Design of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation

PCB4323 - Well Stimulation Techniques
© 2016 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PETRONAS SDN BHD

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owner.
By
Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

(aliyu.adebayor@petronas.com)
(Mobile: 0143485422; Office Ext.: 7051)
(Room No.: 14.02.30)

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture, students should be able to:
 Define hydraulic fracturing, describe its stages and identify

requisite equipment
 Apply ‘in-situ stress analysis’ to determine formation breakdown

pressure
 Determine the productivity of fractured wells
 Describe the procedure for a hydraulic fracturing design
 Recommend post-frac evaluation tools

Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is an appropriate well-stimulation
technique for wells in low- and moderate- permeability
formations that do not provide commercial production
rates even when there is no damage or the damaged has
been removed by acidizing treatments.
Typical equipment required for hydraulic fracturing are:

 Truck-mounted pumps
 Blenders
 Fluid tanks
 Proppant tanks
SURFACE SYMPHONY
Figure 1: Typical hydraulic Fracturing Site. Source: Kansas Geological Survey Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Equipment Layout
Fracturing
fluid Proppant
Blender
Pumper
Inject to create pad/fracture
Pad/Fracture
Figure 2: Equipment layout in hydraulic fracturing treatments

Fracturing Stages
There are two stages:

 Pad Stage
• Only fracturing fluid is injected to fracture and
create a pad
 Slurry Stage
• Mixture of fracturing fluid/proppant is injected to
fill the fracture
Note:
The proppant should have enough compressive
strength to resist formation stress.
Fracturing Stages
Figure 3: Fracturing stages Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Fracturing Stages
Figure 4: Fracturing pressure profiles Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Fracturing Stages
Instantaneous shut-in Pressure, or ISIP, is defined as:

ISIP = Final injection pressure - Pressure drop due to friction in
the wellbore and perforations or slotted liner
Figure 5: Typical data from an in-situ stress test. Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Fracture Fluid Selection Process
The selection of the fracture fluid for the treatment

is a critical decision. Economides and Nolte (2000)
developed a flow chart (Figs 6) that can be used to
select the category of fracture fluid on the basis of
factors (Table 1) such as:
 Reservoir temperature
 Reservoir pressure
 The expected value of fracture half-length
 Water sensitivity
Fracturing Fluids
Table 1
Source:
Economides, M.J.
and Nolte, K.G. 2000.
Reservoir
Stimulation, third
edition. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Fracture Fluid Selection Process
Figure 6: Fracture fluid selection process

Source: Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, third edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross-linkers
 Cross-linkers = used to super-

thicken fracturing fluids (100’s -
1000’s of centipoise.
 Guar Gum = Gelling agents or

viscosifiers used to thicken fracturing
fluid (1’s-10’s of cp)
Figure 7: Crosslinked polymers

Propping Agent Selection
 Figure 8 presents a flow chart created by Economides and Nolte (2000)
for selecting propping agents.
 To use the chart, the maximum effective stress on the propping agent
must be determined.
 The effective stress is defined in Fig. 9. The maximum effective stress
depends on the minimum value of flowing bottom-hole pressure
expected during the life of the well.
 If the maximum effective stress is less than 6,000 psi, then Fig. 8
recommends that sand be used as the propping agent.
 If the maximum effective stress is between 6,000 and 12,000 psi, then
either Resin-Coated-Sand (RCS) or Intermediate-Strength-Proppant
(ISP) should be used, depending on the temperature.
 If the maximum effective stress is greater than 12,000 psi, High-
Strength-Bauxite (HSB) should be used as the propping agent.
Guide to Proppant Selection
Figure 8: Proppant selection based on closure pressure (Source: Economides.& Nolte, 2000)
Effective Stress on Proppants
Figure 9: Effective stress on the propping agent. (Source: Economides.& Nolte, 2000)

Tip Screen out
 A fracture treatment, common where high
fracture flow conductivity is needed.
 Very high pressures and very high proppant

loadings are applied near the end of a fracture
treatment where the tip of the fracture has
stopped growing due to bridging of proppant at
the fracture dip because of dehydration (frac
fluid leak-off).

Tip Screen out

Fracture Propagation Models
Modelling Procedures:
 The model should be run to determine what needs to be mixed and pumped
into the well to achieve the optimum values of propped fracture length and
fracture conductivity.
 The base data set should be used to make a base case run.
 The engineer then determines which variables are the most uncertain (The
values of in-situ stress, Young’s modulus, permeability, and fluid-loss
coefficient often are not known with certainty and must be estimated).
 Sensitivity runs are carried out with the fracture-propagation model to

determine the effect of these uncertainties on the design process (i.e. the
design engineer should fracture treat the well many times on his or her
computer).
 As databases are developed, the number and magnitude of the uncertainties

will diminish.
Fracture Propagation Models (Cont’d)
Available Fracture Models:

 2D Models:  3D Models:
 Perkins-Kern Nordgren (PKN)  GOHFER
 Khristianovich-Geertsma-  N-StimPlan
DeKlerk (KGD)
 Terra-Frac
 Penny-Frac
 Lumped Parameter Models:  Pseudo-3D Models:

 FracPro  MFRAC
 FracPro-PT  StimPlan, e-StimPlan
 FracCade

Two Dimensional (2D) Fracture Propagation Models:
 With a 2D model, the engineer fixes one of the dimensions, normally the
fracture height, then calculates the width and length of the fracture.
 By “calibrating” the 2D model with field results, the 2D models can be used
to make design changes and improve the success of stimulation treatments.
 If the correct fracture height value is used in a 2D model, the model will give
reasonable estimates of created fracture length and width if other
parameters, such as in-situ stress, Young’s modulus, formation permeability,
and total leak-off coefficient, are also reasonably known and used.

Examples of (2D) Fracture Propagation Models:
 Howard and Fast model (1957): assumed the fracture width was constant
everywhere, allowing the engineer to compute fracture area on the basis of
fracture fluid leak-off characteristics of the formation and the fracturing fluid.
 The Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) geometry (Fig. 10): used when the fracture
length is much greater than the fracture height.
 Kristonovich-Geertsma-de Klerk(KGD) geometry (Fig. 11): used if fracture

height is more than the fracture length.
References:
 Howard, C.C. and Fast, C.R. 1957. Optimum fluid characteristics for fracture extension. In API Drilling and
Production Practice, 24, 261
 Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R. 1961. Widths of Hydraulic Fractures. J Pet Technol 13 (9): 937–949. SPE-89-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89-PA.
 Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F. 1969. A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulic Induced
Fractures. J Pet Technol 21 (12): 1571-1581. SPE-2458-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2458-PA.

Fracture Geometry
Fig. 10: PKN geometry for a 2D fracture

Fracture Geometry (Cont’d)
Fig. 11: KGD geometry for a 2D fracture

Three Dimensional (3D) Fracture Propagation Models:
 Today, with high-powered computers, Pseudo-Three-Dimensional (P3D)

models are used by most fracture design engineers.
 P3D models are better than 2D models for most situations because the P3D
model computes the fracture height, width, and length distribution with the
data for the pay zone and all the rock layers above and below the perforated
interval.
 Figures 12 and 13 illustrate typical results from a P3D model.
 P3D models give more realistic estimates of fracture geometry and

dimensions, which can lead to better designs and better wells.
 P3D models are used to compute the shape of the hydraulic fracture as well
as the dimensions.

Fig. 12: Width and height from a P3D model Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Fig. 13: Length and height distribution from a P3D model Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Three Dimensional (3D) Fracture Propagation Models:
 The key to any model, including 3D or P3D models, is to have a complete
and accurate data set that describes the layers of the formation to be
fracture treated, plus the layers of rock above and below the zone of interest.
 In most cases, the data set should contain information on 5 to 25 layers of

rock that will or possibly could affect fracture growth.
 It is best to enter data on as many layers as feasible and let the model
determine the fracture height growth as a function of where the fracture is
started in the model.
 If the user only enters data on three to five layers, it is likely that the user is
deciding the fracture shape rather than the model.
Reference:
Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E. et al. 1989. Three-Dimensional Fracture-Propagation Models. In
Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, 12. Chap. 5, 95. Richardson, Texas: Monograph Series, SPE.

Data Sources
Table 2
Source: http://petrowiki.org/File%3AVol4prt_Page_327_Image_0001.png Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Fracture Mechanics
 In petroleum engineering, fracture mechanics theories have been used for
more than 50 years.
 Rock fracture mechanics is about understanding what will happen to the

rocks in the subsurface when subjected to fracture stress.
 Poro-elastic theory is often used to estimate the minimum horizontal

stress. The tectonically relaxed formation is assumed elastic while the
proximity of the wellbore is assumed to be in plastic region.
 The important parameters to consider in hydraulic fracturing are:

• Young’s modulus.
• Poisson’s ratio, and
• Fracture toughness
• In situ stress,
Basic rock mechanics
Poisson’s ratio:
 Defined as the ratio of lateral expansion to longitudinal contraction for a
rock under a uniaxial stress condition.
 It is used to convert the effective vertical stress component into an effective
horizontal stress component.
Young’ s modulus:
 Defined as the ratio of stress to strain for uniaxial stress.
 The theory used to compute fracture dimensions is based on linear
elasticity.
 The modulus (measure of the stiffness) of a rock / formation is a function of
the lithology, porosity, fluid type, and other variables.
 If the modulus is large, the material is stiff; a stiff rock results in more
narrow fractures.
 If the modulus is low, the fractures are wider.
Fracture Mechanics (Cont’d)
TABLE 1:

Fracture Mechanics
Figure 1: Optimizing the fracture design considering risks.

Fracture Mechanics
Effective stress concept suggests that pore pressure (Pp) helps
counteract the mechanical stress carried through grain-to-grain
contact.
Effective stress: is defined as the total stress minus the pore pressure.
The efficiency of the Pp effect is measured by poro-elastic factor (Biot’s
constant), α .
𝝈′ = 𝝈 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 … … … … (𝟏)
where
𝜎′ = effective stress
𝜎 = total (absolute) stress
𝑪𝒎𝒂
𝜶=𝟏− ; 𝟎≤𝜶≤𝟏
𝑪𝒃
Fracture Mechanics
Effective stress concept suggests that pore pressure (Pp) helps
counteract the mechanical stress carried through grain-to-grain
contact.
Effective stress: is defined as the total stress minus the pore pressure.
The efficiency of the Pp effect is measured by poro-elastic factor (Biot’s
constant), α .
𝝈′ = 𝝈 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 … … … … (𝟏)
where
𝜎′ = effective stress
𝜎 = total (absolute) stress
𝑪𝒎𝒂
𝜶=𝟏− ; 𝟎≤𝜶≤𝟏
𝑪𝒃
Fracture Mechanics
where
𝑪𝒎𝒂 = rock matrix compressibility
𝑪𝒃 = Bulk compressibility
𝟑 𝟏−𝟐𝒗
= … … … (𝟐)
𝑬
where
𝒗 = Poisson’s ratio
𝑬 = Young’s modulus
For non-porous rock, 𝑪𝒎𝒂 = 𝑪𝒃 , then 𝜶 = 𝟎
With high porosity, 𝑪𝒎𝒂 ≪ 𝑪𝒃 , then 𝜶 ≈ 𝟏
NOTE: "α“ may be evaluated in the laboratory or from a given failure

envelope obtained from dry sample.
Fracture Mechanics
Injection tests:
 The only reliable technique for measuring in-situ stress is by
pumping fluid into a reservoir, creating a fracture, and measuring the
pressure at which the fracture closes.
 The well tests used to measure the minimum principal stress are:
 In-situ stress tests
 Step-rate/flowback tests
 Minifracture tests
 Step-down tests

Fracture Orientation
 For most fracture treatments, mini-fracture tests and step-

down tests are pumped ahead of the main fracture treatment.
 As such, accurate data are normally available to calibrate

and interpret the pressures measured during a fracture
treatment.
 In-situ stress tests and step-rate/flow-back tests are not run

on every well; however, it is common to run such tests in new
fields or new reservoirs to help develop the correlations
required to optimize fracture treatments for subsequent wells.

In-situ Stress Test
 An in-situ stress test can be either an injection-falloff test or an injection-flow-back
test.
 The in-situ stress test is conducted with small volumes of fluid (a few barrels) and
injected at a low injection rate (tens of gal/min), normally with straddle packers to
minimize wellbore storage effects, into a small number of perforations (1 to 2 ft).
 The objective is to pump a thin fluid (water or nitrogen) at a rate just sufficient to
create a small fracture.
 Once the fracture is open, the pumps are shut down, and the pressure is recorded
and analyzed to determine when the fracture closes.
 Thus, the term "fracture-closure pressure" is synonymous with

minimum in-situ stress and minimum horizontal stress.
In-situ Stress Test
 When the pressure in the fracture is greater than the fracture-closure pressure,
the fracture is open.
 When the pressure in the fracture is less than the fracture-closure pressure, the
fracture is closed.
 Fig. 2 illustrates a typical wellbore configuration for conducting an in-situ stress

test.
 Fig. 3 shows typical data that are measured. Multiple tests are conducted to
ensure repeatability. The data from any one of the injection-falloff tests can be
analyzed to determine when the fracture closes.
 Fig. 4 illustrates how one such test can be analyzed to determine in-situ stress.

Figure 2
Fig. 2—Wellbore hardware required for an in-situ stress test. Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Figure 3
Fig. 3—Typical data from an in-situ stress test Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Figure 4
Fig. 4—Closure pressure analysis. Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Fracture Mechanics
Fracture Toughness, KIC:
 It is a property that reflects the rock’s resistance for an existing
fracture to propagate for a given fracture mode.
 The following are correlations between fracture toughness and

tensile strength, T, fracture radius and net pressure (R & ΔP ),
Young’s modulus, E, and compressive strength, Co :
Economides & Nolte, 1987:
𝑲𝑰𝑪 = 𝑻 𝝅𝒍 ……… 𝟑
where
𝑙 = half-length of an existing crack

Fracture Mechanics
Shlyapobersky et al, 1988:
𝟐
𝑲𝑰𝑪 = ∆𝑷 𝑹 … … … (𝟒)
𝝅
where
∆𝑃 = 𝐼𝑆𝐼𝑃 − 𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑖𝑛 … … … (5)
ISIP = Instantaneous Shut In Pressure
𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = Minimum horizontal stress
Note:
𝑺𝒉𝒖𝒕_𝒊𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 ≠ 𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷 (𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠)

Fracture Mechanics
Whittaker et al, 1992:
𝑲𝑰𝑪 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟕 𝑻; 𝐌𝐏𝐚 … … … (𝟔)
𝑲𝑰𝑪 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟔 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟔 𝑬; 𝐆𝐏𝐚 … … … (𝟕)
𝑲𝑰𝑪 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟎𝟖 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟔 𝑪𝒐 ; 𝐌𝐩𝐚 … … … (𝟖)
𝐾𝐼𝐶 (MPa√in); T (MPa); ΔP (Psi); R (in); E (GPa); Co (MPa)
Fracture toughness is a function of confining pressure, Pconf.

𝑲𝑰𝑪 𝑷𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇. = 𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟕 𝑷𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇. ∗ 𝑲𝑰𝑪 𝑷𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇. = 𝟎 ; … … … (𝟗)
where Pconf. (MPa)

Example 1
Sand and shale samples were laboratory-tested for tensile strength and
fracture toughness with the following results:
Formation Tensile strength (psi) Fracture toughness (psi √in)
Sand 845 553
Shale 1155 784
Determine the size of the largest crack in the samples.
Solution: Using eq. (3),
𝑲𝑰𝑪 𝟐 𝟏 𝟓𝟓𝟑 𝟐 𝟏
For Sand: 𝒍= ∗ = ∗ = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟔𝟑 𝒊𝒏.
𝑻 𝝅 𝟖𝟒𝟓 𝝅
𝑲𝑰𝑪 𝟐 𝟏 𝟕𝟖𝟒 𝟐 𝟏
For Shale: 𝒍= ∗ = ∗ = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟔𝟕 𝒊𝒏.
𝑻 𝝅 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟓 𝝅
Assignment
Question 1:
Use the data provided in Table 1 to estimate the fracture toughness for each
of the lithologies shown. Calculate the Young’s modulus that would give the
same fracture toughness as calculated in the example problem.
Question 2:
Table A shows selected values of fracture toughness that were determined
experimentally for chalk, limestone and sandstone samples. Analyze in
detail, the difficulty of matching fracturing pressure on the basis of fracture
toughness measured under unconfined conditions.

Assignment
TABLE A: Selected values of fracture toughness

Confining Pressure Experimental 𝑲𝑰𝑪
Rock Type
(MPa) (MPa √in)
Chalk 0.00 0.73
Chalk 24.13 2.22
Chalk 48.26 2.33
Limestone 0.00 1.44
Limestone 24.13 2.12
Limestone 48.26 4.92
Sandstone 0.00 1.36
Sandstone 24.13 2.62
Sandstone 48.26 4.96


By

(aliyu.adebayor@petronas.com)
(Mobile: 0143485422; Office Ext.: 7051)
(Room No.: 14.02.30)

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture, students should be able to:
 Define hydraulic fracturing, describe its stages and identify

requisite equipment
 Apply ‘in-situ stress analysis’ to determine formation breakdown

pressure
 Identify different models for predicting the fracture geometry

In-situ stresses:
 Underground formations are confined and under stress.
 The stresses can be divided into three principal stresses (Fig. 2).
 σ1 = total (absolute) vertical stress (𝜎1′ = effective vertical stress)
 σ2 = total (abs) min. horizontal stress (𝜎2′ = effective min. horizontal stress)
 σ3 = total (abs) max. horizontal stress (𝜎3′ = effective max. horizontal stress)
 These stresses are normally compressive, anisotropic, and nonhomogeneous

(i.e. the compressive stresses on the rock are not equal and vary in
magnitude on the basis of direction).
 The magnitude and direction of the principal stresses control the pressure
required to create and propagate a fracture, the shape and vertical extent of
the fracture, the direction of the fracture, and the stresses trying to crush
and/or embed the proppant during production.
Fig. 2: The three principal compressive stresses.

A hydraulic fracture will propagate perpendicular to the minimum principal
stress. Poro-elastic theory is often used to estimate the minimum horizontal
stress.
For a vertical fracture, the min. horizontal stress can be estimated from Eq. (1):
𝒗
𝝈𝑯, 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝝈𝒗 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 + 𝜶𝑷𝒑 + 𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 .............(10)
𝟏−𝒗
where
ν = Poisson’s ratio (estimated from acoustic log data or from correlations
based on lithology)
σV = Overburden stress (computed with density log data; normally, is

approximately 1 psi/ft of depth).
α = Biot’s constant (usually 1.0 but occasionally ˂ 1.0).

Pp = Reservoir fluid pressure or pore pressure (measured or estimated)

σtect. = Tectonic stress (estimated from injection tests and poro-elastic

Eq. 1; could be zero in relaxed environment).
𝒗
𝝈𝑯, 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝝈𝒗 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 + 𝜶𝑷𝒑 + 𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 ……… (10)
𝟏−𝒗
Linear Elastic Term Fluid Pressure Stress Tectonic Stress
 Equation 10 combines poro-elastic theory with a term that accounts for any tectonic
forces that are acting on a formation.
 The linear elastic term converts the effective vertical stress on the rock grains into
an effective horizontal stress on the rock grains.
 To measure the tectonic stresses, injection tests are conducted to measure the
minimum horizontal stress. The measured stress is then compared with the stress
calculated by the poro-elastic equation to determine the value of the tectonic stress.

Breakdown Pressure, 𝑷𝒃𝒅 :

The breakdown pressure, required for initiating a fracture can be
calculated from Eq. (11):
𝑷𝒃𝒅 = 𝟑 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 − 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑻 − 𝑷𝒑 .............(11)
 The stresses 𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝜎𝑣 should be determined in the field.
 If no field information is available, the following approxms can be used:

𝝈′𝒗 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝑯 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 .............(12)
𝒗
𝝈′𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝝈′𝒗 ; [≡ Closure pressure].............(13)
𝟏−𝒗
𝝈′𝒗 + 𝝈′𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝝈′𝑯,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = ′
𝝈𝒗 .............(14)
𝟐

Fracture Propagation Pressure, 𝑷𝒇 :

The fracture propagation pressure is given by Eq. (15):
𝑷𝒇 = 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 + ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 + ∆𝑷𝒇 + ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 .............(15)
where
∆𝑷𝒇 = friction pressure drop (i.e. perforation, near-w/b, fracture and
fracture geometry, which will determine whether the fracturing
pressure will decrease or increase with time).
If the fracture ceases to propagate after shut-in, then the instantaneous

shut-in pressure, ISIP, is
𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷 = 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 + ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 .............(16)
Therefore,
𝑷𝒇 = 𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷 + ∆𝑷𝒇 + ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 .............(17)
The net pressure, ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 , corresponds to the pressure to keep the fracture
open with a given fracture width.
The ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 may change throughout the job, especially in tip-screen-out

treatments.
The fracture gradient is simply the ISIP divided by the depth.
𝒅𝑷 𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷
= .............(18)
𝒅𝒙 𝑯
The term ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 is the pressure drop required to propagate the fracture,
which is a function of fracture toughness, KIC.
The closure pressure can be determined graphically from surface shut-in

pressure P vs ∆𝒕 (where ∆𝒕 = shut-in time) (i.e. Fig 4).
Example 2
A laboratory fracturing treatment was performed on a
hydrostone block with the following stresses and pressures:
Breakdown pressure, 𝑃𝑏𝑑 = 2,540 psi
Instantaneous shut-in pressure, ISIP = 1,750 psi
Fracture propagation pressure, 𝑃𝑓 = 2,150 psi
Vertical stress, 𝜎𝑣′ = 3,000 psi
′
Max. horizontal stress, 𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2,500 psi
′
Min. horizontal stress, 𝜎𝐻,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1,400 psi
Pore pressure, 𝑃𝑝 = 0 psi (Lab. test with block)
Tensile strength, 𝑇 = 780 psi
Hole size, 𝑟𝑤 = 2-inches
Fracture radius, R = 2-inches
Fracture length, 𝐿𝑓 = 4-inches
Example 2
a) Determine the following:
i) Fracture toughness, 𝐾𝐼𝐶 for the tested rock.
ii) Pressure drop at the tip, ∆𝑃𝑡𝑖𝑝
iii) Friction pressure drop, ∆𝑃𝑓
iv) Net pressure
b) Verify the breakdown pressure observed from the test

matches that of the theory.
c) Assuming that the maximum horizontal stress in unknown,

calculate it and compare it with the applied one.

Solution
𝑹 𝟐
a.) i) 𝑲𝑰𝑪 = 𝟐∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 = 𝟐 𝟏, 𝟕𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏, 𝟒𝟎𝟎 = 𝟓𝟓𝟖 𝒑𝒔𝒊 √𝒊𝒏
𝝅 𝝅
𝑲𝑰𝑪 𝟓𝟓𝟖
ii) ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 = = = 𝟏𝟓𝟕 𝒑𝒔𝒊
𝝅𝑳𝒇 𝟒𝝅
iii) ∆𝑷𝒇 = 𝑷𝒇 − 𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷 − ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 = 𝟐, 𝟏𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏, 𝟕𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏𝟓𝟕 = 𝟐𝟒𝟑 𝒑𝒔𝒊
iv) 𝑷𝒃𝒅 = 𝟑 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 − 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑻 + 𝑷𝒑
= 𝟑 𝟏, 𝟒𝟎𝟎 − 𝟐, 𝟓𝟎𝟎 + 𝟕𝟖𝟎 + 𝟎 = 𝟐, 𝟒𝟖𝟎 𝒑𝒔𝒊; (Measured 𝑷𝒃𝒅 = 2,540 psi)
b.) ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 = 𝑰𝑺𝑰𝑷 − 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟏, 𝟕𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏, 𝟒𝟎𝟎 = 𝟑𝟓𝟎 𝒑𝒔𝒊
c.) 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟑 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒊𝒏 − 𝑷𝒃𝒅 + 𝑻 + 𝑷𝒑
= 𝟑 𝟏, 𝟒𝟎𝟎 − 𝟐, 𝟓𝟒𝟎 + 𝟕𝟖𝟎 + 𝟎 = 𝟐, 𝟒𝟒𝟎 𝒑𝒔𝒊; (Applied 𝝈𝑯,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 2,500 psi)
Any comment on ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 and ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 ? Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Solution
NOTE:
For a laboratory test, the fracture is very small.

Therefore, the ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 ≈ 𝟎. 𝟓 ∗ ∆𝑷𝒏𝒆𝒕 .
As the fracture becomes longer, the term ∆𝑷𝒕𝒊𝒑 gets

smaller and becomes negligible.

Solution
Figure 3

Formation Breakdown Pressure
This is the fracturing pressure of the formation and its
magnitude is based on formation depth and properties.
𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄. = 𝟐𝝈𝒉,𝒎𝒊𝒏 + 𝑻𝒐 − 𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 − 𝑷𝒑 ……… (11)

where
𝝈𝒉,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = total or minimum horizontal stress
= 𝝈𝒉 ′ + 𝜶𝑷𝒑 ……… (12)
where
𝝈𝒉 ′ = effective horizontal stress
𝒗
= 𝝈𝒗 ′ ……… (13)
𝟏−𝒗
where
𝝈𝒗 ′ = effective vertical stress
= 𝝈𝒗 − 𝜶𝑷𝒑 ……… (14)
where
𝝈𝒗 = overburden stress, psi
Formation Breakdown Pressure (Cont’d)
𝝈𝒗 = overburden stress, psi

= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟔𝟗𝟒𝝆𝒉; 𝝆 = 𝒍𝒃/𝒇𝒕𝟑 ……… (15)
𝜶 = Biot’s poro-elastic constant; ≈ 0.7
𝑷𝒑 = pore pressure, psi
𝒗 = Poisson’s ratio
𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 = tectonic stress

𝑻𝒐 = tensile strength of the rock
The maximum horizontal stress can be calculated from

𝝈𝒉,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝝈𝒉,𝒎𝒊𝒏 + 𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 ……… (16)

Assignment
A sandstone at a depth of 10,000ft has a Poison’s

ratio of 0.25 and a poro-elastic constant of 0.72.
The average density of the overburden formation is
165 lb/cuft. The pore pressure gradient in the
sandstone is 0.38 psi/ft. Assuming a tectonic stress
of 2,000psi and a tensile strength of 1,000psia,
predict the fracture pressure for the sandstone.

Productivity of Fractured Wells
 The productivity depends on two steps:

1) Fluid inflow from reservoir
2) Flow into the wellbore
Efficiency of (1)
depends on ‘fracture
dimension’.
Efficiency of (2)
depends on fracture
permeability
Fig. 3: Fluid inflow from reservoir into the wellbore Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Fracture Conductivity
Fracture conductivity is defined as
𝒘∗𝒌𝒇
𝑭𝑪𝑫 = ; (dimensionless) ……… (17)
𝑲∗𝒙𝒇
where
𝒘 = fracture width, ft
𝒌𝒇 = fracture permeability, mD
K = reservoir permeability, mD
𝒙𝒇 = fracture half-length, ft

Fold of Increase in Productivity
The fold of increase can be expressed as

𝒓𝒆
𝑱 𝐥𝐧
𝒓𝒘
= 𝒓𝒆 ……… (18)
𝑱𝒐 𝐥𝐧 +𝑺𝒇
𝒓𝒘
where
𝑱 = productivity of fractured well, stb/day/psi
𝑱𝒐 = productivity of non-fractured well, stb/day/psi
𝑺𝒇 = effective skin factor
The 𝑺𝒇 can be determined from a chart showing the relationship

between fracture conductivity and equivalent skin factor

Fracture Conductivity vs Equivalent Skin Factor Chart
Figure 4: Relationship between fracture conductivity and equivalent skin factor

(Cinco-Ley and Samaniego, 1981).

Mathematical Correlation
The following correlation may be used in place of

the chart to determine the equivalent skin factor:
𝒙𝒇 𝟏.𝟔𝟓−𝟎.𝟑𝟐𝟖 𝐥𝐧 𝑭𝑪𝑫 +𝟎.𝟏𝟏𝟔 𝐥𝐧 𝑭𝑪𝑫 𝟐

𝑺𝒇 + 𝐥𝐧 =
𝒓𝒘 𝟏+𝟎.𝟏𝟖 𝐥𝐧 𝑭𝑪𝑫 +𝟎.𝟎𝟔𝟒 𝐥𝐧 𝑭𝑪𝑫 𝟐 +𝟎.𝟎𝟓 𝐥𝐧 𝑭𝑪𝑫 𝟑
……… (19)

Analysis
When 𝑭𝑪𝑫 > 𝟏𝟎𝟎:
𝒙𝒇
𝑺𝒇 ≈ 𝟎. 𝟕 − 𝐥𝐧
𝒓𝒘
Thus, for high conductivity fractures, 𝑺𝒇 depends
only on ‘fracture length’ and NOT fracture
permeability and width
When 𝑭𝑪𝑫 < 𝟏:

𝒙𝒇
The parameter, 𝑺𝒇 + 𝒍𝒏 declines linearly with
𝒓𝒘
𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝑭𝑪𝑫 𝐢. 𝐞.
𝒘 ∗ 𝒌𝒇
𝑺𝒇 ≈ 𝟏. 𝟓𝟐 + 𝟐. 𝟑𝟏 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒓𝒘 − 𝟏. 𝟓𝟒𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 − 𝟎. 𝟕𝟔𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒙𝒇
𝑲
Thus, the equivalent skin factor of fractured well is

more sensitive to the fracture permeability and
width than to fracture length for low-conductivity
fractures. Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon
Fracture Productivity (Cont’d)
Low-k reservoirs, leading to high-

conductivity fractures, would benefit
greatly from fracture length 𝒙𝒇 .
High-k reservoirs, naturally leading to

low-conductivity fractures, require good
fracture permeability, 𝒌𝒇 and width, 𝒘.

Example 4
A gas reservoir has a permeability of 1.0mD. A vertical

well of 0.328ft radius draws the reservoir from the centre
of an area of 160acres. If the well is hydraulically
fractured to create a 2,000ft long, 0.12inch wide fracture
of 200,000mD permeability around the centre of the
drainage area, what would be the fold of increase in well
productivity?

Solution
𝑲 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝒎𝑫; 𝑨 = 𝟏𝟔𝟎 𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒔; 𝒌𝒇 = 𝟐𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒎𝑫; 𝑳𝒇 = 𝟐. 𝟎; 𝒙𝒇 = 𝟐, 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒇𝒕; 𝒘 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟐𝒊𝒏.
𝑨 𝟒𝟑𝟓𝟔𝟎 ∗ 𝟏𝟔𝟎
𝒓𝒆 = = = 𝟏, 𝟒𝟖𝟗. 𝟒𝟔𝒇𝒕
𝝅 𝝅
𝟎. 𝟏𝟐
𝒘 ∗ 𝒌𝒇 𝟐𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗
𝑭𝑪𝑫 = = 𝟏𝟐 = 𝟐
𝒌 ∗ 𝒙𝒇 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝟏. 𝟎 ∗ 𝟐
From the chart,
𝑥𝑓
𝑺𝒇 + ln ≈ 𝟏. 𝟐
𝑟𝑤
1,000
𝑺𝒇 ≈ 𝟏. 𝟐 − ln = −𝟔. 𝟖𝟐
0.328
The fold of increase is

𝑟 1,489.46
𝑱 ln 𝑟𝑒 ln
= 𝑤
= 0.328 = 5.27
𝑱𝒐 𝑟 1,489.46
ln 𝑟𝑒 + 𝑆𝑓 ln 0.328 − 6.82
𝑤
Hydraulic Fracturing Design
The design of a hydraulic fracturing job should follow
the following procedure:
 Select a fracturing fluid
 Determine the max. allowable treatment pressure
 Select a fracture propagation model
 Select treatment size (i.e. fracture length and
proppant concentration)
 Perform production forecast analyses
 Perform Net Present Value (NPV) analyses

Fracture Treatment Optimization Process
Design procedures:
To design the optimum treatment, the effect of fracture length and fracture
conductivity on the productivity and the ultimate recovery from the well must
be determined.
Requirements:
 Sensitivity runs are conducted to evaluate uncertainties, such as estimates of
formation permeability and drainage area.
 The production data obtained from the reservoir model should be used in an
economics model to determine the optimum fracture length and fracture
conductivity.
 Then a fracture treatment must be designed with a fracture propagation model to
achieve the desired length and conductivity at minimum cost.
 The most important concept is to design a fracture with the appropriate data and
models that will result in the optimum economic benefit (Fig 2).

Fracture treatment optimization process
Figure 5: Treatment optimization process.

Source: Veatch Jr., R.W. and Moschovidis, Z.A. 1986. An Overview of Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing Technology.
Presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 17-20 March. SPE-14085-MS

Design Risks Evaluation
Uncertainties in the data can be evaluated by making
sensitivity runs with both reservoir models and fracture
propagation models.
Types of Risks:
 Mechanical risks - mechanical problems with the well or the
surface equipment cause the treatment to fail.
 Product price risks - well does not produce at the desired flow
rates nor achieve the expected cumulative recovery in spite of
treatment expenses.
 Geologic risks - the reservoir does not respond as expected.

Design Risks Evaluation
Risks Evaluation:
 On the average, 20% of fracture treatments is unsuccessful.
 Therefore, 80% of the expected revenue and 100% of the
expected costs can be used to determine the optimum fracture
length.
To evaluate the risk of mechanical or reservoir problems, 100% of

the costs and only a fraction of the revenue can be used in the
economic analyses.
Figure 6 illustrates how such an analysis can alter the desired

fracture length.

Optimization of Fracture Design with Risks
Figure 6:
Optimizing the
fracture design
considering
risks.
Source:
http://petrowiki.or
g/Fracture_treat
ment_design#cit
e_note-r1-1

Post-Frac Evaluation
 Pressure matching (BHP vs treatment time, with a

computer software).
 Pressure transient data analysis.
 Pumping radioactive materials in the proppant
stages and running tracer logs – to verify the
fracture height.
 Running production logging tools – to determine
production profiles.
 Conducting back-pressure and performing Nodal
analysis – to verify well deliverability.

QUICK RECAP
 Define hydraulic fracturing, describe its stages and

identify requisite equipment
 Apply ‘in-situ stress analysis’ to determine formation

breakdown pressure
 Identify different models for predicting the fracture

geometry

Questions?
Thank you

THANK YOU

Design of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Design of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Design of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCB4323 - Well Stimulation Techniques

© 2016 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PETRONAS SDN BHD

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

At the end of this lecture, students should be able to:

 Define hydraulic fracturing, describe its stages and identify

 Apply ‘in-situ stress analysis’ to determine formation breakdown

 Determine the productivity of fractured wells

 Describe the procedure for a hydraulic fracturing design

 Recommend post-frac evaluation tools

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Typical equipment required for hydraulic fracturing are:

Inject to create pad/fracture

Figure 2: Equipment layout in hydraulic fracturing treatments

There are two stages:

Figure 3: Fracturing stages Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Figure 4: Fracturing pressure profiles Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Instantaneous shut-in Pressure, or ISIP, is defined as:

The selection of the fracture fluid for the treatment

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Figure 6: Fracture fluid selection process

 Cross-linkers = used to super-

 Guar Gum = Gelling agents or

Figure 7: Crosslinked polymers

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 Very high pressures and very high proppant

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 Sensitivity runs are carried out with the fracture-propagation model to

 As databases are developed, the number and magnitude of the uncertainties

Available Fracture Models:

 Lumped Parameter Models:  Pseudo-3D Models:

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Two Dimensional (2D) Fracture Propagation Models:

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 Kristonovich-Geertsma-de Klerk(KGD) geometry (Fig. 11): used if fracture

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Fig. 10: PKN geometry for a 2D fracture

Fig. 11: KGD geometry for a 2D fracture

 Today, with high-powered computers, Pseudo-Three-Dimensional (P3D)

 Figures 12 and 13 illustrate typical results from a P3D model.

 P3D models give more realistic estimates of fracture geometry and

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 In most cases, the data set should contain information on 5 to 25 layers of

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Source: http://petrowiki.org/File%3AVol4prt_Page_327_Image_0001.png Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 Rock fracture mechanics is about understanding what will happen to the

 Poro-elastic theory is often used to estimate the minimum horizontal

 The important parameters to consider in hydraulic fracturing are:

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

Figure 1: Optimizing the fracture design considering risks.

For non-porous rock, 𝑪𝒎𝒂 = 𝑪𝒃 , then 𝜶 = 𝟎

With high porosity, 𝑪𝒎𝒂 ≪ 𝑪𝒃 , then 𝜶 ≈ 𝟏

NOTE: "α“ may be evaluated in the laboratory or from a given failure

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon

 For most fracture treatments, mini-fracture tests and step-

 As such, accurate data are normally available to calibrate

 In-situ stress tests and step-rate/flow-back tests are not run

Dr Aliyu Adebayo Sulaimon