PAPER 2009-100

A 3D Finite Element Model for

History Matching Hydraulic
Fracturing in Unconsolidated
Sands Formation
B. XU, R.C.K. WONG
Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication 
rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract dilation zone or a net or micro-cracks, inside which the effective

Hydraulic fracturing is an important and prevalent process
both in the natural environment and industrial applications. At
the same time, field hydraulic fracturing tests data provide
valuable information regarding the mechanical and hydraulic
behaviours of the reservoir formation. By history-matching the
field bottom-hole-pressure versus time curve from hydraulic
fracturing tests, a set of field-validated geomechanical models
can be obtained, which is an important asset for any further
works on utilizing geomechanics to enhance the injection and
production performance. This paper presents a 3-dimensinal
finite element model for history matching the complete bottom-
hole-pressure versus time curve generated during hydraulic
fracturing tests considering the injection rate as input. To
stimulate the hydraulic fracturing process in unconsolidated
sands formation, a poro-elasto-plastic constitutive model
together with a strain-induced anisotropic fill permeability
model are formulated and implemented into a 3D finite element
geomechanical simulator. Unlike the conventional simulation of
hydraulic fracturing in hard rock, hydraulic fracture in
unconsolidated sands reservoir is stimulated as a large area of
stresses are low and hydraulic conductivities are high. It is
shown the proposed numerical model can successfully capture
the hydraulic fracture initiation and propagation in
unconsolidated sands formation and matches the field pressure
versus time curve very well.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing can be broadly defined as a process by
which a fracture initiates and propagates due to hydraulic
loading (i.e., pressure) applied by a fluid inside the fracture(1).
Fractures in the earth's crust are desired for a variety of reasons,
including enhanced oil and gas recovery, re-injection of drilling
or other environmentally sensitive wastes, measurement of in
situ stresses, geothermal energy recovery, and enhanced well
water production(2). Although hydraulic fracturing in hard rock
has been comprehensively studied both experimentally and
numerically, some fundamental mechanisms of hydraulic
fracturing in unconsolidated sands have not been well
understood. Experimental data clearly show that fracturing in
unconsolidated sands is significantly different than those
encountered in hard rock. Unconsolidated sands do not exhibit

1
elastic-brittle behavior. In addition, unconsolidated sands have
very low tensile and shear strengths at low effective stresses as
well as relatively large fluid leak-off(3-5). Based on other
researchers’ work(3-7) on the fundamental mechanisms of
hydraulic fracturing in unconsolidated sands, this paper presents
the constitutive modeling and numerical simulation of hydraulic
fracturing in unconsolidated sands within the framework of
continuum mechanics. Numerical experiments show that this
approach has special advantages in numerical modeling of large
scale field problems, such as the disposal of waste cutting fluid,
and micro/mini fracture tests in unconsolidated sands formation.
Even in its most basic form, hydraulic fracturing in
unconsolidated sands is a complex process to model, as it
involves the coupling of at least three processes: (i) the solid
matrix deformation and failure induced by the pore fluid
pressure; (ii) the flow of fluid within the fracture and solid
matrix; and (iii) the fracture initiation and propagation after the
failure of formation. Understanding of this complex process
provides us valuable information regarding the mechanical and
hydraulic behaviors of the reservoir formation. As a case study,
we present the geomechanical history matching of the field
bottom-hole-pressure versus time curve from a waste disposal
project using the developed finite element simulator, from
which a set of field-validated geomechanical models have been
obtained, which is an important asset for any further works on
utilizing geomechanics to enhance the injection and production
performance.
Physical Mechanism of Hydraulic Fracturing in
Unconsolidated Sands
Fracturing unconsolidated sands may induce different
modes of failure because the natural tendency of rock to fail in
tension will be suppressed in favour of shear failure(7). Gil
(2005) conducted discrete element method simulations to
investigate the fundamental mechanism of hydraulic fracturing
in unconsolidated formations and found that shear failure seems
to be more important than tensile failure during the hydraulic
fracturing process(6). Chang (2005) conducted experimental
studies on the hydraulic fracturing of particulate material(3) and
found that, in the process of hydraulic fracturing, all parts of the
particulate material are likely to be in compression. Wu (2006)
conducted numerical simulations of fluid injection into
particulate material using the discrete element method(4). She
observed that the initiation of hydraulic fracture in particulate
material is actually the “fluidization” of the particle-fluid
mixture, at which the loss of contacts between the particles
occur in all directions. Wong (1991) conducted triaxial tests on
unconsolidated Athabasca oil sands(8) and concluded that four
possible modes of granular interaction exist, which are: contact
elastic deformation, rolling, sliding and crushing (Figure 1). In
the case of fracturing unconsolidated sands, grain crushing may
not play an important role in the granular interaction, however,
grain parting may account for the fracturing in unconsolidated
sands. In this study, we consider four possible modes of
granular interactions in the process of fluid injection: contact
elastic deformation, rolling, sliding and grain parting.
Although unconsolidated sand is a particulate medium, it is
generally treated as a continuum for modeling stress-strain
behaviour(9). In this way, constitutive models within the
framework of continuum mechanics and conventional finite
element method can be used without major modifications. In
macroscopic level, the above four basic modes of granular
interactions can be related to macroscopic constitutive
behaviours. In this study, we view interparticle contact elastic
2
deformation as recoverable deformation, thus elastic
constitutive model can be applied in this stage. Accordingly,
interparticle rolling and sliding are the irrecoverable
deformation, which correspond to plastic deformation in
macroscopic sense. Macroscopically, when particles lose
contacts in all directions, the effective stresses inside this
particle assembly should become zero, which can be simulated
by combining a tensile cut-off constitutive model with the
existing elasto-plastic model.
The injection of large volumes of fluid into an
unconsolidated sands reservoir can result in significant changes
to the in-situ stress distributions, which can induce significant
deformations, thereby leading to permeability alterations. In the
past, the permeability change due to deformation change is
usually assumed to be a function of porosity, volumetric strain,
or reservoir pressure. This type of correlation relates the
permeability tensor to a scalar variable; therefore, the changes
in permeability must be identical in all directions. However, for
the stress induced anisotropic granular materials such as
unconsolidated sands, they are not necessarily equal, because
the strains in different directions are different(10). A strain
induced anisotropic full permeability model is used in this
research to represent the induced anisotropic hydraulic
behaviour before and after the fracturing.
Constitutive Modeling
Unlike hard rock, plastic shear failure dominates the
deformation behaviour of unconsolidated sands during the
process of hydraulic fracturing. Among the different plasticity
models, Drucker-Prager plasticity model adequately describes
the pressure-sensitive behaviour of unconsolidated sands which
exhibit dilatancy when sheared. A rate-independent non-
associative Drucker-Prager model with isotropic strain
hardening and softening, as well as strain-induced anisotropic
full permeability model(10-12) are implemented in this study to
describe the failure of solid matrix and anisotropic fluid flow
behaviour of unconsolidated sands before and after the
hydraulic fracturing.
Symbols and Notations
As for notations and symbols, bold-face letters denote
matrices and vectors; the symbol '.' denotes an inner product
of two vectors (e.g. a ⋅ b = ai bi ), or a single contraction of
adjacent indices of two tensors (e.g. c ⋅ d = cij d jk ); the symbol
':' denotes an inner product of two second-order tensors (e.g.
c : d = cij d ij ), or a double contraction of adjacent indices of
tensors of rank two and higher (e.g. C : ε = Cijkl ε kl ); the symbol
⊗ denotes a juxtaposition (e.g. a ⊗ b = ai b j ). For any
symmetric second order tensors α and β , we have
α ⊗ β = α ij β kl (13)
.
Nonlinear Stress Induced Anisotropic Elasticity
In reality, most soft rocks, including unconsolidated sands,
display some degree of anisotropy, having different elastic
properties in each principal direction, due to the way of their
deposition, particle shape, stress history and stress conditions.
These complex factors lead to the strong stress dependency of
soft rock’s mechanical behaviour and remarkable stress-induced
anisotropic elastic behaviour. A stress induced anisotropic
elasticity model(14) is implemented and used in this research to
capture the stress induced anisotropic behaviour of
unconsolidated sands.
Drucker-Prager Plasticity Model with Tension Cut-off
Yield Function, Plastic Potential and Tension Cut-off
With the form of a circular cone in principal stress space
centered on the hydrostatic axis, the original Drucker–Prager
yield criterion has the form(15):
F = q − p tan β − d = 0
'
(1)
…...………………………...
'
where: F is the yield function; p is the effective mean
stress, which can be defined by the effective stress tensor as:
Mathematically, it can be proved that, with this plastic
potential, there is no shear plastic strain exists and all the plastic
strains contribute to volumetric strain at nearly tension stress
level, which is exactly what we need in modeling the
deformation behaviour of hydraulically fractured
unconsolidated sands. Physically, hydraulically fractured
unconsolidated sands cannot take any shear stress and strain and
all the deformations contribute to the increasing in porosity.
Also, the development of significant tensile stress within an
element can be prevented by setting the element stiffness to a
very low value if the element fails in tension. However, this
feature is accomplished at the cost of losing quadratic
convergence rate for full Newton non-linear iteration.
Constitutive Equations and Consistent Tangent
Operator
By applying the consistency conditions in plasticity theory,
the constitutive equation can be formulated in a matrix form:
dσ = D ⊗ dε ………………………………….. (5)
ep

( )
1
p = − trace σ ; q is the deviatoric stress, which can be
' '

3 ∂G ∂F
D ⊗ ⊗ ⊗D
e e

defined by the effective deviatoric stress tensor as: ∂σ ∂σ

D =D −
ep e

{ }
(6)
∂F ∂G ∂F ∂H
T
3
q= S : S , where S is the deviatoric stress tensor, defined ⊗D ⊗
e
− ⊗
2 ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂λ
as: S = σ + pI and I is the unit matrix; β and d are the e
where: D is the elasticity matrix and H is the hardening law.
friction angle and cohesion in p − q space, respectively.
'
The quadratic convergence rate using full Newton iterative
Geomaterials always have curved yield surface at low method is achieved by constructing the consistent tangent
confining pressure. This can be achieved by modifying the operator (16-19).
original Drucker–Prager yield criterion and considering the
tensile strength at low confining pressure(15). The modified non-
linear yield function takes the form of: Strain-Induced Anisotropic Full Permeability Model

F= (d − Pt tan β ) + q − p tan β − d = 0
Based on the Kozeny--Carman equation, Wong (2003)
2 2 '

0
(2) proposed a permeability model for deformable granular media,
………
which quantifies the changes in permeability when the material
where: d 0 is the initial value of cohesion and Pt is the tensile experiences shear deformation(11,12). In the model, the
strength of geomaterial. This modified version of Drucker– permeability change is expressed as a function of the strain
Prager yield criterion is implemented and used in this study. tensor. This model assumes that the permeability tensor has the
In plasticity theory, plastic potential ( G ) is a functional same principal directions as the strain tensor and the principal
which defines the relative magnitudes of the various values of the permeability tensor are linear function of the
components of plastic deformation. The plastic strain principal strains. The most attractive feature of this model is
increments are subsequently described by the flow rule: that the permeability change can be anisotropic. In addition, the
directions of the principal values are not restricted to some
∂G
dε = d λ arbitrary axis, and governed by the induced strains. Thus, the
pl
(3)
∂σ ………………………………….. effects of stress paths and stress level are implicitly considered
through effective stress-strain constitutive laws. This strain-
where: dε is the incremental plastic strain tensor, d λ is the
pl
induced full permeability tensor is expressed as:
⎫ ⎧k ⎫ ⎡a
consistency parameter and G is the plastic potential.
⎧k b⎤ ⎧ε ⎫
0
b
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
1 1 1
The form of plastic potential function in this study is chosen
⎥
⎨k ⎬ = ⎨k ⎬ + ⎢b b ⋅ ⎨ε ⎬ ............
0
as: a (7)
2 2
⎥ 2

( ωσ tan ψ ) + q − p tan ψ = 0 ⎪k ⎪ ⎪k ⎪ ⎢b a⎥ ⎪ ⎪
G= ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎣ ⎦ ⎩ε ⎭
2 ' 0

0
(4) 3 3
b 3
……….
where: k i and k i , i = 1, 2, 3 are the principal values of
0
where: ψ is the dilation angle; σ 0 is the initial equivalent yield
stress and ω is a parameter, which defines the rate at which the induced permeability tensor and initial permeability tensor,
potential function approaches the asymptote(15) (the flow ε i , i = 1, 2, 3 are the principal values of strain tensor and
0

potential tends to a straight line as the eccentricity tends to

zero). It should be noted that this parameter ensures a smooth a , b are two parameters.
transition from a curved potential surface at low confining The huge anisotropic increasing of permeability inside the
pressure and to a straight potential surface at high confining plastic shear failure zone and fully fractured zone can be
pressure. achieved by making the a , b values as a function of the

3
 ∫
volumetric deformation in the porous medium, and (b)
equivalent plastic strain ( ε = ε ij ε ij dt ). It should be noted
pl pl pl

compression of the porous medium causes a rise of pore

that this approach actually introduces a permeability multiplier
into the original strain induced permeability model, which can
be identified by history matching the field hydraulic fracturing
data. Figure 2 shows this multiplier change with plastic shear
deformation.
Coupling the Mechanical and Hydraulic Behaviours
The hydraulic fracturing in unconsolidated sands is a fully
coupled process. Any phase changes in solid matrix mechanical
behaviour must be accompanied by the corresponding changes
in hydraulic behaviour. For example, when the solid matrix
starts plastic shear failure with large dilation, there must be a
corresponding huge increase in the permeability value. Also, the
strong anisotropy in strain tensor induced by the anisotropic
mechanical stiffness must be accompanied by the corresponding
anisotropic hydraulic behaviour. By coupling the strain induced
anisotropic fully permeability tensor with the stress induced
pressure, if the fluid is prevented from escaping the pore
network. These coupled mechanisms bestow an apparent time-
dependent character to the mechanical properties of the porous
medium(20). This coupled effect can be described by coupling
the force equilibrium and mass balance equations.
Let us consider a porous medium continuum in domain Ω
and bounded by surface Γ . Part of its surface Γ g is subjected
to a prescribed displacement function u , while the remainder of
its surface Γ h , is subjected to a boundary traction t . The same
total surface Γ may also be divided into a portion Γ r ,
subjected to a prescribed pore pressure function p , and the
remainder Γ s , under an input hydraulic flux of q . The
governing equation for a fully coupled poro-elastic problem in
domain Ω can be represented by:
⎧∇·( σ + α pI ) + b = 0 in Ω (force equilibrium equation)
'

anisotropic mechanical model, this synchronous process is

⎪
⎪∇·⎛ k ( p − b ) ⎞ + m ε = 0 in Ω (mass balance equation)
accomplished automatically. Figure 3 shows the mechanical

⎪ ⎜⎝ γ ⎟
T
behaviour change in the process of fluid injection into
⎠
w
unconsolidated sands formation. By combining Figures 2 and 3,
⎪
w
it is clear that this complex coupled process can be
synchronized automatically. ⎨u = u in Γ g

⎪
⎪σ·n = t in Γ h

Orientation of the fracturing ⎪ p = p on Γ

⎪
r

⎩( ∇ ⋅ p ) ⋅ n = q on Γ
The orientation of the hydraulic fracture in unconsolidated
sands is implicitly embedded in our model. Before the material s

failure, the anisotropic initial or induced stress tensor leads to …………………………………………………….(8)

the anisotropic strain tensor, which will cause the anisotropy in
permeability tensor. The anisotropic permeability tensor leads '
where: σ is the effective stress tensor, tension is taken as
to the fluid flow to the directions with larger permeability
positive, p is the pore pressure, ε is the strain tensor, k is the
values, which causes the element plastic failure in these
directions, and thus, further leads to the hydraulic fracturing in permeability tensor, γ w is the unit weight of water, b is the
these directions. Figure 4 illustrates this anisotropic failure
process induced by an initial anisotropic stress tensor. At the body force vector of soil, b w is the body force of water phase,
same time, the value of K 0 determines the anisotropy in initial α is the Biot coefficient, I is the Kronecker delta,
stress condition, which means that the value of K 0 plays a m = [1, 1,1, 0, 0, 0 ] and n is a vector of direction cosines for the
critical factor in determining the orientation of hydraulic unit outward normal to the boundary surface.
fracturing in unconsolidated formation.
To illustrate the capability of our model to capture these
anisotropic effects, we conducted two numerical tests on the Finite Element Formulation for Poroelasticity
fluid injection into unconsolidated formation through a
horizontal well. The two numerical cases have exactly the same Applying the Green-Gauss theorem and Galerkin weighted
material properties, except with different values of K 0 in the residual method to the force equilibrium equation as shown in
Eqn. (8) for a single element leads to the weak form of the force
unconsolidated formation. Figures 5 and 6 show our modeling
equilibrium equation in matrix form:
results of the anisotropic material failure zone around a
∫ B σ d Ω + B α mpd Ω = N ∫  T tdS + N T bd Ω (9)
∫ ∫
T ' T
horizontal well induced by the anisotropic initial stress Ω
e
u Ω
e
u Γh
e
u Ω
e
u

condition, respectively.
where: Ω e is the element volume, Γ h is the element surface
e

area subjected to boundary tractions, t is the external surface

Finite Element Formulation tractions, N is the shape function for boundary surface
u

element, N u is the shape function for solid phase and

Governing Equations
B u = LN u is the strain rate-velocity matrix, in which L
The presence of a freely moving fluid in a porous medium
modifies its mechanical response. Two mechanisms play a key denotes the differential operator:
role in this interaction between the interstitial fluid and the
porous medium: (a) an increase of pore pressure induces a

4
 ⎡∂ ∂ ∂ ⎤ [k ] = − ∫ Bp
T
k
B pdΩ (18)
⎢ ∂x 0 0
∂y ∂z
0
⎥ c Ω
e

γw
⎢ ⎥ ……………………….

L
T ⎢
= 0
∂
0
∂
0
∂ ⎥
....... (10)
is the diffusion matrix and
⎢ ∂z ⎥
k
∂y ∂x q=− ∫  T qdS −
∫ bwd Ω
T
N Bp (19)
⎢ ⎥ Γs p Ω
e

γw
⎢0 0
∂
0
∂ ∂ ⎥ ………………
∂z ⎢⎣ ∂x ⎥
∂y ⎦
Time Integration
The effective stress at any point inside an element is expressed
in terms of the element nodal displacements according to: The time derivative in Eqn. (17) can be discretized using
standard finite difference methods. The simplest strategy of
σ = DB u u
'
(11) discreting the above system in time space is commonly known
………………………………………
where: D is the constitutive matrix which can be elastic or as the θ -method(21-23), which is:
elasto-plastic. Δu ∂u ∂u
Substituting Eqn. (11) into Eqn. (9), gives the weak form of the = (1 − θ ) +θ ..................... (20)
force equilibrium equation for a single element. These equations Δt n ∂t n ∂t n +1

may be written as:

[k ] u + [ l ] p = f ext
(12) It should be noted that the θ -method is at least first order
accurate and, is unconditionally stable provided θ ≥ 0.5 .
m
…………………………….
where: Unconditional stability is an essential characteristic for an
[k ] = ∫ efficient time integration scheme since it is often necessary to
T
B DB u d Ω (13)
m Ω
e
u
…………………………… integrate over very long time periods using large time steps(22).
Choosing a value of θ = 1 gives the well-known backward
[l] = ∫ Ω
e
αB u mN p d Ω
(14)
T

Euler scheme which is first order accurate and unconditionally

……………………………
are the elemental elasto-plastic stiffness and coupling matrices stable(24). In the following numerical example, we choose θ = 1 .
and the right hand side term has the following form: Applying the θ -method on the above equation system and
assembling the element matrix produce a global system of
∫ ∫ ∫  tds
T T T
= N bd Ω + B σ0dΩ +
ext '
f e e
N (15) equations of the form:
Ω u Ω u Γh
u
……...
⎡K L ⎤ ⎧Δu ⎫ ⎧ ΔF ⎫
ext

⎥⎦ ⎨⎩Δp ⎬⎭ = ⎨ΔQ ⎬.................... (21)

m n n

⎢⎣ L
'
where: σ 0 is the initial geo-static effective stress vector.
⎩ ⎭
T
Kc
ext
n
By applying the Green-Gauss theorem and Galerkin method n

of weighted residuals to the mass balance equation gives the where:

weak form of the mass balance equation for fluid phase, which
reads:
Km = ∑∫ Ω
e
B u DB u d Ω ………………………… (22)
T

elem

k k
L= ∑∫ Ω
e
α B u mN p d Ω........................................ (23)
T

∫ N p m B u d Ωu − ∫ B p d Ωp = − ∫  T qdS −
∫ bwdΩ
T T T T
Bp N Bp elem

γw γw
Ω
e
Ω
e
Γs p Ω
e

k
……………………………………………………(16)
K c = −θΔt ∑∫ Bp
T
B p d Ω.............................. (24)
γw
e
Ω
elem

∂u
where: u =
∂t
is the velocity vector, q is the prescribed ΔFn =
ext
∑∫ e
Γh
 T ΔtdS +
N u ∑∫ Ω
e
N u Δb d Ω +
T
∑∫ Ω
e
B u σ 0 d Ω (25)
T '

elem elem elem

outward flow per unit area on the surface with flow rate
boundary conditions, N T is the shape function for fluid phase k
p
ΔQ
ext
=− ∑ Δt [ k ]p − ∑ Δt ∫ e
 q dS −
N
T

∑ Δt ∫ e
B
T
b dΩ −
γ
n c n p n p w

in boundary surface element, N p is the shape function for fluid

Γ Ω
s
elem elem elem
w

phase and B p = LN p . It should be noted that the shape function k

for the solid phase should be one order higher than that of the
∑ θΔt ∫ e
N Δq dS −
T

∑ θΔt ∫ e
B
T
Δb d Ω
γ
Γ p n Ω p w
s
elem elem

fluid phase. In the following numerical examples, we choose w

20-nodes quadratic hexahedron elements for solid phase and 8- ……………………………………………………(26)

nodes linear hexahedron elements for fluid phase. Similarly It should be noted that, for problems with constant flow rate
with Eqn. (12), Eqn. (16) can be written in a more compact boundary condition, we have Δqn = 0 . The unit weight of water
form:
is also a constant which means that Δb w = 0 . So the expression
[ l ] u + [k ] p = q …………………………….. (17)
T

for ΔQ n can be simplified to:

ext

where:

5

ΔQ n = −
ext
∑ Δt [k ] p − ∑ Δt ∫  T q dS −
N ∑ Δt ∫
γw
c n Γs p n Ω
e
elem elem elem
……………………………………………………(27)
Case Studies
In this section, the developed numerical model is used to
simulate and history match a field waste water injection project.
A slurry of petroleum waste was injected at a depth of about
470 m at the disposal well 14B-03-56-03 W4, which was
located at Frog Lake, Alberta. The petroleum waste slurry is a
mixture of slop oil and produced salt water with a composition
ranging from 33/67% to 55/45% by volume of slop oil and salt
water. According to the laboratory measurements, the viscosity
of the waste slurry mixture with a composition of 33/67% is
D
approximately 3340 cp at 22 C . A typical daily injection cycle
included 0.25 hours of produced water pre-flush, 12 hours of
waste slurry injection at an average rate of 160 cubic meter per
day followed by 2 hours of produced water post-flush. For
model demonstration purpose, we simulated 2 injection and fall-
off cycles and ignored the pre-flush and post-flush part. Figure
7 shows the well configuration and geological formation at the
injection site. The unconsolidated sand formation, at which the
slurry was injected, lies at the depth between -454 m to -489 m
and the perforation height is 20 m.
The initial minimum total stress can be obtained by taken
the value of formation closure pressure, which can be analyzed
from the pressure decline part on the original field injection data
(25)
. In this study, we choose 9 MPa as the value for the initial
minimum total stress. No direct measurement of maximum total
stress can be made from this hydraulic fracturing tests, however,
the value of maximum total stress can be estimated by taking
some topical values in Alberta sedimentary basin(26). The
vertical total stress gradient is taken as 22 kPa
m
values for minimum coefficients of lateral stress ( K 0 ) are 0.87
and 1.2 in each horizontal direction. Figure 8 shows the finite
element model, the values and directions of K 0 . The other
material properties used in this history matching are
summarized in Table 1.
History Matching of Bottom-Hole-Pressure (BHP)
versus Time Curve
We obtained a good history matching of field BHP versus
time curve by using the finite element model developed. Figure
9 shows the results of numerical history matching, on which 10
key points are located in the history matching curve to show the
stress path, the opening and closing of fractured zone,
respectively. It should be noted that, in order to be consistent
with our modeling approach, we define the fractured zone as the
element set which undergoing plastic deformation. This
fractured zone consists two parts, which are plastic shear failure
part and fully fractured part. Inside the fractured zone, the
unconsolidated formation has low effective stresses and high
permeability with strong anisotropy.
Figure 10 shows the simulated stress path from point 0 to 6,
k marked on Figure 9. We may notice that, from point 0 to point
T
Bp bwd Ω 1, the stress path passes through the elastic region and touches
the plastic failure line at the very early stage of injection. After
plastic failure, the stress path moves along the plastic failure
line until the injection well was shut in. We simulated the shut
in phase as an unloading process, in which the formation always
behaves elastically. In the re-injection phase, the stress path
passes through the elastic region and finally goes to the plastic
failure stage. We can expect that the stress path may go to the
fully fractured region, which was shown in Figure 3, as long as
the injection time is long enough. Also, it should be noted that,
after the stress path touches the intersection of plastic failure
line and horizontal axis, it will stay at this special point, as long
as the injection rate remains unchanged or becomes larger. This
is the advantage of using the tensile stress cut-off model.
Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the 2D and 3D shapes of
fractured zone at 0.5 hours and 15 hours, respectively. We can
notice that the orientation of the fractured zone is consistent
with our K 0 values. According to our numerical model
formulation, the fractured zone should initiate perpendicular to
the initial minimum effective principal stress. In this simulation,
the initial minimum effective principal stress parallel to the x
axis, which means that the vertical fractured zone with the
orientation perpendicular to x axis should be predicted. Figure
13 shows the absolute permeability near the injection well
changes with distance at the end of the first injection cycle.
Figure 14 shows the relationship between the anisotropic strain
tensor and the induced anisotropic permeability tensor inside
the fractured zone. It is shown that a strong anisotropic
permeability tensor is induced due to the strong anisotropic
strain tensor. The value for maximum absolute principal
permeability increases from 0.4 md to 500 md , while the
minimum absolute principal permeability increases from
0.4 md to around 40 md . The directions of the three principal
permeability do not have to be aligned with any predefined
directions and the two larger ones are always perpendicular to
the largest principal strain.
, thus, the
Conclusion
This paper presents the finite element simulation and
constitutive modeling of hydraulic fracturing in unconsolidated
sands formation within the framework of continuum mechanics.
Microscopically, the physical mechanism of fracturing the
unconsolidated sands is identified as the losing in particle
contacts among particles in all directions. Macroscopically, the
hydraulic fracturing of unconsolidated formation is modeled as
a large area of dilation zone or a net of micro-cracks, inside
which the low effective stresses are low and hydraulic
conductivity are high. To this end, a poro-elasto-plastic
constitutive model with tensile stress cut-off and a strain
induced anisotropic full permeability tensor were implemented
into a fully coupled finite element geomechanical solver.
Finally, a history matching of field hydraulic fracturing data is
presented as a case study, which attests the capability of our
numerical model. By history-matching the field bottom-hole-
pressure versus time curve from hydraulic fracturing tests, a set
of field-validated geomechanical models can be obtained, which
is an important asset for any further works on the use of
geomechanics to enhance the performance of injection and
production.
6
Acknowledgements
⎡∂ ∂ ∂ ⎤
This work would not be possible without funding from the ⎢ ∂x 0 0
∂y ∂z
0
⎥
Alberta Department of Energy (ADOE), Imperial Oil Resource ⎢ ⎥
Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
L
T ⎢
= 0
∂
0
∂
0
∂ ⎥
Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of Calgary. ⎢ ∂y ∂x ∂z ⎥
The authors thank WESTGRID in the University of Calgary,
⎢ ⎥
which provides us the facilities for high performance
computing.
⎢0 0
∂
0
∂ ∂ ⎥
⎢⎣ ∂z ∂x ∂y ⎥
⎦
D = Constitutive matrix for solid phase
NOMENCLATURE De = Elastic constitutive matrix
Coefficients for strain induced full Dep = Elasto-plastic constitutive matrix
a, b =
permeability model '
σ0 = Initial geo-static effective stress [kPa]
λ = Permeability Multiplier
km = Elemental elasto-plastic stiffness matrix
σ Pore volume [cm3]
'
=
F = Yield surface l = Elemental coupling matrix
ext
q = Deviatoric stress [kPa] f = Right hand side load vector for solid phase
S = Deviatoric stress tensor [kPa] ∂u
I = Unit matrix u = = Velocity vector
∂t
β = Fraction angle [Degree]
q = Prescribed outward flow per unit area on the
d = Cohesion [kPa] surface with flow rate boundary conditions
Pt = Tensile strength [kPa] 
N p
= Shape function for fluid phase in boundary
G = Plastic potential surface element
ψ = Dilation angle [Degree]
Np = Shape function for fluid phase
d ε pl = Increment of plastic strain
dλ = Consistency parameter B p = LN p = Fluid velocity matrix
'
p = Effective mean stress [kPa] kc = Diffusion matrix
p = Pore pressure [kPa] q = Right hand side load vector for fluid phase
ε = Strain tensor
k = Permeability tensor Km = Global elasto-plastic stiffness matrix
ki = Principal value of permeability tensor Kc = Global diffusion matrix
b = Body force of solid phase [kN/m3] L = Global coupling matrix
bw = Body force of fluid phase [kN/m3] Δt = Time step
α ΔFn
ext
= Biot coefficient = Global load vector for solid phase at time
m = [1,1,1, 0, 0, 0 ]
step n

ΔQ n
ext
= Global load vector for fluid phase at
Vector of direction cosines for the unit
n = outward normal to the boundary surface
time step n

Ωe = Element volume REFERENCES

1. ADACHI, J., SIEBRITS, E., PEIRCE, A. and
Γh Element surface area subjected to boundary
e
=
tractions DESROCHES, J., Computer Simulation of Hydraulic
Fractures; International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
t = External surface tractions [kPa] Mining Sciences, Vol. 44, No.5, pp. 739-757, 2007.
N = Shape function for solid phase in boundary 2. CARTER, B. J., DESROCHES, J., INGRAFFEA, A. R.
u

surface element and WAWRZYNEK, P. A., Computer Simulation of

Hydraulic Fractures; Modeling in Geomechanics: Wiley
Nu = Shape function for solid phase Publishers, 2000.
3. CHANG, H., Hydraulic Fracturing in Particulate
B u = LN u = Strain rate-velocity matrix Materials; PhD Thesis, Department of Civil
L = Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,Georgia,
Differential operator, which can be expressed
2006.
as:
4. WU, R., Some Fundamental Mechanisms of Hydraulic
Fracturing; PhD Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,Georgia,
2006.

7
5. ZHAI, Z., Fracturing and Fracture Reorientation in 20. DETOURNAY, E. and CHENG, A.-H, Fundamentals of
Unconsolidated Sands and Sandstones; PhD Poroelasticity; Comprehensive Rock Engineering pp.
Thesis,Department of Petroleum and Geoscience 113-171. New York: Pergamon, 1991.
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.2006. 21. SHENG, D. and SLOAN, S. W., Time Stepping
6. GIL, I., Hydraulic Fracturing of Poorly Consolidated Schemes for Coupled Displacement and Pore Pressure
Formations: Considerations on Rock Properties and Analysis; Computational Mechanics, Vol. 31, No.1-2,
Failure Mechanisms; PhD Thesis,Department of pp. 122-134, 2003.
Petroleum and Geological Engineering, The University 22. SLOANS, S. W. and ABBO, A. J., Biot Consolidation
of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, 2006. Analysis with Automatic Time Stepping and Error
7. BOHLOLI, B. and PATER, C. J. D., Experimental Control Part 1: Theory and Implementation;
Study on Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft Rocks: Influence International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
of Fluid Rheology and Confining Stress; Journal of Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 23, No.6, pp. 467-492,
Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 53, No.1-2, 1999.
pp. 1-12, 2006. 23. SLOANS, S. W. and ABBO, A. J., Biot Consolidation
8. WONG, R. C. K., BARR, W. E. and KRY, P. R., Analysis with Automatic Time Stepping and Error
Stress-Strain Response of Cold Lake Oil Sand; Control Part 2: Applications; International Journal for
Canadian Geotechnial Journal, Vol. 30, No.2, pp. 220- Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
235, 1993. Vol. 23, No.6, pp. 493-529, 1999.
9. WAN, R. G., CHAN, D. H. and KOSAR, K. M., A 24. WOOD, W. L., Practical Time Steping Schemes;
Constitutive Model for Effective Stress–Strain Oxford, Clarendon Press., 1990.
Behaviour of Oil Sands; Journal of Canadian 25. ZOBACK, M.D., BARTON, C.A., BRUDY, M.,
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 30, No.3, pp. 22-28, 1991. CASTILLO, D.A., FINKBEINER, T., GROLLIMUND,
10. DU, J., Development of Finite Element Models for B. R., MOOS, D. B., PESKA, P., WARD, C. D. and
Thermal Multiphase Flow in Deformable Porous Media WIPRUT, D. J., Determination of Stress Orientation and
with Anisotropic Full Permeability Tensor; PhD Thesis, Magnitude in Deep Wells; International Journal of Rock
Department of Civil Engineering,The University of Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 40, No.7-8, pp.
Calgary,Calgary, 2006. 1049-1076, 2003.
11. WONG, R. C. K., Strain-Induced Anisotropy in Fabric 26. BELL, J. S., PRICE, P. R. and MCLELLAN, P. J., In-
and Hydraulic Parameters of Oil Sand in Triaxial Situ Stress in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin;
Compression; Canadian Geotechnial Journal, Vol. 40, Calgary, AB, ISPG/ARC/CSPG, 1994.
pp. 489-500, 2003.
12. WONG, R. C. K., A Model for Strain-Induced
Permeability Anisotropy in Deformable Granular Media;
Canadian Geotechnial Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 95-106,
2003.
13. BORJA, R. I., SAMA, K. M. and SANZ, P. F., On the
Numerical Integration of Three-Invariant Elastoplastic
Constitutive Models; Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 192, No.9-10, pp.
1227-1258, 2003.
14. HOULSBY, G. T., AMOROSI, A. and ROJAS, E.,
Elastic Moduli of Soils Dependent on Pressure: A
Hyperelastic Formulation; Geotechnique, Vol. 55, No.5,
pp. 383-392, 2005.
15. ABAQUS, ed., ABAQUS Theory Manual, v6.8;
Pawtucket, USA: SIMULIA,2008.
16. SIMO, J. C. and TAYLOR, R. L., Consistent Tangent
Operators for Rate-Independent Elastoplasticity;
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 48, No.1, pp. 101-119, 1985.
17. SIMO, J. C. and TAYLOR, R. L., A Return Mapping
Algorithm for Plane Stress Elastoplasticity;
International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 649-670, 1986.
18. BORJA, R. I. and LEE, S. R., Cam-Clay Plasticity, Part
I: Implicit Integration of Elastoplastic Constitutive
Relations; Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 78, No.1, pp. 49-72, 1990.
19. BORJA, R. I., Cam-Clay Plasticity, Part II: Implicit
Integration of Constitutive Equation Based a Nonlinear
Elastic Stress Predictor; Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 88, No.2, pp. 225-240,
1991.

8
Tables and Figures
Table 1 : Material Properties for History Matching
Stress Induced Drucker–Prager Plasticity Strain Induced Anisotropic Full
Anisotropic Elasticity Permeability
Name n g K β ψ a b λ
Pt
Value 0.58 120 550 40 30 20 2.0 6.0 100
where: n, g , K are three parameters for stress induced anisotropic elasticity; β is the friction angle, ψ is the dilation angle;
a, b are two parameters for strain induced full permeability model; λ is the permeability multiplier for fracturing.

Figure 1 : Different modes of granular interaction (Wong 1991)

Figure 2 : Modeling induced permeability enhancement

9
 Figure 3 : Solid matrix mechanical behaviour change

Figure 4 : Relations of anisotropic stress tensor, strain tensor and permeability tensor

10
Figure 5 : Horizontally induced fracture zone around a horizontal injection well under K = 1.2
0

Figure 6 : Vertically induced fracture zone around a horizontal injection well under K = 0.8
0

11
Figure 7 : Disposal well configuration and geological formation at Frog Lake site

12
Figure 8 : Finite element model of history matching

Figure 9 : Results of numerical history matching---Bottom-hole-pressure versus injection time

13
Figure 10 : Stress path in the first and second injection/shut-in cycles

Figure 11 : Fractured zone at injection time=0.5 hr

14
 Figure 12 : Fractured zone at injection time=15 hrs

Figure 13 : Absolute permeability near the injection well change with distance at the end of first injection
cycle (Point 4, Injection time=15 hrs)

15
Figure 14 : Anisotropic strain tensor and induced anisotropic permeability tensor (Point 4, Injection
time=15 hrs)

16