to optimize
the hydraulic fracturing design and guide the on-site
treatment.
Index Terms—thin and poor pay zones, hydraulic fracturing,
fracture height containment, factors affecting fracture
height, orthogonal design
I. INTRODUCTION
With the production of oilfield, many domestic
oilfields have entered the late stage of development, the
major reservoirs have been mostly utilized. For the
purpose of maintaining the production or being
constrained by the existing resources, the objects of
exploration are turning to the thin and poor layers.
However, these kind of reservoirs are characterized by
low reserves abundance, complex lithofacies, poor petro-
physical property, numerous thin layer in the vertical
direction, small stress difference between the
Manuscript received January 20, 2014; revised April 17, 2014.
©2014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
doi: 10.12720/jiii.2.4.324-328
compartments and pay zones, and sometimes close to the
water layer. For the development of such low
permeability reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing is an
important means of increasing production. A lot of
research and field data show that the fracture height
always over extended in the vertical direction when
fracturing the thin interbed reservoirs. In common
situation, the extra fracture height means low fracturing
fluid efficiency and unreasonable proppant distribution,
which may lead to shorter fracture length and low
productivity. When the reservoir is near the water layer ,
fracture height over-expansion will communicate with the
water layer, causing water channeling and a sharp rise in
water production, finally resulting in a failure treatment
(Zhou Wengao, etc, 2006 [1]). So, for the development of
low permeability and thin layer reservoir, in-depth
analysis of the factors impacting fracture height and
customized strategies to control fracture height are the
key to the success of hydraulic fracturing.
II. FACTORS AFFECTING FRACTURE HEIGHT
Since 1980s, factors which are considered to be
influential to the fracture height containment are well
documented. Michael P. Cleary (1980) [2] believed that
certain stress contrast can reduce the vertical growth of
fracture, fractures propagate faster in tough rocks than
that in soft rocks, and both the viscosity of fracturing
fluid and proppant distribution have effect on fracture
geometry. H. X. Nguyen etc. (1983) [3] made some
conclusions in his paper: a) In-situ minimum horizontal
stress contrast between the pay zone and the barrier is the
dominate factor in arresting or at least restricting vertical
growth of fractures; b) Treatment parameters which may
influence fracture geometry are fluid viscosity and
density, proppant concentration, pump rate and placement
of perforation; c) Contrast in material properties (elastic
modulus, porosity, density, etc.) and pore pressure
generally has only secondary effects on containment;
d)Inherent properties of the interface also contribute to
fracture containment. Kamek Ben Naceur (1990) [4] and
Smith (2001) [5] classified the factors into two parts, first
part is the controllable factors which include the
324
 Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2014

fracturing fluid properties and treatment parameters, and difference is bigger, it means that fracture height is more
the other part is uncontrollable ones consist of reservoir sensitive to the relative factor. As we can see from Fig. 1,
properties. In addition, domestic researchers have also factors impacting fracture height are sequentially: in-situ
done a lot of job. Gou Guiming (2004), Hu Yangming stress contrast between barrier layer and target layer, total
(2009), Lai Haitao (2011) etc. [6]-[8] hold that those amount of fracture fluid, pumping rate, fracture fluid
factors impacting fracture height are composed by viscosity, Young modulus contrast, reservoir permeability
reservoir parameters, fracturing fluid properties and and fracture toughness contrast.
treatment parameters, they further simulated how these
factors influenced the fracture vertical growth with
software. Other researchers analyzed the factors which
affected the fracture height based on the fracture
propagation model built by themselves. [9] [10] In their
investigation, factors were almost the same as those
summarized by former experts.

III. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS

AFFECTING FRACTURE HEIGHT

A. Orthogonal Analysis
In accordance with the research results on fracture
vertical growth home and abroad, factors can be
categorized into three types: reservoir parameters,
treatment parameters and fracturing fluid properties. In
order to investigate how these factors influence the
fracture height with software, reservoir parameters were
divided into four parts, which were respectively in-situ
minimal stress contrast between the compartments and
pay zones, reservoir permeability, Young modulus and
rock thoughness. Treatment parameters were made up by
total fracturing fluid and pumping rate. Fracturing fluid
property was reflected by fluid viscosity.
In the analysis, software FracproPT was used to
simulate the fracture propagation with different
parameters. The main input parameters of the model,
including the necessary reservoir parameters and
treatment parameters, were on the basis of Ed2 segment
of well S31 in M Oilfield (Table I). Then, on the grounds
of orthogonal design, the influence of each factor on
fracture height was studied. In order to make the
sensitivity analysis results be more objective, each factor
was given five different values, so the orthogonal design
was made up by seven factors with five values (Table II).
If conducting full-scaled experiments to these seven
factors with five levels each, a total of 5 (78125) 7
experiments needs to be carried out, which was too large
and difficult to achieve. Whereas, by means of orthogonal
design, only part of the representative level combination
were selected and tested, meanwhile, by analyzing a
small part of the whole tests, the comprehensive situation
can be well understood. The results based on orthogonal
design are representative and comprehensive. There were
50 projects in total by orthogonal design.
After running 50 projects and intuitive analysis of
fracture height results, we can draw a histogram based on
orthogonal design (Fig. 1).
As Fig. 1 showed, five columns of different colors
represented five levels of each factor. The height of the
column meant an average fracture height which related to
the certain level of a factor. The average fracture height
would change with the factor value, and if the height
Figure 1. Intuitive analysis of fracture height results based on
orthogonal analysis
Another general conclusion can also be drawn from
Fig. 1, that is fracture height is positively correlated with
total fracturing fluid, pumping rate and the viscosity of
the fracturing fluid, negatively correlated with stress
contrast between barrier layer and pay zone and reservoir
permeability, and the rock toughness differences doesn’t
have obvious connecting with fracture height. The
analysis results prove that fracture height can be
controlled by means of adjusting the treatment parameters
and optimizing fracturing fluid.
B. Single FactorAnalysis
It is known from the orthogonal analysis that stress
contrast, total fracturing fluid, pumping rate and the
viscosity of fracturing fluid have great effect on fracture
height, meanwhile these parameters can be altered by
operators (Stress contrast can be modified equivalently by
creating artificial barriers), so it is significant to do single
factor analysis on these four parameters. In single factor
analysis, the input parameters are almost the same as
those in orthogonal analysis, what makes the difference is
that only one parameter is changed in a group of projects
while other parameters keep the same.
Figure 2. Relationship between stress contrast and fracturing height
1) In-situ stress contrast between barrier layer and
pay zone
In-situ stress contrast is the main factors impacting the
fracture height. Teufel and Clark(1981) [11] thought that

©2014 Engineering and Technology Publishing 325

 Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2014
stress contrast of 700psi between some limestone and
sandstone could control the fracture vertical growth
effectively. The simulation results in this paper manifest
that as the stress contrast increases, the fracture height
will be reduced extremely. Because the lower the stress
contrast, the smaller the confining stress which arrests the
opening of a fracture, then fracture is easier to grow
vertically. Besides, the stress contrast which can fully
control the fracture height depends on the reservoir
properties and treatment parameters. Fig. 2 shows the
relationship between stress contrast and fracture height.
2) Total fracturing fluid
As demonstrated in Fig. 3, the more fracturing fluid,
the larger fracture height. Because when the total
fracturing fluid increases, the fluid volume which
functioned to expand fracture volume increases, which
will result in longer fracture length and bigger fracture
height. And under the fixed pumping rate condition, the
lower the reservoir permeability, the greater influence the
total volume will have on fracture height. So it is very
important to optimize the total fracturing fluid.
Figure 3. Relationship between total fracturing fluid and fracturing
height
Figure 4. Relationship between pumping rate and fracturing height
3) Pumping rate
As shown in Fig. 4, fracture height increases when the
pumping rate becomes larger. Because the reservoir
permeability and the leak-off coefficient is an
unchangeable parameter, so higher pumping rate will lead
to higher fracture net pressure, and higher fracture net
pressure will cause larger fracture height. Both on-site
statistic data and the simulation results in the paper
certify that pumping rate have dramatic effect on fracture
height, so optimizing pumping rate is a feasible way to
contain fracture height.
4) Fracturing fluid viscosity
©2014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
As shown in Fig. 5, fracture height grows with the
increase of fracture fluid viscosity. Fracturing fluid
characteristics mainly consist of friction property,
rheological property and leak-off property, and the
viscosity can be used as a comprehensive indicator. For
commonly used fracturing fluid, the greater the viscosity,
the larger friction and the smaller leak-off coefficient;
and the less the leak-off fracturing fluid, the higher the
fracture net pressure, which finally leads to the fracture
vertical propagation.
Figure 5. Relationship between fracturing fluid viscosity and
fracturing height
IV. FRACTURE HEIGHT CONTAINMENT STRATEGIES
A. Atificial Barrier Technology
The fundamental principal of artificial barrier
technology is creating an artificial layer of low
permeability in the upper or lower part of fracture with
floating agents or settling agents, which will generate
certain flow resistance and cause pressure drop in the
vertical direction, finally, the pressure acting on fracture
vertical tips will decrease and the fracture vertical
propagation can be constrained. This kind of method is
equivalent to increase the stress contrast between layers.
There is numerous relevant research and application of
the method, such as in Tuha Oilfield, Xinjiang Oilfield,
Changqing Oilfield etc, the artificial barrier technology
are successfully applied.
B. Optimizing the Treatment Parameters
Both the orthogonal analysis and single factor analysis
certify that treatment parameters have great impact on
fracture height, especially for low permeability reservoirs,
fracture height is highly sensitive to the total fracturing
fluid and pumping rate. The fracture height turns bigger
as total fracturing fluid and pumping rate increases, so the
fracture height can be controlled by reducing the total
fracturing fluid and pumping rate. The most universally
used method on-site is fracturing with altered pumping
rate, which takes low pumping rate at the early pad stage,
then increases the pumping rate gradually. The strategy
can not only limit the fracture height, but also can
generate longer fracture length. In addition, reducing the
total fracturing fluid can restrict the fracture vertical
326
 Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2014

growth, but it can also lead to shorter fracture length,
which may be not met the production requirement. Thus,
the total fracturing fluid must be optimized combining the
field data and software simulation.
C. Optimizing the Treatment Parameters
Low viscosity fracturing fluid is good to arrest fracture
height. For those deeply buried reservoirs of high
temperature and low permeability, high viscosity is not
beneficial to fracture height control, but low viscosity is
not good to carry proppant. So when optimize the
fracturing fluid, both sides need to be taken into account.
Some engineers (Zhao Anjun, 2010) [12] point out
injecting the linear gel and jelly alternately at the pad
stage is an effective way to control fracture height.
Because on one hand, the jelly is of high viscosity which
can create fracture effectively yet may lead to fracture
height over extend; on the other hand, the linear gel is
helpful to limit the fracture height, but due to its low
viscosity, the leak-off coefficient is great, which cannot
create fracture effectively or even result in tip screen out.
However, injecting both fluid alternately can compensate
their shortage and make full use of their advantage.

TABLE I. RESERVOIR PARAMETERS AND TREATMENT PARAMETERS OF WELL S1

Perforation Thickness Porosity Permeability Oil saturation

Layer conclusion
Location, m m % 10-3μm2 %

140 3949.6-3953.0 3.4 17 6.16 40.78 oil

141 3954.0-3955.0 1.0 17.3 4.44 47.99 oil

142 3956.8-3958.6 1.8 15.37 1.74 51.65 oil

142 3959.2-3960.6 1.4 15.57 1.85 53.96 oil

Total fracturing volume ,m3 Pumping rate m3/min Proppant , m3

225 3.0~3.5 20

TABLE II. ORTHOGONAL DESIGN OF SEVEN FACTORS WITH FIVE LEVELS

Factors
V Q μ Δσ E Kc K
(m3) (m3/min) (mPa.s) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa.m1/2) (mD)
Levels
Level1 150 2 40 1 -5000 -2 0.5

Level 2 175 2.5 80 2 -2500 -1 1

Level 3 200 3 120 3 0 0 1.5

Level 4 225 3.5 160 4 2500 1 2.0

Level 5 250 4 200 5 5000 2 2.5

In Table II where V is total fluid volume, Q is pumping
rate, μ is fracture fluid viscosity, Δσ is in-situ stress
contrast, E is Young modulus contrast, Kc is rock
toughness contrast and K is permeability of pay zone.
V. FIELD CASE
Taking well S22 in M Oilfield as an example, the
permeability is 1.0mD~7.8mD. The target segment is 59-
64# layer and 70# layer. The first segment is
3670.4m~3702.4m in depth, effective reservoir thickness
is 17.6m, sandstone and shale layer interbed; 70#
segment is 3717m~3722.2m. the distance between the
two target segments is around 15m, and the purpose is
fracturing 59-64#segment, hoping that the layers between
the two segments can effectively prevent the fracture
from expanding to layer 70#. Rock mechanical analysis
shows that the stress contrast is about 2MPa. In order to
achieve the design target, the fracture height containment
measures are as follows: total fracturing fluid 240 m3,
100 mesh ceramsite function as settling agents, proppant
30m3; altered pumping rate( 2.5 m3/min~3 m3/min).
Simulation result is depicted in Fig. 6, total fracture
height is 58.9m, the distance between the lowest part of
the fracture and 70# is 2m, half fracture length is 94m.
The fracture height was tested by temperature logging,
according to the temperature contrast before and after
fracturing, the fracture height can be obtained which is
61.3m, result show no evidence of breaking the barrier
zones.

©2014 Engineering and Technology Publishing 327

 Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2014
Figure 6. Simulation result of fracture propagation of well S22
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Hydraulic fracturing is a significant measure to
enhance oil and gas production in low permeability thin
and poor reservoirs.
There are various factors affecting fracture height,
among which stress contrast has the most obvious
influence on fracture height, followed by total fracturing
fluid and pumping rate. Facture height is positively
correlated with total fracturing fluid, pumping rate and
the viscosity of the fracturing fluid, negatively correlated
with stress contrast between barrier layer and pay zone
and reservoir permeability, and the rock toughness
differences doesn’t have obvious connection with fracture
height.
In application, fracture height containment strategy
should be selected in accordance with the reservoir
parameters and the requirement of fracture height. The
most commonly used strategies include artificial barrier
technology, optimizing total fracturing fluid and pumping
rate , and optimize the fracture fluid of proper viscosity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper was support by the Major National Science
and Technology Projects of China (no. 2012ZX05018-
004) and the National Basic Research Program of China
(no. 2013CB228004).
REFERENCES
[1] W. G. Zhou and Y. Q. Hu, “Artificial fracture height containment
strategies and the research key points,” Nature Gas Exploration
and Development, pp. 68-70, March 2006.
[2] M. P. Cleary, “Analysis of mechanisms and procedures for
producing favorable shapes of hydraulic fractures,” presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
September 21-24, 1980.
[3] H. X. Nguyen, “Fracture height containment by creating an
artificial barrier with a new additive,” presented at the 58th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA,
October 5-8, 1983.
[4] K. B. Naceur, “Mechanisms controlling fracture-height growth in
layered media,” presented at the SPE/DOE Low-Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, May 18-19, 1987.
[5] Smith, “Layered modulus effects on fracture propagation,
proppant placement, and fracture modeling,” presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 30 Septenber-3 October 2001.
[6] G. M. Gou and R. Q. Hu, “Fracture height control and poor and
thin pay zone fracturing,” Oil and Gas Well Test, vol. 13, pp. 48-
51, 2004.
©2014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
[7] Y. M. Hu and Y. Q. Hu, “Analysis of factors affecting fracture
height and research on strategies to control fracture height,”
Chongqing Science College Reports, pp. 28-31, Nov. 2009.
[8] H. T. Lai, L. Y. Liang, et al. ““Analyzing simulation of fracture
height growth in Sulige gas field and research on strategies to
control fracture height,” Petrroleum &Chemical Engineering, vol.
30, pp. 47-49, March, 2011.
[9] Z. X. Chen and M. Chen, “Vertical growth of hydraulic fracture in
layered media,” Petroleum University Report, vol. 21, pp. 23-26,
Aug, 1997.
[10] T. C. Li, “Research on Shanggu fracturing theory and application
of Yulin gas field,” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Petroleum Engineering,
Southwest University of petroleum, Sichuan, China, 2009.
[11] L. W. Teufel and J. A. Clark, “Hydraulic fracture propagation in
layered rock: Experimental studies of fracture containment,”
presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas
Symposium held in Denver, May 27-29, 1981.
[12] A. J. Zhao and J. T. Hu, “Fracture height containment and
diagnose technology of Altara sag,” Drilling and Exploration
Technology, vol. 32, pp. 79-81, Sep. 2010.
Xiang Zhou was born in 1987, Phd. student
at the China University of Petroleum
(Beijing). In 2009, he graduated from China
University of Petroleum (Beijing), oil and gas
field development engineering, and got his
Master's degree. Now his research field is
about hydraulic fracturing technology on low
permeability reservoirs and unconventional
oil & gas resources and reservoir numerical
simulation
Shicheng Zhang, was born in 1963, is a
professor, Phd's tutor at the China University
of Petroleum, Beijing. In 1986, he graduated
from East-China Petroleum Institute,
petroleum production engineering，and got
his Bachelor's degree; In 1989, he graduated
from Beijing Petroleum Institute, petroleum
production engineering, and got his Master's
Degree; In 2003, he graduated from China
University of Petroleum, Beijing, oil and gas
field development engineering, and earned Doctor's Degree. Now his
research interest is theory and technology of oil and gas production
engineering, hydraulic fracturing technology on unconventional oil &
gas resources and reservoir numerical simulation
Xinfang Ma, was born in 1972, is an
associate professor, master's supervisor at the
China University of Petroleum, Beijing. In
1996, he graduated from Xi'an Petroleum
Institute, petroleum production engineering,
and got his Bachelor's degree; In 1999, he
graduated from Beijing Petroleum Institute,
petroleum production engineering, and got
his Master's Degree; In 2002, he graduated
from China University of Petroleum, Beijing,
oil and gas field development engineering,
and earned Doctor's Degree. Now his research interest is theory and
technology of oil and gas production engineering, hydraulic fracturing
technology on unconventional oil & gas resources and reservoir
numerical simulation.
Kaiyu Liu was born in 1984 in Shanxi
Province,China.He got a bachelor's degree in
2007 and a master's degree in 2011 in
Petroleum Engineering from China
University of Petroleum (Beijing),China.Now
he is a acidizing engineer in GWDC and
working in Iran.
328