Hydraulic Fracturing

Short Course,
Texas A&M University
College Station
2005

Fracture Dimensions

Peter P. Valkó

Fracture Dimensions
 Proppant Placement

Fracture
Dimensions
2
 Proppant Placement Concepts

 From dynamic width (hydraulic) to propped

width (after frac closes on proppant)
 Areal proppant concentration
 Added proppant concentration
 Max added proppant conc
 Proppant (placement) efficiency

Fracture
Dimensions
3
 Proppant Transport: Settling

 Settling causes problems

 proppant efficiency decreases (proppant
leaves pay layer)
 screenout danger

 No settling in “perfect” transport fluid

 Viscosity (rheology) and density
difference
(Foams: visc good, dens: bad)
Fracture
Dimensions
4
 Design Logics

 Height is known (see height map)

 Amount of proppant to place is given (from NPV)
 Target length is given (see opt frac dimensions)
 Fluid leakoff characteristics is known
 Rock properties are known
 Fluid rheology is known
 Injection rate, max proppant concentratrion is given
 How much fluid? How long to pump? How to add
Fracture proppant?
Dimensions
5
 Key concept: Width Equation

 Fluid flow creates friction

 Friction pressure is balanced by injection
pressure
 Net pressure is positive
 Fracture width is determined by net
pressure and characteristic dimension
(half length or half height)
 The combination of fluid mechanics and
Fracture
Dimensions
solid mechanics
6
 Two approximations:

 Perkins-Kern-(Nordgren)
 Vertical plane strain
 characteristic half-length ( c ) is half height, h/2
 elliptic cross section

 Kristianovich-Zheltov - (Gertsmaa-deKlerk)
 Horizontal plane strain
 characteristic half length ( c ) is xf
 rectangular vross section
Fracture
Dimensions
7
 Width Equations (consistent units)

Perkins-Kern-Nordgren PKN
1/ 4
width: w, wo, wwell,o  qi x f 
ww, 0 = 3.27 
viscosity:   E' 
inj. rate (1 wing): qi w  0.628ww, 0
half-length: xf
plain-strain Kristianovich-Zheltov
modulus: E' Geertsma-De-Klerk KGD
height: hf 1/ 4
 qi x 2

ww = 3.22 
f
 E' h 
Vf = w(h f x f )  f 
Fracture
Dimensions
w  0.785ww
8
 PKN Power-Law Width Equation

 With equivalent viscosity at average shear

rate
 the maximum width at the wellbore is
1
n
1 n
1  2.14n  2n2
1  qi h1f  n x f
n
 2n 2
ww, 0 = 9.15 2n2
 3.98 2n2
K 2n2  
 n   E' 
 

ww,0 Power Law fluid

K: Consistency (lbf/ft2)·sn
n: Flow behavior index
Fracture
Dimensions
9
 Material balance +Width Equation

Vf = w(h f x f ) 2qi
Vf = w A Vi = qi te
xf
Vfe = Vi - Vlost

Average
w(xf)
qi
A
hf
Lost: spurt +leakoff
Fracture
Dimensions
10
 Pumping time, fluid volume, proppant
schedule: Design of frac treatments

Pumping time and fluid volume:

Injected = contained in frac + lost
length reached, width created

Proppant schedule:
End-of-pumping concentration is uniform,
mass is the required
Given:
Mass of proppant, target length, frac height, inj rate,
rheology, elasticity modulus, leakoff coeff, max-possible-
proppant-added-conc
Fracture
Dimensions
11
 Pumping time, slurry volume (1 wing)

1 Calculate the wellbore width at the end of pumping from the

PKN (Power Law version) n
1
1 n
1  2.14n  2 n 2
1  q h xf 
n 1 n 2n2
ww, 0 = 9.15 2n2
 3.98 2n2
K 2n2  i f 
 n   E ' 
  
2 Convert max wellbore width into average width
we  0.628ww, 0

3 Assume a  = 1. 5 and solve the mat balance for inj time,

(selecting sqrt time as the new unknown)
 qi 
  t   2κ C  t  (we  2 S p )  0
h x  L
 f f 
4 Calculate injected volume Vi  qi te
V h x w
Fracture 5 Calculate fluid efficiency e = fe  f f e
Dimensions Vi Vi
12
 Nolte’s power law proppant schedule:
1
C/C e 1
 dx 

x
1 0
1 

1
y = Area  (1  f pad )
1 

slurry Nolte's proposition:

select fpad=
0 1 V/Vi 1 
fpad  Area 
1
1 
0
M  ce    Vi
1 
 1 
1 M  ce  Vi 
Fracture
Dimensions
1 
13
 Proppant schedule calculation

1  e
1 Calculate the Nolte exponent of the proppant 
1  e
concentration curve
V pad  Vi
2 Calculate the pad volume and the time needed to
pump it
t pad  te

3 The required max proppant concentration, ce M

ce 
eVi
should be (mass/slurry-volume)

 t  t pad 
4 The required proppant concentration c  ce  
t t 
 e pad 
(mass/slurry-volume) curve

5 Convert it to “added proppant mass to volume of c

cadded 
c
Fracture clean fluid” (mass/clean-fluid-volume) 1
Dimensions  propp
14
 Gross and Net Height

2qi
Vi = qi te
Vfe = Vi - Vlost
2D design: hf is given
A
hf

hp Lost: spurt +leakoff

Fracture rp= hp /hf

Dimensions
15
 Ex_2: Frac Design
Pay: 45 ft Gross: 67.5 ft (Gross = hf)

Proppant mass (2wing) = 100,000 lbm is available

2/3 will go to pay layer

Slurry injection rate (2qi) = 30 bpm

Created fracture height is 67.5 ft
E' = 2.08 106 psi

Power Law rheology:

K' = 0.022 lbf/(ft2 sec0.63) and n' = 0.63

Leakoff coefficient (w.r.t. perm zone) CL,p = 0.003 ft/min1/2

Spurt loss is negligible
Fracture
Dimensions
16 Blender can do max 12 ppga
 Proppant mass for (two wings), lbm 100,000
Sp grav of proppant material (water=1) 2.65
Porosity of proppant pack 0.35
Proppant pack permeability, md 60,000
Formation permeability, md 0.5
Permeable (leakoff, net) thickness, ft 45
Well Radius, ft 0.328
Well drainage radius, ft 3000
Pre-treatment skin factor 0
Fracture height, ft 67.5
Plane strain modulus, E’ , psi 2.08×106
Slurry injection rate (2 wings, liq+prop), bpm 30
Rheology, K' (lbf/ft2)×sn' 0.0220
Rheology, n' 0.63
Fracture
Leakoff coefficient in perm layer, ft/min0.5 0.003
Dimensions
17
Spurt loss coefficient, Sp, gal/ft2 0
 Ex_2 Proppant placement efficiency is 66.7%

The fracture height is 1.5 times the pay layer thickness,

therefore approximately 66,700 lbm proppant will be
placed into the pay (2 wings).

The mass of proppant in one wing will be 50,000 lbm

from which 33,300 lbm will be in the pay layer.

Fracture
Dimensions
18
 Ex_2 Modified Target

Proppant mass placed (2 wing), lb 100,000

Proppant in pay, (2 wing) lb 66,700
Proppant number, Np 0.117
Dimensionless PI, JDact 0.48
Dimensionless fracture cond, CfD 1.6
Half length, xf, ft 718
Propped width, wp, inch 0.115
Post treatment pseudo skin factor, sf -6.3
Folds of increase of PI 4.0

Fracture
Dimensions
19
 Ex_2 Input in Consistent Units (SI)

n'  0.63
K '  1.053 Pa  s 0.63 M1w, pay  33,333 lbm  15,120 kg

E '  2.08  106 psi  1.436  1010 Pa M1w  50,000 lbm  22,680 kg

h p  45 ft  13.72 m

h f  67.5 ft  20.57 m rp  0.6667

x f  718 ft  219 m

 0.00264979 m 3 /s 
qi  15 bpm     0.03975 m /s
3

 l bpm 

ft  0.0393495 m/s 0.5  4

CL, p  0.003     1 .18  10 m/s 0.5

min 0.5  l ft/min 0.5 

Fracture
Dimensions
20
 Ex_2 Modified (Apparent) Leakoff Coefficient
is 2/3-rd of CL,p

The fracture height is 1.5 times the pay layer

The apparent leakoff coefficient will be only

CL = 0.667 CLp = 0.787×10-4 m/s0.5

Fracture
Dimensions
21
 Ex_2 Pumping time, slurry volume (1 wing)

1 Calculate the wellbore width at the end of pumping from the

PKN (Power Law version) 1
n
1 n
1  2.14n  2n 2
1  q h xf 
n 1 n 2n2
ww, 0 = 9.15 2n2
 3.98 2n2
K 2n2  i f 
 n   E ' 

ww,0 = 0.0102 m  0.402 in.
2 Convert max wellbore width into average width
we  0.628ww, 0
we = 0.0064 m  0.252 in.
Fracture
Dimensions
22
 Ex_2 Pumping time, slurry volume (cont’d)

3 Assume a  = 1. 5 and solve the mat balance for inj time,

 qi 
  t  (2  1.5  CL ) t  (w e )  0
 hf xf 
x t
The positive root of the quadratic equation is
x = 43.4 s0.5 therefore the injection time is te = 43.42 s
= 31.4 min.

4 Once the injection time is known, calculate the

injected slurry volume (1 wing)
Vi  q i  t e  75.0 m 3  2,649 ft 3  19,810 gallon
Fracture
Dimensions
23
 Ex_2 Efficiency

Volume of 1 wing at end of pumping:

V fe  x f  h f  we  28.8 m 3

5 Fluid efficiency:
V fe
e   0.385  38.5 %
Vi

Fracture
Dimensions
24
 Ex_2 Proppant concentration at end of pumping

M1w 22,680 kg kg lb m
ce   3
 788 3  49 3
Vfe 28.8 m m ft

This concentration is mass proppant per volume of

slurry.
We want this to be the proppant concentration
everywhere in the fracture at the end of pumping.
This should be the proppant concentration in the last
injected slurry stage.

In terms of added proppant to clean liquid this is

1133 kg added to 1 m3 clean liquid, 70.8 lbm added to
Fracture
1 ft3 clean fluid that is 9.3 ppga (lbm proppant added
Dimensions
25
to 1 gallon clean fluid)
 Ex_2 Proppant schedule

1  e 1  0.385
Nolte exponent     0.445
1  e 1  0.385
V pad  Vi  0.445  75.0 m 3  82.8 m 3
Pad
t pad    te  0.445  31.5 min  14.0 min
0.445
 t 
Propp  t  t pad 

  14.0 
kg
c  ce    788 3   min 
concentration t t
 e pad

 m  31.5  14.0 
 
 
This is kg proppant in 1 m3 of slurry
c
Convert it “propp-added-to-clean” cadded 
c
1
Fracture  propp
Dimensions
26
 Ex_2 Stages at end of pumping (after PWC)

Proppant
9 6 to 9 lb/gal Settling
2 to
lb/gal 1 lb/gal
9 lb/gal
concentrated
3 to 9 lb/gal to 9 lb/gal

Fracture
Dimensions
27
 t Liq_rate (2w) Cum_liq Propp Cum Propp xf wave
min bpm gal ppga lbm ft inch
0.00 30.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.000

14.16 30.00 17836 0.00 0 434.9 0.216

14.94 28.06 18763 1.53 1,416 450.1 0.219
15.73 27.15 19660 2.33 3,501 465.0 0.221
16.51 26.50 20535 2.92 6,057 479.6 0.223
17.30 25.98 21393 3.42 8,994 493.9 0.225
18.09 25.53 22236 3.87 12,260 507.9 0.227
18.87 25.13 23066 4.28 15,816 521.7 0.229
19.66 24.77 23884 4.67 19,637 535.3 0.231
20.45 24.44 24692 5.03 23,700 548.7 0.232
21.23 24.13 25489 5.38 27,990 561.8 0.234
22.02 23.84 26276 5.72 32,491 574.8 0.236
22.81 23.56 27054 6.04 37,193 587.5 0.237
23.59 23.30 27824 6.36 42,085 600.1 0.239
24.38 23.05 28585 6.66 47,158 612.6 0.240
25.17 22.82 29339 6.96 52,405 624.8 0.242
25.95 22.59 30085 7.26 57,818 636.9 0.243
26.74 22.37 30824 7.54 63,392 648.9 0.245
27.52 22.16 31556 7.83 69,121 660.7 0.246
28.31 21.95 32281 8.11 74,999 672.4 0.247
29.10 21.75 33000 8.38 81,023 683.9 0.249
Fracture 29.88 21.56 33712 8.66 87,188 695.3 0.250
Dimensions 30.67 21.37 34418 8.93 93,490 706.6 0.251
28 31.46 21.19 35118 9.19 99,925 717.8 0.252
 Ex_2 Proppant Roadmap

35 10
9
30
8
25 7
Liquid injection rate, bpm

ca, lbm prop added to

6
20

gallon liquid
5
15
4
10 3
2
5
1
0 0

0 10 20 30 40

Pumping time, min

Fracture
Dimensions
29
 Stages

Stage design (Injected fluid and proppant amount and rate, for two wings)

Stage Start End Stage Stage Stage Cum Cum

Added Slurry Proppant Liq Propp
Proppant Volume Mass
Concentr gallon lbm
min min ppga gallon lbm

Pad 0 21.9 0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 5

5 7

6 9 150,000

Fracture
Dimensions
30
 Design Outcome
 Constraints allow optimum placement of
the given amount of proppant
 Some improvement is necessary
 Consider higher quality proppant
 Better fluid loss control
 Better rheology
 Larger allowable proppant concentration
 Optimum placement is not possible with
traditional method: consider tip screenout
Fracture
design
Dimensions
31
 Additional Concerns During Design

Fracture
Dimensions
32
 Tip Screenout vs. Near-well Screenout

 Screenout in the near-wellbore region:

Proppant cannot enter to the main body of the
fracture (oftentimes in Austin chalk)
 Screenout at tip: Length control
 Two concepts:
 Enough width for a single proppant
 Enough width for the actual number of proppant
grains
Fracture
Dimensions
33
 Width to accept proppant

 At the end of pad stage the created width

has to be at least 2-3 times the proppant
diameter
 At the end of pumping the proppant
reaches only that part which has a width at
least 2-3 times the proppant diameter
 Propped length less than hydraulic length
Fracture
Dimensions
34
 Width ratio criterion

 Considering material coordinate,

 Accounting for fluid loss
 Calculate ratio of (Dry width) to (Dynamic
width)
 Criterion: cannot exceed critical value
(about 0.5)

Fracture
Dimensions
35
 Net Pressure Prediction (PKN)

 Net pressure is proportional to width

 Width from width equation (PKN)
 Convert it to pn
E'
pn  ww,0
2h f
 Basic uses:
 Feedback to height containment
 Hydraulic horsepower calculation
Fracture
Dimensions
36
 Hydraulic Horsepower

Energy: (Power)  (Time)

Power = (Pumping Pressure) (Injection rate)
(Pumping Pressure) =
Minimum Stress + Net Pressure + Friction Losses -
Hydrostatic Pressure
Friction Losses : in tubulars, through perforations
and possibly in near wellbore tortuous flow path

Fracture
Dimensions
37
 On-site Tuning of Design
During Job Execution

Fracture
Dimensions
38
 Main Tasks During Execution
 Zonal Isolation, Cement Integrity
 Perforation strategy
 Pumping through tubing, casing, both
 Safety considerations: wellhead, casing, tubing
 Formation breakdown and Step rate test
 Calibration test (Minifrac)
 Pad and Proppant schedule tuning
 Pumping
 Monitoring: Tip screenout - near-well/well screenout
 Flush
 Forced closure
Fracture
Dimensions
 Cleanup
39
 Perforation and Execution Strategy

 For thin layer: Perforate the whole interval

 For thick or multilayer formation
 Danger: non uniform coverage
 Solution: Ball sealers, Limited entry or Staged
 Limited entry
 Few perforations in small groups
 High perforation friction loss
 Uniform coverage
Fracture
Dimensions
 Staged (from bottom to top)
40
 Design Tuning Steps

 Step Rate test

 Minifrac (Datafrac, Calibration Test)

 Run design with obtained min (if needed)

and leakoff coefficient

 Adjust pad

 Adjust proppant schedule

Fracture
Dimensions
41
 Introducing…

HF2DPKN

Fracture
Dimensions
42
 Input Parameters
 Proppant mass for (two wings), lbm
 This is the single most important decision variable of the design
procedure

 Sp gravity of proppant material (from 2.6 to 3.5)

 Porosity of proppant pack (e.g. 0.35)
 Proppant pack permeability, md
 One of the most important design parameters. Retained permeability
including fluid residue and closure stress effects, might be reduced by a
factor as large as 10 in case of non-Darcy flow in the frac Realistic
proppant pack permeability would be in the range from 10,000 to 100,000
md for in-situ flow conditions. Values provided by manufacturers such, as
500,000 md for a “high strength” proppant should be considered with
caution.

Fracture  Max prop diameter, Dpmax, inch

Dimensions
43  From mesh size, for 20/40 mesh sand it is 0.035 in.
 Input Parameters cont'd
 Formation permeability, md
 Permeable (leakoff) thickness, ft
 Wellbore Radius, ft
 Well drainage radius, ft
 Needed for optimum design. (Do not underestimate the importance
of this parameter!)
 Pre-treatment skin factor
 Can be set zero, it does not influence the design. It affects only the
"folds of increase" in productivity, because it is used as basis.
 Fracture height, ft
 Usually greater than the permeable height. One of the most critical
design parameters. Might come from lithology information, or can
be adjusted iteratively related to the frac length.
 Plane strain modulus, E' (psi)
 Hard rock: about 106 psi, soft rock 105 psi or less.
Fracture
Dimensions
44
 Input Parameters cont'd
 Slurry injection rate (two wings, liq+ prop), bpm
 Rheology, K' (lbf - secn'/ft2)
 Rheology, n'
 Leakoff coefficient in permeable layer, ft/min 0.5
 The leakoff coefficient outside the permeable layer is
considered zero. If the frac height to permeable layer ratio is
high, the apparent leakoff coefficient calculated from this input
will be much lower than the input for this parameter. If the
leakoff is significant outside the net pay, you may want to adjust
this parameter when you adjust fracture height.

 Spurt loss coefficient, Sp, gal/ft2

Fracture
 The spurt loss in the permeable layer. Outside the permeable
Dimensions
45
layer the spurt loss is considered zero. See the remark above.
 Input Parameters, cont'd

 Max possible added proppant concentration, lbm/gallon

fluid (ppga)
 The most important equipment constraint. Some current
mixers can provide more than 15 lbm/gal neat fluid. Often it
is not necessary to go up to the maximum technically
possible concentration.

 Multiply optimum length by factor

 This design parameter can be used for sub-optimal design.
Play!

 Multiply pad by factor

 Play (if necessary)!

 (More input for TSO, Cont Damage Mech, etc.)

Fracture
Dimensions
46
 Summary

 Keep in mind the goals

 Allocate resources according to significance
 Realize need for compromise:
 Limited data
 Limited understanding of physics
 Sensitivity to the uncertainty in data

 Find the optimum complexity of model

 Do sensitivity analysis
 Make decisions top - down
Fracture
Dimensions
47
 Computer Exercise 2-1: Medium perm
design example

Fracture
Dimensions
48
 Computer Exercise 2-2: Tight gas
design example

Fracture
Dimensions
49
 Computer Exercise 2-3: High perm
Frac&pack example

Fracture
Dimensions
50