Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spe 2458 Pa
Spe 2458 Pa
I
With the design charts presented here, and nothing more eiaborate than c slide ride,
it is possible to predict the dimensions oj either a linearly or a radially propagating,
hydraulically induced jracture around a wellbore.
application of the theory is concerned. infinitely large fluid velocities at the injection point.
For a linearly expanding fracture, we may equally
Mathematical Formulation of the well tdte f.,0 = o without introducing ‘)’ ‘ficul~.
Fracture-Extension Process The theory of elasticity provides general relations be-
Under conditions of laminar flow, liquid in a narrow tween the fracture width w and an arbitrary normal-
space between two parallel surfaces experiences a stress distribution p over the fracture walls. For a
resistance due to its viscosity, To balance this resist- linearly expandkg fracture, England and Green,’ as-
ance the liquid pressure in the fracture decreases with suming plane strain conditions, found that
increasing distance from the injection point. Viscous-
flow theory (Poisseuille) relates the fluid-pressure w= 4(1– V)L ‘ f,df,
gdid ~0
AI_
IIIC
- l~iCLUIC
r--------- ....A+l.
WIUU1.
ma- ~mI:”-n*l.,
AU. UU=.J
awwa”A-
w~Y-.u-
(r
ing fracture in impermeable rock under the condition “G !{ ‘~’’-~”
of constant injection rates, thk leads to: iz
—.
pm–p= J ~;... f,. P (fI) d fl
‘+s~l – j.’
12p QL (1) ~J ~f,’ – f,’
h ~3 )
f1.w . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
and for a radially expanding fracture it leads to:
into
In these formulas f. = x/L and j~ = r/R represent
fractions of the fracture extent, L and R, respectively,
fEw = RJR, if Rw = wellbore radius or
equivalent height of perforated
interval . . . . . . . . . . (4)
fLw = R,JL In these formulas G and v represent the elastic de-
P = local fluid pressure, PW= fluid pressure formation constants of the rock (the shear modulus
at wellbore and Poisson’s ratio), fl and f? are fmctions of the ex-
Q = injection rate, assumed to be constant tent of the fracture, and S is a constant external load-
1’ = fracturing-fluid viscosity ing that represents the tectonic stress normal to the
h = height of a linearly expanding fracture, fracture plane.
and The two equations (Eqs. 1 and 3 or Eqs. 2 and 4),
w = local fracture width.
together with the appropriate boundary conditions,
In the case of a radially expanding fracture, the determine the shape of the fracture. The hydraulic
wellbore radius must be introduced in order to avoid fracturing process in a brittle material such as a res-
_.— --
. _.—. — —-—. —
---- —.
1’----’
Fig. lA-Cross.setion of radially propagating fracture Fig. lB-Schematic view of linearly propagating f racture
A+h Isw-ninar
... .,, .“, . .. . f!~w.
. ....-. fli!i~ with Iaminar fluid flow.
K
“r
o
P (fL) d fL
~1 – fL2
=+s+——
~2L ‘
and the shape is parabolic except for a narrow zone
near the tip
W2 =
and Ww’(l–jz). . . . . . . (12)
1
~QG3
fR P (fR) d fR K Eq. 12 is valid for << 1, again say
d s’ R’
f ~1 ‘fR2 ‘s+~n’
jRIO SR
<0.05, or w. < — .
respectively, G
The fluid pressure at the entrance of the fracture
‘~Ea (r= RJ decreases with increasing fracture radius R
in which K = — = Barenblatt’s cohesion
d l–v’ according to
modulus. In this- expression E = Young’s modulus
and a the specific surface energy. Our theory thus 5 Gww
4 K, pm=S–~&nfrw-
assumes that 2L > ~ ~ and that 2R >$, re-
In terms of the Reynolds number, laminar flow con-
spectively.) ditions are now fullilled provided NRe equals Q p/
~ ~ ~ ~ !e~~ than 1,000. The fracturing fluid will
Equations for Fracture Wldtb and Shape usually behave in a Iaminar fashion, except in a cer-
In Appendices A and B approximate solutions for the tain area near the wellbore. As long as this area is
sets of equations @qs. 1, 3, 5 and Eqs. 2, 4, 6) are Iimited to a few well radii, it will hardly invalidate
derived. For a linearly propagating fracture the maxi- the theory given.
mum width at the origin amounts approximately to
Effect of Formation Permeability
4 ~QL2 on Fracture Dimensions
Ww =2.1 T,..... (7)
i
Communication between fracture volume and the
surface area (increasing with time) of the fracture. L,= ~ and R,’ ==, respectively.
A equals approximately 4Lh for the linear case (two- ~ we
2aL
●(
1 + ea.z dc UL , . (21)
G– )
30$
2a.
Cz (4 Wwe + 15 s,)
~L=+i7H~++!+=q’
and
results
this
of Baron ●t d“
poper 1
8?? _.
KU=~KL, – —
‘“ – 15 ‘R”
—’””
6“+-1=--F \
Asymptote for WW [in,. WP=r)
These figures are in fact convenient graphical solu-
\\
12
\
tions of the general problem. 1.
Discussion
Fracture-width equations of the type repmented by
Eqs. 7 and 11 — except for significant differences in 400 I I I
l“u?
I
%e
‘°Fm
m
main difference between their approach and ours is
that the French authors have not used an analytical
“-r
approximate solution, but have solved the problem
—Anolytmi solutlon, this poper
numerically. Some of their computer results are com- - —-computer r.sdts d Baron ●t at 1
pared with our analytical ones in Figs. 4 and 5. These
figures show how the fluid-loss coefficient influences ~—
fracture width and extent for some chosen values of -J t -80 mm
I
the shear modulus of the formation, the fracturing
fluid viscosity, pumping time and injection rate, cor-
responding to those used by Baron et aL Because the
French authors dld not take into account any spurt-
Ioss effectj all comparisons are made for KS = co.
Asym ptote for Wwe (this POper)
3
I
1’
~R=A!l
Qw 1
+1’1~
1
1: ’:1 \
o~o x:-+ --I--L--------L-- --- L--L -:--------?
\\
? \\ 2
\\
\ \\
\
l\I. 1
\\ )
J&
.325 ,0-2 2 5
‘
,“-1
0
C cm &
K.. -
W.?
Fig. 5-Fracture dimensions as a function of fluid-loss
Fig. 3-Fracture design chart No. 2, radial case. coefficient (radially propagating fracture).
Applications
In Figs. 6 and 7 we show how the fracture width at
the wellbore increases with pumping time for practical
values of G, p and C. From these last two figures it is
clear that even after a very short injection time a frac- O =35 bbl/min t =33 min
ture frequently becomes wide enough to permit the
passage of propping agents of rather large size. Again, h =70 ft G= 5 X104 kg/cml
m
in these examples the spurt-loss is not talcen into ac-
count. The need to use a highly viscous fracturing would have been adequate, the new composition was
fluid for a particular field case can be determined by not. Under the altered conditions, a fracture length
Wwe
mm mm
16 5
I I
I
IL
L
12 Q=5&
10 ~
3
( # T ~=#!L*
8 // ~
, 2 {
6 a
//{ — Q=I*
L 4/-- G- 109kgf/c.ti
1
~w 25 CP
I
I C _ aol cm/ K&
I
o
o 1 2 3 L 5 6 1 8 mm
t t
F@ ~ln~rease in fracture width with time Fig. 7—increase in fracture width with time
(linearly propagating fracture). (ratiiaihy --- .+1.. ” S-+,,rml
prupagcauit~ ,8-...-. -,.
We wish to thank A. C. van der Vlis for providing where we suppose, a priori, fLo+ 1. Barenblatt’s con-
the data on the field application.-mentioned
. ..- in the last dition equation (Eq. 5) gives, with such a distribution,
section, and the management ot Shell Kesearcit N.-v’.,
The Hague, The Netherlands, for permission to pub-
~Lo= sin~~ . . . . . . . (A-1)
lish this paper.
The fracture shape resulting from this pressure dis-
References
tribution follows from Eq. 3
1. England, A. H. and Green, A. E.: “Some Two-Dimen-
sional Punch and Crack Problems in Classical Elastici-
ty”, Proc., Cambridge Phil. Sot. ( 1963) 59, 489.
2. Sneddon, I. N.: “The Distribution of Stress in the Neigh-
borhood of a Crack in an Elastic Solid”, Proc., Royal
Society of London (1946) A 187, 229.
3. Zheitov, Yu. P. and Khristianovitch, S. A.: “The Hy-
draulic . Fracturing . “.-”=
of an ,-8.Oil-Producing Formation”,
Izvest. AKad. ‘N’auKxi3K, udd ~eicii%iik (~%5 ) No.
3, 41.
4. Barenblatt, G. I.: “The Mathematical Theory of Equi-
librium Cracks in Brittle Fracture”, Advances in Applied
Mechanics ( 1962) 7, 56.
5. Perkins, T. K. and Krech, W. W.: “The Energy Balance This shows that the maximum fracture width at the
Concept of Hydraulic Fracturing”, .SOC. Pet. Eng. J.
(March, 1968) 1-12. wellbore amounts to
6. Geertsma, J.: “Problems of Rock Mechanics in Petro-
leum Production Engineering”, Proc., First Cong. Intl.
Sot. of Mech., Lisbon (1966) I, 585.
7. Sadowsky, M. A.: “Thermal Shock on a Circular Surface
of Exposure of an Elastic Half Space”, J. Appl. Mech. For fLo+ 1 this reduces to
(1955) 22, 177.
8. Howard, G. C. and Fast, C. R.: “Optimum Fluid Char-
acterishcs for Fracture Extension”, Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1957) 261.
9. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, M. Abramowitz whereas a good approximation of the equ~lbrium
and 1. A. Stegun, eds., Natl. Bureau of Standards, New condition (Eq. A-1) is
York (1964).
.,, ,-. ,.
IU.rerKiiss,T. K. aitd Kern, ~. It.: “W;A*L”
,.1“”1. “.
af ...”.”-----
uv~=~~li~
Fractures”, J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1961) 937-949.
11. Baron, G,. et al.: “Fracturaiion nytirauiique; bases iiik-
oriques, etudes de iaboratoire, essais sur champ”, Proc.,
Seventh World Pet. Cong. (1967)3, 371. Combining the last two approximations leads to
i2 Khristianovitch, S. A. and Zheltov,4 Yu. P.: “Forrnatjon
of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Fluid”,
Proc., Fourth World Pet. Cong. ( 1955) II, 579.
12p QL d fL
pw =
h W,.3 r– W’
.0 16p QG3 ;
is examined in Fig. 9 for a number of values of f~.. f“”+l-v~T () “
Again, when f,,. ~ 1, a good approximation appears
to be With ~ = p., j- S and tie condition fLO >0.95 Y
condition (9) results. It follows that the region of zero
fLo
/0
+s
,____ ,—.
0.5- --1 ~-
I
.:1 ~ I
o’ ~o;cu,atd Wants ~ .—
I
~~fL”j, ,,l:c ~ - “ - :
08
~, Ws=l 55
0.6 -
: ---”-””’TTx
1’1 \ \ 1
P
o, –.+
,/”
--- ; ---1- :------- --:-- y
0.4 I
\ I
I ;!
I
! I I J
1
i!i o 088 0w.
I 100 096 092
0.2 ‘k
~~;j!!~
It is of interest to note that Perkins and Kern’” we find the fracture width at the fracture origin to be
obtained expressions for the fracture width of hy-
draulically induced fractures for some other geome- ~,o=4(l–v)R ~l_E)a+
tries, including the one to be discussed in Appendix TG [
B. The results show qualitative agreement with the
theory outlined here, Their determination of the flow
resistance in the fracture, however, is not based on
&e(S+aln2)
APPENDIX B
Fracture Width Determination for the
fR.
Radial Mode of Propagation
During radial fracture propagation, the situation near
the tip is essentially the same as that in the case of
. . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
With the exception of the region close to the tip, i.e.,
when fR < fR., the 10f@hIUiC h?rms can be further
simplified to
fRo
:
+a
w fR
1.
f12
flz –
– fR2
f,twz d f’ –
This provides
‘f
f,2
’2–fR’
– fRo2
df, + . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
h )
fm The second term in this expression for w is a correc-
tion to the elliptical shape predicted by the first term.
+~~l–fR’
{[
h
I - ;;:fR.2 (k)]+:} This second term disappears for a ~ O (that is, if the
pressure drop due to flow resistance is neglected) and
. . . . . . . . . . (B-2) thus p is constant. The exact level of the correction
The same expression holds fOr jR > fRo, provided that term is not so important. The value of a depends on
fRo is replaced by fR in the lower limits of the integrals. ~, which will not be greater than WW.In what follows
P
we willtake;= 2/3 is ~ equal to the aver-
wW, that m
1
age value of the ellipsoid having the semiaxes w. and 1
I
RfR., and prevmg when P is cons~t. In fact> ~k- I
- ----- d.,,
Fig. io-fiuki PM=U,= ~i +Pifyltinq
-.-.
in a radially
propagating fracture for various values of fgo
and (f,. = 0.015andv== 0.25J.
fjw = 0.005 to 0.095.
First a value of jEo is assumed. Then WWfollows At the smallest value used for the S-parameter, the
from Eq. B-3, with the factor a expressed in terms of